20011690 Ver 1_Complete File_20060516

t
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report
Pott Creek Mitigation Site (DWQ Project Number 01-1690)
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Station A
December 2005
of NoR74 C
w -4o
h ?
Station B

r

i

r.
DWQ Project Number 01-1690
Pott Creek Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site
In Lincoln County, North Carolina
On unnamed tributary south of Pott Creek and west of Killian Road (SR 1008)
INTRODUCTION
Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl, LLP (RK&K) in association with Marsh Resources Inc. is
developing a 75-acre wetland and stream mitigation bank located in the South Fork Catawba
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03050102 (Figure 1). Included within this bank are 4,305 linear
feet of stream restoration on an unnamed tributary to Pott Creek. In compliance with the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Monitoring Protocols, RK&K performed pre-
construction benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at two locations within the stream to be
F
restored in Year 2002. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, an appropriate reference
reach was not available upstream of the proposed restoration. After consultation with Mr. Dave
Penrose (NCDWQ), RK&K utilized data collected from a previously sampled reference reach
located on an unnamed tributary of the Catawba River in Catawba County. This reference
reach, designated as Station C, was also used for the stream design of the project in Year 2002.
Results from the post-construction Year 2005 sampling data indicate that the restored channel
has low species diversity and increasing biotic index values in contrast to the Year 2002
reference reach and previous years samples (with the exception of Station B's 2004 data). This
report details the findings of the macroinvertebrate samples and will serve as a basis for
comparison with future post-construction sampling on the site.
' METHODOLOGY
' Sampling Location
RK&K scientists have successfully completed the NCDWQ Aquatic Insect Collection
Protocols Workshop for Stream Mitigation Collection. After construction of the restoration reach,
RK&K annually collected macroinvertebrate samples from two locations since October 2003.
These sampling locations are designated Station A and Station B, as shown on Figure 2.
Reference reach (Station C) samples were taken in 2002 from an unnamed tributary to the
Catawba River as shown on Figure 3. Data collection forms for both the restoration and
' reference reach are included in Appendix A.
' F:\Word\Document\300-039\Macrobenthos\Benthos_Report2005.doc Page 1 of 7

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
' Station A is located southwest of Pott Creek on the Priority II Rosgen C/E5 restored
channel (See Figure 2). In the area of Station A, the channel meanders through dense
' vegetation consisting of cattails, shrubs, sedges, and rushes that line the banks and extend into
the channel. The channel has developed into a run/pool area, with no obvious riffle sequences.
' Therefore sampling in riffle locations is not possible at this station. The stream flows northeast
across the site where it flows into Pott Creek. The channel contains very little bed diversity.
Photos are included in Appendix A.
Station B is located approximately 200 feet from SR 1008 on the restored channel (See
' Figure 2). In the vicinity of Station B, localized sinuosity is less than it is in the vicinity of Station
A. This channel is shallow with a large floodplain area to either side. The channel's bed
material is dominated by silt. Vegetation adjacent to the channel is sparse, not like Station A.
Areas along the banks contain scattered grasses, rushes and tree seedlings. Photos are
' included in Appendix A.
' Station C, sampled in 2002, is located on an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River
Basin, located south of Lookout Shoals Dam which is owned and operated by Duke Power. The
stream is a Rosgen E4/E5 channel located on a wide, forested alluvial floodplain. The stream
reach has a wide buffer with a diverse tree, shrub, and herb layer. The channel demonstrates
I good pattern and profile with a variety of instream habitat for macrobenthos.

Collections followed procedures outlined in the Interim Technical Guide on Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects
published by the NCDWQ (December 2001). On October 31, 2005, RK&K. scientists performed
two benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. Minor modifications were made on restoration reach
collections due to the lack of riffle/pool sequences within the channel. Collections included 3
sweeps and 3 visuals at Station A. Collections included one sweep, one kick, and 3 visuals at
Station B. No leaf packs were located at either area. A pebble count was done at each location,
using a section more typical of a Rosgen run or glide, since a riffle section was not evident in
the restoration reaches. Mr. Dave Penrose (NCDWQ) collected reference reach benthos
samples in 2002. RK&K conducted a pebble count within the reference reach and filled out
associated data forms.
F:\Word\Document\300-039\Macrobenthos\Benthos_Report2005.doc Page 2 of 7
DWQ Project Number 01-1690

' Sample Analysis
Pennington and Associates, Inc. of Cookeville, TN (a North Carolina certified laboratory
' for the identification of benthic macroinvertebrates) identified and provided summary statistics
for each restoration reach sample on December 19, 2005. NCDWQ analyzed reference reach
' samples in 2002.
' RESULTS
In general, the total number of organisms and total number of taxa collected at the
' reference reach (Station C) was greater than at the restoration reach. Stations A and B are
physically different in nature and support benthic macroinvertebrates typical of those habitats. At
' Station A, the number of organisms has doubled since the first 2002 sampling from 48 to 90
total organisms collected. The total number of taxa and taxa richness have'increased over the
' years as well. However, the biotic index has increased from year 2002 to year 2005 from 7.86 to
8.59, respectively, indicating that the species found here are more pollution tolerant. At Station
' B, the number of organisms has significantly decreased from 118 to 18. At this station, the
number of organisms has fluctuated each year and does not appear to have a notable pattern.
' The total number of taxa and taxa richness have also fluctuated but decreased since the
previous year's sample. This fluctuation seems to be attributed to the 85 Ephemeroptera
(tolerance value of 6.2) collected at Station B in 2004, which appears unusual for this location.
The data represents an atypical situation. Just prior to the 2005 sampling, vast flooding
occurred across Pott Creek and its floodplain. Due to lack of vegetation around and in the
' channel at Station B, many organisms may have washed downstream during this recent flood
event, hence, the low number of organisms found at this location. The biotic index has
' increased from year 2002 to year 2005 from 6.13 to 7.84, respectively, indicating that the
species found here are more pollution tolerant.
An assessment of channel bed material indicated that the DW was less than 2 mm for
Stations A, B and C.
As natural recovery processes occur with established vegetation, shading, abundant
habitat, and abundant forage material, conditions are expected to improve, in turn, resulting in
' higher numbers of less tolerant species.
F:\Word\Document\300-039\Macrobenthos\Benthos_Report2005.doc Page 3 of 7
r
i
1
1
r
r
co
U
C
r
2
C
co
1
U
Q)
c
1
Oom
E2
L
1 °
N
U
r
0
Q-
L
0
2)
c
r
Q.
E
0
2
r
C',
O
o ?
LO
E v
' 0
a m
A ~
1

c
V O
O
O
pN
++ N
tC
w
N

?co
+
v

r

O

r

*

CEO

N!

AR
T

E
E
V
m
c
o
w
IC
fn L
O
O
N

o

)

N

N

rr
cq

Q

Z
E
E

V
m
C
o
R
O
N

co
?-
e-

-

N

o
co

O
CD
(0

co
(f7
0)
E
E
N
V
m

Q

(a

co L

..
O

N

N

O

O

N

cq
fl-

O
E
E

C,4
V
m
c
O
w+
41
Cl) L
a)
,
O
O
N

r

O

co

O

zT

Cl)
r
(D

7
E
E'
N
V.
Q
r
0
U)
N

0

O
N

'

-

m
LO
00

to

ti
O?
O

E

V

c
o
R
U)
2 ..
o
N

00

M

m

d
fl-

f
E

V
Q
r
O

v i?
O

N

O

D

r.

Z
E

V 04
Q ?
C
C
+?+
N

v
O
N

Co
d

m

co
CO
ti

co
O
E
cV 1
V

E
An

cu

rn
4-

6 Z
z O
X

w F-

o
Z

O Co
X

co

H
X
c

.
w

w

N

U
V

cc

Q

d

W

Z

W

v

X

o

m

a

w

a

c

A=
t
0

j

0 s
. it
O
rn
c
v
U
co
_O
I I
O
n
C
co
7
Q
M
M
C
O
E
E
O
U
If
N
r
NNN
L 1?
ai
cu
E
(D
C)
O
O
C
0
cu
2
co
2
-O
a)
N
c
cu
r -
m
rn
r
C:
O
.C
U
0)
O
O
m
R
3
O
CA
c
coo
CL
O
Po
m
v
c
m

O
o°'D
a.

1

H
1

1

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
DISCUSSION
Results from the 2005 sampling indicate that the total number of organisms and taxa
richness are greater at the reference reach than at Stations A and B. As evidenced in the
habitat assessment forms, Station C has a diversity of vegetation along the banks and within the
floodplain that contributed to the habitat available within the channel. Post-construction
conditions have created two extremely different environments at Stations A and B. Station A
has a dense herbaceous vegetative cover partially in and adjacent to the channel. The channel
is somewhat deeper and narrower than at Station B. Both channels are filled with silt. Station B
remains relatively bare along the banks with only small amounts of habitat (one root wad and
spotty aquatic vegetation) within the channel. Station B is relatively shallow and is totally
exposed to full sunlight. These unfavorable post-construction conditions have contributed to the
lower number of taxa, EPT index and abundance, and EPT:Chironomidae ratio (with the
exception of Station B's results in year 2004) compared to what is found in the reference reach.
Four EPT taxa out of twenty five total taxa (16%) were found at Station A; two EPT taxa
out of nine total taxa (22%) were found at Station B. The reference reach contained 17 EPT
taxa out of 37 total taxa (46%), suggesting a healthy stream, capable of supporting a variety of
less tolerant species. Not yet suitable for pollution intolerant species, Stations A and B's low
taxa richness values may be the result of nutrient loading, construction disturbance, and
sediment stress within the stream. Although cattle were removed from the stream in the
summer of 2000, the repercussions of cattle-induced erosion and nutrient inputs remain evident.
Chironomids, generally more tolerant of high nutrient and stress conditions, were not
abundant in samples collected from Station A and composed approximately 9 percent of the
total number of organisms at Station A. Chironomids were not found at Station B.
The Biotic Index (BI) was greatest for Stations A and B of the restoration reach and least

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
The D50 samples at the Pott Creek restoration reach were taken over run/pool/glide
sequences since no true riffle sections were found in the area. The substrate was homogeneous
silt/clay-sized particles with a D50 of less than 2 mm. Though slightly larger particles occurred in
the reference reach, the D50 for the reference reach also received a less than 2 mm count.

1

Post-construction biological monitoring from year 2003 to year 2005 has demonstrated
poor habitat quality within the restoration reach. However, future biological monitoring is
expected to result in a healthier macroinvertebrate community as the effects of construction
disturbance and cattle farming diminish. The diversity of taxa collected in the reference reach
samples represent a macroinvertebrate community within a relatively undisturbed Rosgen Type
C/E channel and will establish goals and serve as a comparison for future post-construction
monitoring.

DWQ Project Number 01-1690

REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 1997. Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. 1997. Division of Water Quality.
Water Quality Section. Biological Assessment Group.
' North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 2000. Internal Technical
Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream
Restoration Projects. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 401/Wetlands Unit.
43 pp.
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP. 2002 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report for Pott Creek
' Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, North Carolina. 6 pp.
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP. 2003 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report for Pott Creek
Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, North Carolina. 8 pp.
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP. 2004 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report for Pott Creek
Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, North Carolina. 6 pp.
n

11
t

m
a.
?L O Q ?
A-0 cu c r (?
U cu W N °
o 0
OC
C
_ '
CF) L :D F- Z 11 F
0 ? n- V z r O i
J U- U o
' > o
N
33,
K? IL
J ? •? , ? it \' ? 1 ? . j?n a.. - 4 ?'` ° 1 r
•n ti .c. F
po
1 i ' - "4y \ a i a 4
6
r
• _ E
•? m
-XI
?. s
lj `---
' \,\?` \\ a S?'1r?/?•'??. V ^\\ ? ,OAS /? ??' •ql? l./ /I M 1 ?1

PRooU T: G:V:OMNO;
(IRING.UGI-I
PROJECT: 8.1777741 R-9999WM
0
D
r
m
N
O
0
r .?
m 0
z A
O D
?+ r

0

9 m
m

r
rn
D
z

m
D

A 0 A
m D
y

O
z
z
A
D

O
z
u e
A u
u ^4
N
r t0
A D
-+ p
S p?
b ?
Do ?
?o b
?b ? h n ? to
n0 RJp? aD ? ?b
? ? ? D C H
h >j b3
m
tnL?ONOAo???2
C?R?j?pyn CSpO
,
?IU??2mvi2mIZZ
?*iyOcno zcn
(cn
??IU Z?gtrni) zF;
? OZ ?O?l
ooo???g??n
??°?°nn ?mcmiT~
?o??o room
zion? g??a
rnrno ? o???
v
D

m

?
v
m

m
m

Y ry
N
O
1

J

n
0

Source: USGS 7.5 Minute, Stony Point & Catawba Quadrangles

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM POTTS CREEK, LINCOLN CO., NC, RK, OCTOBER
' 2005.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G.** * Sta. Al Sta. B-2
' MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
' Lymnaeidae SC
Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 SC 1
Planorbidae
Menetus dilatatus 8.2 SC 2
' ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta *1 CG
Tubificida
' Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 CG 1
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
' Acariformes
Lebertiidae
Lebertia sp. 5.5 2
' Crustacea
Copepoda 1
Cladocera
Daphnidae
' Ceriodaphnia sp. 1
Amphipoda
' Talitridae
Hyalella azteca
7.8
CG
16
4
Decapoda
Cambaridae 7.5 1 5
' Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Callibaetis sp. 9.8 CG 3
' Caenidae
Caenis sp. 7.4 CG 2
Ephemeridae
' Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 1
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia sp. 6.2 CG 1 1
' Odonata
Coenagrionidae *9 p
Argia sp. 8.2 p 1
' Enallagma sp. 8,9 p 7
Ischnura sp. 9.5 38
Corduliidae
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 P 1
' Libellulidae *9 p
Erythemis simplicicollis 9.7 2
' Libellula sp.
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.6
9.9 P
1 2
Hemiptera
Corixidae 9 PI 2
t Trichoptera
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 2 rkkl005cl.xls 12/19/2005

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRAT ES COLLECTED FROM POTTS CREEK, LINCOLN CO., NC, RK, OCTOBER
2005.
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G.*** Sta. Al Sta. B-2
' Leptoceridae
Triaenodes sp. 4.5 SH 1
Coleoptera
' Dytiscidae *5 P
Hydroporus sp. 8.6 Pi 1
Laccophilus sp. 10 P 1
' Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 SH 1
Diptera
Chironomidae
' Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 P 1
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG 1
Dicrotendipes neomodestus 8.1 CG 2
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH 1
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.9 FC 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC 1
' Tribelos sp. 5.9 FC 1

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 90 18
' TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 25 9
EPT INDEX 4 2
EPT Abundance 7 2
' Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae Abundance 0.875
Biotic Index 8.59 7.84

' Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 rkkl005c1.xls 12/19/2005

BIOLOGICAL TRACKING - STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
e
Contact [e-mail]
' A. Project Name: Po 4f CAF-k Uz-t(a,o( ans( Sj,,t ? M.4•`q?-F,b,?- 'S-+E
v
B. Stream Name: LA^T -4, Pat Uwk-
' C. DWQ Project Number o 1- 1r q p
D. Restoration Map Number:
E. Ecoregion, County and Location Information: ???{Man-t/(.;nco (n ?,pw? ?L-L S' `3
' (oca.-tt? SeM't?,. J {gift' CALk and wtS"t c? (Glltati ?ea? ?SR.1oo ,

n

F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
L.
M.
N.
Coordinates and USGS Quad Name:
nS " o
S trea
n ulassitication
E5
Length of Project: y 36S (tnsax-4?Lf'
Urban or Rural Catc?ment:
Catchment size: 0 , 5 ` ,,hZ-
Who conducted the biological monitoring?? (1 t,- o ivf, Oo r kW"-J . 4A( ?Jgnn?a.
Applicant Information:
1. Name and Company: tq to sk J?Aso-rtr-S
2. Telephone Number: 7b q .• (os5.. 970 7
3. Email Address:
Consultant Information:
1. Name and Company: (P. K /C
2. Telephone Number: 9/9 - y7Q-9 SG 0
3. Email Address:
Project Status: ?J
to/ OQC was F"£Caiv£di (2. tg/o1..(?o,.?s`Icficn w?S clj ??,
,VtLd1-*A iaork G fzfE.e1 W1a-c1.?03.
:L "02.
Pott Creek Mitigation Site
2005 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report
Station A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date: 1 013 (/p s
Name of Feature:-Un 7 +o Pa r
Feature Location:
? I`6G?
in L?nG?(
avnrtL?
l
(a71G.i..???
,
? ,
J
PEBBLE COUNT LOCATION: S- {i
CROSS - SECTION:
NAME: Z<. F-c-f (W V Y-i O A i
il,
-WOLMAIV PEBBLE COUNT USING THE
?F
WENTWORTH SCALE FOR SIZE CLASSES
SIZE CUMMULATIVE
CLASS NUMBER % %
(mm)
SANDS < 2 ?? 9 2
2-4 g /oo
4-8
GRAVELS 8-16
16-32
32 - 64
COBBLES 64 - 128
128 - 256
256 - 512
BOULDERS 512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
2048 - 4096

A
W
I'
Q
J
1
v
PARTICLE SIZE CYVl M)
D9G
PP-15BLE GOON-T
/,U M1 / 1 DTI\/C ? vG GITC /?nnv.nl
..
1. Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) So-re
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls) ...................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ..................................................................................................... 4
C. some channelization present ............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal S
11. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the-mach that is f xab os c fish cover.
Circle the habitats which occur- (Rocks) acrophytes . ticks and leaf packs) snags and logs) (undercut
banks or root mats) Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves a are pac ed toge ve begun to
decay. Piles of leaves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type
is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ........................ ...
Remarks Subtotal -//
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring,.
but only look at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .......................
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......... :................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% .........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-40% .........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................
D. substrate homgeneous
r

Score

15 '
12
8
3 '
14
11
6
2 '

1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3 -
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................................................. 1
Remarks Subtotal -a

7

Page 35

IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence.
Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water"
small
o
l
, p
o
s
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
' a. variety of pool sizes ........................................................................................................
b. pools same size ................................................................................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
' a. variety ofpool sizes .........................................................................................................
b
l
i 6
.poo
s same s
ze ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present .............................................................................................
. 3
' .
.....................................
2
Runs absent
.
...................................................................................................................................... 0
Remarks Page Total
' V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent

'
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..... Score
16 Score
12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................ 10 3
0
D. riffles absent .......................
Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation

A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ................................... 0
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... 5 5
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ....................... 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ............................................ 0 0
Remarks Total
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa ....................................
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No shading ................................................................................................................................ 0
Remarks -f64-r-I
Left Bank Right Bank
Score Score
Page 36

VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the
near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Right Bank Left Bank
Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. zone width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... C:5:?) 0
2. zone width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4 4
3. zone width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3 3
4. zone width < 6 meters; ..................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
b. zone width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
De .,.v? Total
TOTAL SCORE V
ADD COMMENTS, DRAWINGS:
Page 37
BIOLOGICAL TRACKING _ STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit " --?
Contact dave.penrose@ncmail net
A. Project Name: •
' ' P"?t CIS ?k W z-f l and -'?a`"? ?Y1.'?t?` er` S?'
B. Stream Name: Ll.% 7 -44 Po ft Cn k
' C. DWQ Project Number. 01- 1610
D. Restoration Map Number:
E. Ecoregi.on, County and Location Information: Ri. J a nt L;A u 1,% &Vl% , AE s
leca.-f? sow?tG? d?' P•+tC2?.k ?0 wsft- a?' k;?Ifa„ e?? ('sR loot
F. Coordinates and USGS Quad Name:
' 3.5 31' 21. Qq `N ?£? sJ,I?L Q??ac?.
91 if' O.Oil "'0'
G. Stream Classification Type (Ros en):
E-5
' H. Length of Project: yI 3oS (r„r„r ?-?--
I. Urban or Rural Catchment:
J.
K Catchment size: (), 7 qmz.
Who conducted th
i
.
L e oiolog
cal monitoring? £,I;" al, L),v- .r?w? and IJuncK
. Applicant Information:
1. Name and Company: rAAr&L P-£S6krc1.S
2. Telephone Number: 1, y , SS.9 0 -7
3. Email Address:
M. Consultant Information: (? k
1. Name and Company: 611q.. go r7 f(-19 0
2. Telephone Number: ..:I`
3. Email Address:
N. Project Status:
q61 !.? Q ?. W.y F8 Ct1 J 1L?! 01 . LrIS' `?y? Was . te.,F 14 fn Rrla/GL. 0

Pott Creek Mitigation Site
2005 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report
Station B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date:
0/3?p S
.
Name of Feature: V n (
Feature Location: L
PEBBLE COUNT LOCATION: V)
CROSS - SECTION:
NAME: ? I "?e-?r-,t, 0(? " -TO6,1"C
-
-WOLMAN PEBBLE COUNT USING THE
WENTWORTH SCALE FOR SIZE CLASSES
SIZE CUAEMITLATIVE
CLASS NUMBER % %
(mm)
SANDS < 2 /Do
2-4
4-8
GRAVELS 8-16
16-32
32 - 64
COBBLES 64 - 128
128 - 256
256 - 512
BOULDERS 512 - 1024
1024 - 2048
2048 - 4096
?5 0 - -
S? ?f
P6Dt5LE COUNT
f- U full l I nTI\/C CY- ve G1'7C rwa,wnl
A
w
Q
J
J
V
PARTICLE SIZE CYVlM)
09G

1 S4?,A 0 C
APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
' Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in
an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should represent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream. All meter readings need to be performed prior to walking the stream. When working
the habitat index, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the
observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. There are eight different metrics in
this indexrr and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream U n i -7b I a* C/ L C ?cation/Road k, I° n P0 n d County ?' o IA G
n j
Date )0131' 0 S CC# Basin Cedc,,J L Subbasin_ 0
Observer(s) E S 0; T LA H Office Location f Iv Agency
Type of Study: Fish entho Basinwide Special Study (Describe)
Latitude3S 3 Longitude K 6 Ecoregion (circle one) MT f Distance Surveyed meters
Physical Characterization: Land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location -
include what you see driving thru the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section for
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other unusual conditions.
Land use: Forest_E4__0/o Active Pasture % Active Crops% Fallow Fields % Commercial %
Industrial % Residential % Other W_%-Describe C S1 ° i?_d ? a ? ?a SSG s ?;?? d fi vo ,. CG n d
U
Width: (meters) Stream S -? Channel D Average Stream Depth: (m) 2 Velocitym/sec
' Flow conditions (circle one): High Normal Lo
Manmade Stabilization: Y[?jN[ ] Describe C rD SS V a njS
' Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 Conductivity umhos/cm pH
Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbi Turbid Tannic
Weather Conditions:-- C I `c nC SCE Photo #
Remarks:

' Page 34

I. Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) Score ,
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls) ...................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ..................................................................................................... C
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2 '
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal--±
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. '
Circle the habitats which occur- (Rocks) acro a (sticks and leaf packs) nags and logs undercut
banks or root mats) Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to '
decay. Piles of leaves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type
is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present .................
3 types present ......................... 20
19 16
15 12
11 8
7 '
18 14 10 (:::6??D
2 types present .........................
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ...........................
'" ,
Remarks Subtotal
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring,. .
but only look at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ....................... Score
15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% ......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble 3 '
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 6
2 ,
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 2
D. substrate homgeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ...................................................................................................

2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus ....................................................................................................
il
/
l
ll
l 2 ,
ay ..................................................................................................
t
c
y a
s
4. substrate near
Remarks Subtotal
C
Page 35 '

IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence.
Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ........................................................................................................ 10
b. pools same size ................................................................................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes... ...................................................................... 6
b.pools same size ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present ....................................................................................................................................
2. Runs absent ...................................................................................................................................... 0
Remarks Page Total
V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream .... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................ 10 3
D. riffles absent .......................................................................................................................
' Subtotal 0
I VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation

0

?J
7
Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ...................................
Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ......................
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .......................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ............................................
Left Bank Right Bank
Score Score
6 6
5
2 2
0 0
Remarks Tnrat l0
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa ....................................
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ......................................................
E. No shading ..................................................................................................................................
Remarks
8
7
I Page 36

VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the I
near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Right Bank Left Bank
Score Score I
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
18
5
meters .....................................................................................
1. zone width >
2. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
....
.
t
12
d
h 6 4
3 4
3
....
ers ............................................................................
me
t
-
3. zone wi
4. zone width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
4
4 I
a. zone width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. zone width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. zone width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 2
1 2
1
2. breaks common
3
3
a. zone width> 18 meters .........................................................................
b. zone width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
............................
idth 6-12 meters 2
1 2
1 '
...........................................
c. zone w
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
L O
Remarks Total I
TOTALSCORE o
S
:
ADD COMMENTS, DRAWING
I
I
r
. 1
i
1
I
Page 37 I

BIOLOGICAL TRACKING = STREAM RESTORATION PROJE
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1 sue-'' °,? c.
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Contact [e-mail]
A. Project Name: Po?A- Cceek n'-1; B. Stream Name: UT fi? Ca'?c?wbc, ?vec
1 C. DWQ Project Number: 0 \- MckO
D. Restoration Map Number:
E. Ecoregion, County and Location Information: Pie ?MO?'?Ca+o-?b?.
?F Coordinates and USGS Quad Name:
1 S ?an.? Po',nA-) NC Q xc .
9351.-;U30 L:: 1, 3n9,`)50

G. Strew
H.
I.
K.
L.
M
N.
P?oJ2t..'?' Co?S?-cuC?,pn Cos+,p\e?'ec? ?'1oSCh c?Q?`oZ,
n Ulassitication
F-Ats
Length of Project: Sycseyec? 0`210 l; c\e.s e+,
Urban or Rural Catchment:
Catchment size: 1.6 M, a
Who conducted the biological monitoring? dove pec?c?se W-U,)Q
Applicant Information:
1. Name and Company: ? ,u. ,, k ,?Z?eQpef, a-1 \ ???? veers , LLP
2. Telephone Number: CR\o-) Z99 -gSco
3. Email Address: naa`y (`? ?k? e n?? aeecs .cock
Consultant Information:
1. Name and Company: ?or?e qS c\6,, 4 ,
2. Telephone Number:
3. Email Address:
Project Status:

L1

0
L

U
ZO
Date: 4/
Name of Feature: Soso. ?es C O "eckec 03070 r ? ?-le c?lc?c>c?o?G h
C.,cs ,
Feature Location:

PEBBLE COUNT LOCATION: i4PPk14 3yoooi
O n V ? ?• 00
??? e sou?1. ?F Lacsko v'F .51?,???5 ?q?..•
CROSS-SECTION: s0`?6 pp?l d o (')
NAME:
1Ce v ? ?U ire C y ,
NO?QC? q\•
-WOLMAN PEBBLE COUNT USING THE
WENTWORTH SCALE FOR SIZE CLASSES
SIZE CUMMULATIVE.
CLASS NUMBER % %

SANDS < 2 g $ S
2-4 3 RO
4-8
Q
9g
GRAVELS 8-16
1?O
16-3.2 a
32 - 64
COBBLES 64 - 128
128 - 256.
256 - 512
BOULDERS 512 - 1024
1024 - 2048 . .
2048- 4096

P666LE COUNT
GUMUL.ATIVE %VSSIZE(WIYYI)
A
W
F-
Q
J
v
,)sn - <?
096
PARTICLE SIZE CM M)

'-4""0n
APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in
an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should represent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream. All meter readings need to be performed prior to walking the stream. When working
the habitat index, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the
observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. There are eight different metrics in
this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Looko,A l?oarQ?.
?gStreamt )T 1o Q?Q?L,364 Location/Road S -,P, . 10 0 4; County C,-VO.L,,.l 601
- D to CC# Basin CC ACA LADC; Subbasin 03- 0'Z- 3 D
4 o, cd ltacE e-
1/ O, Observers v Office Location C.. Agency
Type of Study: Fish B nthos Basinwide Special Study (Describe)
?1 god;
Ecoregion (circle one) MT OP Distance Surveyed 10 -CJ meters
Physical Characterization: Land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location -
include what you see driving thru the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section for
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other unusual conditions.
Land use: Forest-?. Active Pasture% Active Crops % Fallow Fields ___2/o Commercial-_%
Industrial--% Residential .% Other _% -Describe
Width: (meters) Stream 3. Channel Average Stream Depth: (m)-,-06- Velocity L 1- - sec
Flow conditions (circle one): High No a Low
Manmade Stabilization: Y[ ] N[?/J Describe
Water Quality: Temperature_ 0C Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Conductivityumhos/cm pH
Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Tannic
Weather Conditions: :!S;t j t\(\ ?:A 1 ?R Photo # t

Page 34

' I. Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) ?Sc-o-re
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls) .................................................. ?'J
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ............................:........................................................................ 4
C. some channelization present ............................................................................................................. 3
' D. more extensive. channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ..:............................................................ 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned,.etc ................................................... 0

CJ

1
f
Remarks C,-, s w ? Q e P T?s` pc t? r??,? r ?o nr o Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percents h that is fayorab enthos c or fi
Circle the habitats which occur- (Rocks) cr ophyte sticks and leaf packs sna s and. logs) ndercut
an or root ma) Definition: leafpact?ifas
co of o pace oge ve begun to
-'de6 Pules-o ves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type
is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ........................ ...
Remarks Subtotal L
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring,
but only look at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ....................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .....................................................................................:................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% .............................................................................:.............................. 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ....................................
3. embeddedness.40-80% ..... ................................................................................................... 6
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 2
D. substrate homgeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ............. :..................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................................................. 1
Remarks Sc•,c.,1 6sA+ ct;&Qe-? (,IM' Subtotal 3

Page 35
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence.
Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ...................................................................................................:.... 10
b. pools same size ................................................................................................................
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............... :.......................................................................................... 6
b.pools same size ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present .....................................:....................................................................
..
. 3
.
.
.....................
2
Runs absent
.
........................................................................
......................................................... 0
^
Remarks Qot5?5 ?l r c .,? ??p?- U p - ?- l ?-?-• Page Total- 1 0
V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but'riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................10
D. riffles absent ........................................................................................................................0
Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
A. Banks stable
1. no. evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ...................................
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... .
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .......................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ......................... ..................
:
Left Bank Right Bank
. Score Score .
© q
5
3 3
2 2
0 0
Remarks Total
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No.shading ................................................................................................................................. .0
Remarks Q
Page 36

VII, Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the
' near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.

' Right Bank
Score Left Bank
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. zone width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
' 2. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
3. zone width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 4
3 4
3
4. zone width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
. a. zone width > 18 meters .........................................................:............... 4 4
b. zone width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. zone width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 2
1 2
1
2. breaks common
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
' b. zone width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2
1 2
1
d. zone width < 6 meters .......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks
TOTALSCORE Total 1 d

ADD COMMENTS, DRAWINGS:
?f55 c55 c??-? 6N?eeA-s ?-r? Pe 66\e C?v?'r comma e ?S
:' Page 37
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7
,o
June 19, 2006
Ms. Elizabeth S. Workman-Maurer
RK&K, LLP
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
Alan W. Klimek, RE, Director
Division of Water Quality
RE: Pott Creek Mitigation Site, Lincoln County, North Carolina (DWQ # 01-1690)
Dear Ms. Workman-Maurer:
DWQ has received and reviewed the, "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report: Pott Creek Mitigation Site
(DWQ Project Number 01-1690), Lincoln County, North Carolina, January 2005." Several comments or
concerns arose upon review of the report.
1. Future years of post construction benthic monitoring should also sample the reference site (that was
only sampled in 2002). It is difficult to factor out inter-annual variability (wet years and dry years)
that can mask site improvements without data from the reference site for the current year.
2. DWQ is concerned that riffle areas could not be found to sample in the restoration area. Shallow
areas of increased flow, usually over coarser substrate, should be an integral part of any stream
restoration in the Piedmont. If there are good riffles elsewhere in the stream, the
sampling locations should be moved from site B.
3. In Table 1, EPT Abundance at station B for Year 2004 should be 11, not 86 based on one Rare and
one Abundant taxon. The biotic index value should be calculated from the 1, 3, 10 numbers as well,
not the actual values.
4. The 2005 report shows a steady recovery at Station A, with the addition of macrophytes in the
stream. If the biotic index has been calculated using actual counts rather than 1, 3, and 10, the BI for
this site should decline. Station B is not showing the same level of recovery. It is actually showing
no improvement since the aquatic community plunged between 2002 and 2003. The level of silt at
this site suggests that there is very little flow, as well as, very little habitat to support stream fauna.
These comments are made in hopes of ensuring a successful stream restoration project. If you have any questions
or need further assistance please do not hesitate to contact Larry Eaton of my office at [phone].
Sincerely Yours, 1(87r
J PR.Domey
Cc: Alan Johnson, DWQ-MRO
Central Files
File Copy (c/o Amanda Mueller)
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://www.newaterquality.org
None Carolina
&hg11y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
1
0
May 11, 2006
Rummel,
Klepper Mr. Dave Penrose

& Kahl NCDENR/ Division of Water Quality
, LLP Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
William K. Hellmann Suite 250
Emeritus Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
David W. Wallace
Robert J. Halbert
Stephen G. Zentz
1. Michael Potter Dear Mr. Penrose,
Thomas E. Mohler
James A. Zito Please find enclosed two reports for your files. These reports
are the 2004 and 2005 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Reports
Charles M. Easter, Jr.
for the Pott Creek Mitigation Site located in Lincoln County, North
Joseph A. Romanowski, Jr.
Michael L. Krupsaw Carolina. The report includes results from pre-construction and post-
Lars E. Hill construction sampling conducted at the site as well as reference
J. Tommy Peacock, Jr reach results from an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River in
Michael W. Myers
Martin C. Rodgers
Catawba County, North Carolina.
Kenneth A. Goon
Richard J. Adams, Jr Please contact me at [phone] if you have any
John A. d'Epagnier
Barbara J. Hoage
questions or comments on the enclosed report.
Christopher F. Wright
Owen L. Peery
Nancy R. Bergeron
Stuart A. Montgomery
Sincerel
David G. Vanscoy y,
Henry J. Bankard, Jr.
Peter C. D'Adamo
James F. Ridenour, Jr.
Robert J. Andryszak
Raymond M. Harbeson, Jr. lizabeth S. Workman-Maurer
B. Keith Skinner Senior Environmental Planner
Karen B. Kahl
Seyed A. Saadat
John C. Moore
Sonya Y. Brown
Eric M. Klein
900 Ridgefield Drive
Suite 350
Raleigh, North Carolina -
27609-3960 ESW/attachment
Ph: 919-878-9560 W ES cc: HTW
Fax: [phone] ,JTP
www.rkkengineers.cont JMH
F:\W ORD\DOCU MENT\300-039\Corr\Penrose3.doc
Baltimore, MD Raleigh, NC Concord, NC Virginia Beach, VA Richmond, VA Staunton, VA
Dover, DE York, PA Norristown, PA Keyser, WV Washington, DC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report
Pott Creek Mitigation Site (DWQ Project Number 01-1690)
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Station A
January 2005
Station B
t4osro e , 1b.
w
or 7R?
":

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
Pott Creek Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site

I—
L
7

F J
1
On unnamed tributary south of Pott Creek and west of Killian Road (SR 1008)
In Lincoln County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl, LLP (RK&K), in association with Marsh Resources Inc., has
developed a 75-acre wetland and stream mitigation bank located in the South Fork Catawba
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03050102 (Figure 1). Included within this bank are 4,305 linear
feet of stream restoration on an unnamed tributary to Pott Creek. In compliance with the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Monitoring Protocols, RK&K performed pre-
construction benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at two locations within the stream to be
restored in Year 2002, and has conducted two of five years of post-construction monitoring
(2003 and 2004) in the restored channel. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, an
appropriate reference reach was not available upstream of the proposed restoration. After
consultation with Mr. Dave Penrose (NCDWQ), RK&K used data collected from a previously
sampled reference reach located on an unnamed tributary of the Catawba River in Catawba
County. This reference reach, designated as Station C, was also used for the stream design of
the project in Year 2002. Results from the post-construction Year 2 (2004) sampling data
indicate that the restored channel continues to have relatively low species diversity and high
rn.?i z cv ?? .??
biotic index values in contrast to the Year 20eference reach samples. However, the total
number of taxa and EPT taxa and abundance are all greater at Stations A and B than in Year 1
(2003). This report details the findings of the macroinvertebrate samples and will serve as a
basis for comparison with future post-construction sampling on the site.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling Location
RK&K collected macroi nve rteb rate samples from two locations on November 9, 2004.
These sampling locations are designated Station A and Station B, as shown on Figure 2.
Participating staff successfully completed the NCDWQ Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols
Workshop for Stream Mitigation Collection. Samples were taken, from each station location as
described in the 2003 benthic monitoring report. Reference reach samples were collected in
F:\WORD\DOCUMENT\300-039\Monitoring Reports\2004\benthics\2004\Benthos_Report2004.doc Page 1 of 6

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
2002 from an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River (Station C) as shown on Figure 3
collection forms for both the restoration and reference reach are included in Appendix A.
Station A is located southwest of Pott Creek on the Priority II Rosgen C/E5 restored
channel (See Figure 2). In the vicinity of Station A, the channel meanders through dense
vegetation consisting of cattail, shrubs, sedges, planted tree saplings, and rushes that line the
banks. The stream flows northeast across the site where it flows into Pott Creek. Channel
substrate consists of various gradations of sand. Photos are included in Appendix A.
Station B is located approximately 200 feet from SR 1008 on the restored channel (See
' Figure 2). In the vicinity of Station B, localized sinuosity is less than it is in the vicinity of Station
A. The channel's bed teria"s-dominated by silt. Vegetation adjacent to the channel,
' including rushes, sedges, shrubs, and planted tree saplings has become well-established and
dense in many areas. Photos are included in Appendix A.

Station C, last sampled by NCDWQ in 2002, is located on an unnamed tributary to the
Catawba River Basin, located south of Lookout Shoals Dam which is owned and operated by
Duke Power. The stream is a Rosgen E4/E5 channel located on a wide, forested alluvial
floodplain. The stream reach has a wide buffer with a diverse tree, shrub, and herb layer. The
channel demonstrates good pattern and profile with a variety of instream habitat for
macrobenthos.
Collections followed procedures outlined in the Interim Technical Guide on Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects
published by the NCDWQ (October 2001). Minor modifications were made on restoration reach
collections due to the lack of prevalent riffle areas within the channel, particularly near Station B.
Collections included 1 kick net, 3 sweeps and 2 visual samples at Station A. Collections include
3 sweeps and 3 visual samples at Station B. No leaf packs were located at either area due to
lack of available material. Pebble counts were performed at each location. Mr. Dave Penrose
(NCDWQ) collected reference reach benthos samples from Station C in 2002. RK&K
conducted a pebble count within the reference reach and filled out associated data forms in
2002.
F:\WORD\DOCUMENT\300-039\Monitoring Reports\2004\benthics\2004\Benthos_Report2004.doc Page 2 of 6

it

I?

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
Sample Analysis
Pennington and Associates, Inc. of Cookeville, TN (a North Carolina certified laboratory
for the identification of benthic macroi nverteb rates) identified and provided summary statistics
for each restoration reach sample on December 17, 2004. NCDWQ analyzed reference reach
samples in 2002.
RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes data collected during each of the two years of post-construction
benthic monitoring (2003 and 2004) as well as pre-construction data from 2002. The total
number of organisms, total number of taxa, and EPT taxa richness and abundance for samples
collected at the reference reach (Station C) were higher than at Stations A and B in 2004, as
was the case for both stations in 2003. Total taxa richness, number of organisms collected, and
EPT taxa richness and abundance were all greater in 2004 than in 2003 for Stations A and B.
The total number of organisms sampled in 2004 at Station B was nearly three times the number
sampled in 2003 (118 vs. 42). Station B's biotic index was 1.02 lower in 2004 than in 2003
(6.80 vs. 7.82), while it was 0.23 higher at Station A (7.94 vs. 7.71). The EPT: Chironomidae
ratio (number of EPT organisms: number of Chironomid organisms) was 4.5 for Station A. Due
to the fact that no chironomids and one mayfly (Ephemeroptera) was collected at this station in
2003, the EPT: Chironomid metric was not able to be calculated for that monitoring year. The
EPT: Chironomidae ratio at Station B was 9.56 in 2004, compared to zero in 2003. These
values are approximately equal to or are in excess of the Station C (reference reach) 2002 EPT:
Chironomidae value (4.64). 2004 pebble count data for both Stations A and B indicate the
median particle size of the channel substrate (d50) remains less than 2-mm. Various size
classes of sand comprise the channel substrate at Station A, while silt dominates the substrate
' at Station B.
I F:\WORD\DOCUMENT1300-039\Monitoring Reports\2004\benthics\2004\Benthos_Report2004.doc Page 3 of 6

1

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
Table 1. Macroinvertebrate sampling results for the Pott Creek restoration reach and reference site.
Station StationStation
A (year A (year A (year
2002) 2003) 2004) 2 Station Station Station
B (year ?. B (year B (year
2002) 2003) 2004) Station C
(year 2002
only)
No. of Organisms (N) 48 51 66 Tr, 118 2 118 'P 131 *
Total No. of Taxa 13 10 14 2 30 11 14 37
EPT Index (Taxa
Richness) 1 1 3 y 5 2 17
EPT Abundance (EPT
N) 1 1 9 -7 44 0 1 M 65*
Biotic Index 7.86 7.71 7.94 rr 6.13 7.82 11 6.80 4.2
EPT: Chironomidae 0.08 N/A 4.5 1.91 0 9.56 4.64*
D50 <2 mm <2 mm <2 mm <2 mm <2 mm ; <2 mm <2 mm
*Abundance values (N) for Station C were calculated from three categories as follows: Rare (1-2) =1, Common (3-9)
=3, Abundant (>/=10) = 10 according to Standard Operating Procedures, Biological Monitoring (1997) and therefore
are conservative estimates.
' DISCUSSION

For both Stations A and B, the total number of organisms sampled, total number of taxa,
and both EPT taxa richness and abundance have all increased from their 2003 (first year of
post-construction monitoring) values, likely indicating an improvement in the quality and quantity
of benthic habitat present within the restored stream channel. Since site construction in spring
of 2002, vegetation has become well-established in planted areas across the site as well as in
areas immediately adjacent to the restored channel. Herbaceous (Juncus effusus, Carex spp.,
etc.) and woody streamside vegetation has provided channel shading, additional habitat in the
form of overhanging vegetation above and within the bankfull channel, and allochthonous
energy inputs into the stream (dead plant material, etc.). The improved site and streamside
vegetative cover, coupled with subtle channel dimension adjustments made in response to
various stages of flow, have likely had the most prominent effects on bolstering quality benthic
habitat. However, when the restoration reach biological metrics sampled at Stations A and B
are compared to those of the reference reach (Station C) in 2002, it is apparent that the restored
channel does not possess the diversity and abundance of intolerant species commonly present
in reference-condition streams.
' F:\WORD\DOCUMENT\300-039\Monitoring Reports\2004\benthics\2004\Benthos_Report2004.doc Page 4 of 6

11

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
EPT species richness and abundance has increased at both Stations A and B from their
2003 values. At Station A, EPT richness tripled from 1 in 2003 to 3 in 2004. However, EPT
abundance was still relatively low at 9 in 2004 compared to 1 in 2003. It is noteworthy that the
species with the lowest tolerance value (at 4.9) of all collected taxa, a caddisly species
(Hexagenia sp.), was collected at Station A. At Station B, EPT richness increased from zero in
2003 to 2 in 2004, while EPT abundance increased from zero to 86. Eighty-five of the 86 EPT
organisms were from one mayfly species, Leptophlebia sp., which has a tolerance value of 6.2,
indicating that it is a moderately intolerant species.
Chironomids, which are generally more tolerant of adverse water quality (high nutrient
' levels, embededness, etc.), were not abundant at either Station A or B in 2004. The EPT:
Chironomidae ratio was 4.5 at Station A, and 9.56 at Station B. Station B's value well exceeds
' that of the reference reach's 2002 value of 4.64, while Station A's value is roughly equivalent to
the reference reach's value.
Although total taxa richness and EPT richness and abundance at Stations A and B are
' well short of the values observed at the reference reach, these values are expected to increase
as benthic habitat continues to improve in the restoration reach. Vegetation will continue to
' become fully established across the site and adjacent to the restored stream, eventually
providing full channel shading, enhanced streambank stability, and energy inputs into the
' channel. The benthic communities in the restored channel will likely continue to benefit from its
proximity to Pott Creek, as it likely provides refugia for local species assemblages which should
continue to gradually migrate into the restored channel.

F:\WORD\DOCUMENT\300-039\Monitoring Reports\2004\benthics\2004\Benthos_Report2004.doc Page 5 of 6

DWQ Project Number 01-1690
REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 1997. Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. 1997. Division of Water Quality.
Water Quality Section. Biological Assessment Group.
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 2000. Internal Technical
Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream
Restoration Projects. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 401/Wetlands Unit.
43 pp.
Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP. 2002 Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report for Pott Creek
Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, North Carolina. 6 pp.
F:\WORD\DOCUMENn300-039\Monitoring Reports\2004\benthics\2004\Benthos_Report2004.doc Page 6 of 6

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
??-

L
r T-7
-
)
C)"
?I.11
M/T
Ss-
n\j\
° C ?\ J
N
?, / \? ;i a ?' ???? ? ? ?? ? ? '!?
Ala?? s a ?? ? ??. ?-????? ? t ? ? ? ?--
460
4
n _
?? { m
C' n

-n (n K
3 0 z
c ° CD
Q
CD
r?

o p N Z
-?
?
?
? ^
` J
C) o m -
CD .rt
0 m

CD
>
- =3 C
v

1
1

3
Ol?
Ol?
ON
r,
dhoh-
i
1
1 ?
00
1

1
h
U
O

0 1271
9 S 3
1216 1009
-
1215
- ,
1 - SITE 1203 ?a

•6
II Y3

R
\- i
1008 1
'
i 1204 CIANIRS
1 1113
h8?
1203 / fb o ?o?
1200
VICINITY MAP
Ivor ro SCACE
MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
STATION NORTHING FASTING
A 654364.6 1313258.6
B 653103.9 1315679.0
STATE OF NORTH CAR OLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LINCOLN
COUNTY
STATE .. P....ImE "NCE - -NO r y'p e
N.C. R-9999WM I 1
-cP&OI.NO. P.APFUI,NO. PP%RIPIfaN
8.1777741

I

LOCATION: POTT CREEK MITIGATION SITE LOCATED ON \
WEST SIDE OF SR 1008 AND THE SOUTH SIDE \
OF POTT CREEK.
MACROINVERTEBRATE \ pK xv IN
AS BUILT & MONITORING PLAN SAMPLING STATION B ELEV.776J8
I 'r END CONSTRV(
RE
T
ROSS-SECTION '7 . STREAM AM ST
I STA 47+53
RIFFLE
BILLY JOE LYNCH r \a"' Q3 ??/9
ETIEL MARLENE COLE, Pt.al. I DEED BK 1084 PC 604
OE BR 569 PC 574 PP7.3615-0054-0600
PIN-3615-0036-5369
J? f, j t,?h0 ?O
IP
i
POOL
:.
- - POTT CREEK
m
._ m4
CROSS?E 70m
8?? O
CROSS
-SECT ON •3?E STA 51
?,f
e a T L
C
?°? mQ 0 srAPOOLz2+57 -
In L 4 - -TEND LONGITUDINAZ
?0CROSS w ?, Jno ti 120s? a6 PROFILE MONITOR1NGp?
m SECTION ,2
O STA 16+98 A r ?. m6 A 41+3( mY
POOL .
fir
?i 'o m14 CRO55-SECTION-'4 i1 m5 •'
m m PO STA 24+74 011 m10
?.
Yj
p %' • RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION •6
JEaAr TIgMPS wranr
DEED 755 713 RIFFLE /
PIN• 76 6 15-0005-953T lP• -.
9 ACCESS EASEMENT
BM •1 \ CONNER FAMILY FARM. LTD
REBAR
LEV 787I6 PIN 0 3615-0040 5e 1E 475
7-
?.LON INAL E
SAMPLING V
SAMPLING STATION A "' CROSS sECrfoN r LE M ITORING
STA 096 A 1 . 89
'GEAD R FFL ?K? C ULVE i N/F NF.CORRINER. JA.
7 .D4 T. F. CORAWER, JR. DEED BK 314 PG 27 \. "-
TRACT
MONITORING GAUGE \\ DEED BK 301 Pc 366 -31
_
%N•3615-0023-9936 PIN-3615-0032-6384
VEGETATION MONITORING f
O PLOT (37.2'R = 0.1 AC)
STREAM GAUGE BEGIN CONSTRUCTED /
ROOT WAD STREAM RESTORATION \
STA 10+00 -
AfACROINVERTEBRATE
Q SAMPLING LOCATIONS I \
1
STREAM VEGETATION \ 1
® MONITORING PLOT \
1

O' Soo,
PROJECT AREA PLANS PREPARED BY :
B NOTES.
I.BOUNDARY INFORMATION TAKEN FROM
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & K aHL, LLP PLAT ENTITLED "MARSH RESOURCES, INC.,

c®nsulLing engineers
BOUNDARY SURVEY"PREPARED BY WILKINS ?4?
F?1a??E L
SCALE: v .5800 FAgr,vcooN PL4Ce.SUrrE 105 & ASSOCIATES,MOORESVILLE,NC AND
RALEIGH.NOR7-H CAROLINA 27609 DATED J1 JANUARY 2000
TOTAL WETLAND MITIGATION = 37.89 Ac FOR 2.CONTOURS SHOWN ARE A COMPILATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS of RRAPHY DATA
PREPPAAREED D BY BY GEO GEODATA CORP.DATED
JUNE 20,2002 AND DETAILED CHANNEL
LENGTH OF STREAM RESTORATION= 4327 -f-t-. SURVEY PERFORMED BY RK&K ENGINEERS
PROPERTY OWNED BY ;
CATARBA LANDS CONSERVANCY

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2003

Source: USGS 7.5 Minute, Stony Point & Catawba Quadrangles

S

_ r
1

';
'.

??'?
1
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM POTT CREEK MITIGATION SITE, LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, RKK, NOVEMBER 2004.
SPECIES T.V.* F.F.G.** STATION A STATION B
ANNELIDA
' Oligochaeta
Tubificida
Tubificidae 7.1 CG
' Limnodrilus hoffineisteri 9.5 CG 3
Hirudinea P
Erpobdellidae P 1
Rhynchobdellida
' Glossiphoniidae P
Placobde/la sp. 9 P 1
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
' Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG 1
Ostracoda 1
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hya/ella azteca 7.8 CG 9 8
Decapoda
' Cambaridae 7.6
Procambarus sp. 7 SH 2
Insecta
' Ephemeroptera
Ephemeridae CG
a Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 1
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia sp.
6.2 CG
CG
4
85
Odonata
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx macu/ata 7.8 P 12
' Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P 22
Libellulidae P
Plathemis lydia 10 5 2
Trichoptera
Phryganeidae SH
Ptilostomis sp. 6.4 SH 4 1
Coleoptera
' Dytiscidae P 3
Laccophilus sp. 10 P 1 1
Gyrinidae P
Gyrinus sp. 6.2 P 1
' Hydrophilidae P
Hydrochus sp. 6.6 SH 1
Tropisternus sp. 9.7 P 1
' Staphylinidae P 1
Diptera
Chironomidae
' Chironomus sp.
Clinotanypus pinguis 9.6
8.7 CG
P
2 7
2
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha clavipes 2

' TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 66 118
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 14 14
BIOTIC INDEX 7.94 6.80

Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 1
RKKpottscreek.xls 12/22/2004
V? r_ lu ) /J ?'QJ •:IF?'. ',?,.?I+'''itikr Ly!r?"•ht"'',};.'?t??. "•',.i .. `.,:
444 y ?+
TTT??' ? ` Um(k04f.a ? ' { tt":. A?fl'.',fa t.? VF. it
ti T?t,?,•.?. aiti'ill.?tj( ;'":r,.a ,1 ,jv+?:?.1'.i;a,f'?4,•:
BEN'I'11 n,IAC_RQI.NVIat'1'Ie111tA'1'i1, l.AB Sl EE l .'1J?c •,'`i ?y : ?'?; g?' ;+?'?'.,,< <'.t'
M IICI' Il(T(I
y L ?!---?- ?L- Raul/C_uuill
Type SsIsle1)le Q?N .. ?? Ida"
_. I';i• j;??{???????^?;(;?, '( a?. r,??r?? {;, ;
CollecliO61 C.ilf(I No,
' Dale Collecfc(I
Guilccl(ars/nnlilysl' CJ';
+ •'ni't?,Yits'?k9???il?l'(:1311"i?';il'+ir?Z':'I?iR ?+ V
1

ISI)IICI)1CIa)1)Il l;l-
_--- -
- n,c,lz-
Ilccohlera A.C,12
? 1 t, klk9l n,(:,I1 2 i
C)ifon',Ila??lt , `
c`(r ,
--•-_ _ ?---- . -, ?.?; ?p r ('l' b' ? ! si??r?li ,•a?a??„??i1.116 i? ? i
N f II ?' I. rI Pc ll UJ L_ ,
64
/ ,7. /. ':w.? /` T?:?''? , (,t?vt • ,J?yCI y?f 1
Tn".-fir/l!Lr?/rrl''
ds w ,
-E -
- .

?

w
let IK ? 'rB'
`
'??itT'!' .`.,"?.4?R?+i:Vll?4'{ ?I?RH#!1.
<
pQ? Pro (d p ??J1
/11 • g
trK?yl l1 T-
°.: 'V; Yt T tY.. Al?tl?
i.
1
` 01
49 F !
II
r
V
e
,
• 'ilh(16i5"67'I
l i '?.lg l

-- --- -- Nlisc Di )11(a•il - --_ nll(iq llsll`Isl ? .s{.j'StS::. ,: 't'{
,;7
Ali
^

.
V r XZ a
' 1
If F, ,< gl
., :7t)L?';' 'i+?q?•. i`J•?.? tt1'• ?:L' t..;? ?1
IX': ?d4`i Fti:

• -
Q
r?rU f.',?••, /
?)
, .
7t g 1 gin' ; 1 4.., .i. •! ( , 41,.
t;lity:'JI+:j i?'. ti??, ?, ";(tti.F T S?
b ! ? '?? ?'
,
S,•ro l l/l i 63 .
;.
?'1'?'?F(.+;T;F.T' h'ij46;'?,'r'.5,?,.ibt i? •, `
! j

-"- ,
?ii,3r F v
:?.`t"r}ty ?'Y?7'N"'.'??,,'. `f a f•0 ',t??;''i
-- _
ClIiroS•+ - - - U1)ICI'a l : "4, I'41(.'Hi)'.
N1c?s11
_--_-__-_.--.- __-_- _`... !'Yyl'0 -,?-. !? •?
IS •• ?
':• ??' '?3?Sy?"'a? ??<' ?? ????, X?,:. .: it 4??•$?4
?! /fL, 'TAI 1'ti . .'?.?'?, ? ? :.:.#
-------- 'P-yi-r( JO3

--•_--.-
-
-- "Op '"Oft SOWN -t
-_-
? .zt-e?t- L G3: ,,,,' -Cis usltic,(,sl;?tf!'?F?? ?'4?'???? yak
? _
Fr3 uxA;`,'sCl AMR%
e-10 3-1 Y? FiRil'o,
P.r R'? I hp? GJf 2 4r ?"?k '::t ??, f?• l4 eP /•41

• ? ?

•' C?Pt/m! _____
C3
?>'
_
,...
.. >,r: '? ?a?u
?1 ti
Su'1'.?.. a
7'<YJTi?<'?''i"•r`L"{ttlswe'ke: 'TuRT '(#)'i.

BIOLOGICAL TRACKING - STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Contact [e-mail]
' A. Project Name: Po 4f CJEL Uzf(anp a S?4aM WI` 4`E?br- S'
B. Stream Name: tdn.T -4. Pe-ff Uai-
1 C. DWQ Project Number: 0I- 16 J p
D. Restoration Map Number: --f I
_ ?nGo n w? 1 e.? S' +S
E. Ecoreaion, County and Location Information: on
-t/ p, ' ?Co
' IOCa.-tr..J SOIL Of P6_-u C,Icp-k And WF$'f cs?L, b 1
F. Coordinates and USGS Quad Name:
3 S .33.?2-1 N
SI 18' ;? 1.go!,. CZ???s??,l? Q?•ac .
G. Strea

m Classification Type (Roscgen):
H. Length of Project: H 305 nsr-. c.
I. Urban or Rural Catchment: f .,.rA.(
J. Catchment size: D , S 1,47-
K. Who conducted the biological monitoring?,? (; z.,? rd. Oar any( ?J AA
?1 L. L. Applicant Information: . . 'n 1. Name and Company: MalS So krc? s Jam,, .
2. Telephone Number: -7o y . (ass.. 970 7
3. Email Address:
M. Consultant Information:
1. Name and Company:
2. Telephone Number:
3. Email Address:
N. Project Status:
G. C Lia S. rf al d EJ 17--11 ?/o (.. g+,%,C ion W a.s 4a."p 1 dZd ft'u
R.£mLk&( wor- Gav?t? IiWtar?l.?p3,
,L "a2, .

Pott Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County
2004 Benthic Macroinverteb rate Report
Station A

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YUU
O
N O
O ? O
T
C

L
CL a o

I
0 O
O
O ?

O

f O
; Y U

76

O 0-0
(?
1 2
T C
()

a ca CO
co
L , I
N ?
O ? O A
ro
o
U ? o
o

?a a
t11 0 N

-.
- -? T
N
Q i
C I E
.-- U CO
r
0 co
O
U
-
r
m m -
- - O d
- - -
_ n
_ c

Z -.--- - - ---

I 0)

N M N
U)
° O

0 \
\ \
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 \
O 000 COO M N O O
co

.
d
UBU aauid luaOJOd p o

Op
N
lff
N
N CO
U
E O o r N d t0 O r 0 N N ? m rn ? 00 0 C14
0 ?T 0 c

E
0 o 0 C
M N C
7 to N d U

CA U
L
C
co

0
M
O
M
r
E
N

r

N

d'

00

00

?

?

N

M

?

(

O
CO
O
OO
CO
N
N
d'
04
CO
'4* (a
?-

p
C7
0 C
O i
O ? N
o
CS
O
N
76
N
C C O) 0) N N N O) 0) d 0) N N O) N N d d N 0) V
C C C

co
co co u co>>>>>>>>
c?cTmcac?cc?cc? m -0 fl n
n-0 -0 -0 o a o a o

O O C??
°

++

RS Co 0
N 0)
C
i i ??
CT m m cm CT O) m CO)
N 0) 0) E E d 0) N O) O O O O
U U U U
O O
0 0 0 0 0
.0.0 m.0 ? 'O
0
c
'N O
-
ca ca c y u, m s E
m CD
- E
U E v v v v ai ? `-° N N cC c`o
> E E
>
E
> > > > E >

d
CL
A (t gym)
1 3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/Piedmont Streams
1 / Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
1 conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
1 Stream U 1 70 ?? &_4& Location/road: lia., P.. (Road Name ?' )CountyDate till Cc# Basin
1 Observer(s) .I61 1'S Type of Study: ? Fish lgenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 'll'i'?3tJLongitude7lolt'21 foq W Ecoregion: ? MT `?rP ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
1 Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) µmhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
1 what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 'IS %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
1 %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial _?I,?%Other -Describe: r(??.,?L n- 6V,,Iiah - r ,wFl:?
??cMla?
Watershed land use : Forest Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
1 Width: (meters) Stream l.5 -14 Channel (at top of bank) 1 S-2A Stream Depth: (m) Avg 012- Max A5
? Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest. part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)-' G.,3
' Bank Angle: N 00 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate s opI e is away from channel. NA if bank is too. low for bank angle to matter.)
1 ?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
ORecent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N 9Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
1 Flow conditions : ?High ?lormal ?Low 0( "04 uA
Turbidity: ?Clear WS//lightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
1 Weather Conditions: 64eav, Photos: ON i(y ?Digital ?35mm
Remarks: rhob cyS eu?a 6w, ?i AJ 2- A,s s".
1

1 41

1
Typical Stream Cross-section

. ? Extreme High Water
at -
i

Normal High Water

Normal Flow
' Lower
Bank
l?f Stream Width

r

l
' 42
Upper Bank
This side is 45° bank angle.

I. Channel Modification ,pore
' A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 4
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ......................................................
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................. 3
' D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
? Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ?Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70%
of the reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed
' together and have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
Rocks -C-Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats

0

AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 4 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks.
Subtotal I S
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only
look at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1, substrate nearly all bedrock ................................ ........................................ ...........................
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................................................................................................... 1
Remarks _ Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water
velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or
obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ...............................................................................................................
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed).
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools same size ...................................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal 10
? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
43

1 )

Remarks
Total
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent
Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... .14
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................ 10
D. riffles absent ................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ?Typical for area ?Steep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation.
FACE UPSTREAM
Page
Riffles Infrequent
Score
12
3
Subtotal
Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion....
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .................................................... 0
Remarks
(7
5
3
2
0
Total
' VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would
block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
' A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No shading .................................................................................................................................. 0
Remarks _ Subtotal,

' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition:
A break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream,
such as paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ? Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weeds/old field ?Exotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score
' A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
C5

' 2. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
3. width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 4
3 4
3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
' 1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
' 2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ................................................... I 3 3
1
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
2
1
2
1
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
Remarks 0 0
Total 10
44

? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
45
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE

I l

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ?
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Diagram to determine bank angle:
Z-A
90° 45° 135°
Site Sketch:

?,?rcfrw 1e-.n w) J un , C=am(
blti whGwJ??'?^^ AA, S`)k?
ds?wa?
5-6'

11
11

Other comments:
46
t r
i�,
` ',

11
BIOLOGICAL TRACKING - STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Contact [e-mail]
A. Project Name: Poi C4E k (??-f (an? c,n? ?a^'i ?r?,-}?G'f?`or? S?-
B. Stream Name: u,% 7 -? P. It Ca E, k
C. DWQ Project Number: 0 (- 1610
D. Restoration Map Number:
E. Ecoregion, County and Location Information: Rz.dman`tlL,nceIn 7t E. sf •S
loCa-r,? SOL-4 e-P P• 1+ C(lLk, aid (Jss-t" 0r k; 1114,11 kor,61 (SR 1001
F
G
Coordinates and USGS Quad Name:
3S 31, 21. Sq " nl ?£??sJL l?, (l?.,anl .
Prl ISM p,of, ,.?
Strea
nn uiassitication
I G .7
H. Length of Project: L4 3oS I t,t r s:r
I. Urban or Rural Catchment:
J. Catchment size: 0, 7 y,?.
K. Who conducted tine rnologicaI monitoring? f,I;ZL at, L) -r-
L. Applicant Information:
1. Name and Company: YWlarsk ?ssou,rci.S :1 c,
2. Telephone Number: ?fl N (? SS-9 0 "1
3. Email Address:
M. Consultant Information: (Z k k
1. Name and Company: 9tq.. p7 ?{.q9t 0
2. Telephone Number: --T
3. Email Address: ?r,?ac.k??kk£????EE( S.CIDr?
N. Project Status:
q01 W QC 41w? rE t!1 JEt1 tLiB 01 . La.ns-Fn4cfi`e,n ua S . 0e.+??+ta rn fA4
/Ll.'0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
Pott Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County
2004 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report
Station B

V ?
N ?
C
p
O
U
m O
-Q
c o
ai
0
Z
0) 17
0
°o E
o ??
T
e
U
am
O ?
O
T N
L
a-
7
O E
O
T
o 11
0
O O
U
.I°il
clo
(n T
O
T
U ?
? o
T E o °
N
O E Q
0
T a
d n n Q
0 0 0
o 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 6°? 0°D 0 LO ? M N O O
T ueU aauid lu9OJ9d
CIJ 00 p co N O r N d' O O r O N M Lo 8 N N 0 N " C, -,t co co
M to O O O
0 0 T N 1;T
cc\l CO LO LO 'T 00
0 00 TN?COCOT? Nm4oorn? °T°LO O N
° 0
O O 0 O M M M M M M M M U U U U 0 0 0 O
w c?? E N t2 E E O mm .a m .0
co E
(D 0 0- - - aa) a) o 0 0 co 0 ca o ai a `--o cu E E-0 cu
> E EEUUUU E O
> O > > E
LO
co
0
10 1 E z
Nov
' 3/01 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
' Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE .5
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream
' conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptiornss select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from.the different metrics.
' Stream V I -? PWCA-• Location/road: Kj1iAo JU. (Road Name )County i
Date II olF CC# 13 Basin C,a_6WIoo Subbasin 03-0 "7
' Observer(s),G. Type of Study: ? Fish bM*enthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
• o ? Ir
Latitude n 1.84' NLongitude ?l I 0.011W Ecoregion: ? MT * ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) µmhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
' what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: I8 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
' %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial 5 %other - Describe: buff g44va?ion 4"
baN??^ lut4
Watershed land use : Loorest Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
' Width: (meters) Stream 1,5-10 Channel (at top of bank) 1510 Stream Depth: (m) Avg 01 Max a 3
? Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest. part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) GL 3
' Bank Angle:-/?30 ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too, low for bank angle to matter.)
?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?(Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabionsSediment/ ?'ade-control structure ?Berm/levee
' Flow conditions : ?Hi Normal ?Low C`•o$S-V&,A?)
Turbidity: ?Clear 'j Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
' Weather'. Conditions: C?a Photos: [IN J rY Et/Digital ?35mm l -'l
RPmarkc P ' UbSdvfaw? i cSA?6h _?`J. ??1(J ?W?^?I?^ c?7QM

41

Typical Stream Cross-section
42
This side is 45° bank angle.
IJ
' I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 5 45
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ......................................................
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................. 3
' D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................. 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc .................. 0
? Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream Wanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal lf•S
11. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70%
of the reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed
together and have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
Rocks A-Macrophytes P, Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
' AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present .........:....... 20 16 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7

' 2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... t 0 1
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Vi o,?, ?- a(ivws ucd Sj Nct_, 03 Subtotal

' III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only
look at riffle for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... Score
15
12
' 3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
' B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................
8

' 2. embeddedness >50% ..................................:......................................................................... 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus ....................................................................................................
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................................................................................................... 1
Remarks Subtotal
' IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water
velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or
' obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10
' b. pools same size indicates pools fillip in 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ...............................................................................................................
b. pools same size ......................................................................................................................
' B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ? Bottom sandy-sink as you walk beS'ilt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
43

' Remarks Page

Total
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
' Score ore
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
' B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .......... ........ .......................................... 14
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ... 10 7
3
D. riffles absent ................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: OTypical for area ?Steep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream
Subtotal
' V1. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank

'
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion ... Score Score
/?'

L...1
U
'

' B. Erosion areas present
. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems .....................................
1
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...........................
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow..
S. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ....................................................
6 6
5 5
3 3
2 2
0 0
Total `T
Remarks

VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would
block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
'

' A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No shading ...:.............................................................................................................................. 0
Remarks Subtotal?-

' VH1. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition:
A break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream,
such as paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
'

' Dominant vegetation: O Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weeds/old field ?Exotics (kudzu,etc)
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
3. width 6-12 meters .....................................................................................
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... Score Score

5
4
3 3
2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
' 1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
4 4
b. width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
'

' 2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
Remarks
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0

10
Total

' 44

' ? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.

CIS

i

I)

' 45
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ?
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Diagram to determine bank angle:
90° 45° 135°
Site Sketch:
bNhkQi 6mcA 6'f J_? o I b1Aak'.;AW'
?VeIM At?

I Other comments:
46
7W ?ZW
:77-
?' Y T
fem. ?:.. y

BIOLOGICAL TRACKING STREAM RESTORATION PROJE -?\
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
Contact [e-mail]
A. Project Name: Po??r Ccee? ?1?; Yon
B. Stream Name: ON a Co?cewbc ?ve? LZ z::e?eoce S,
C. DWQ Project Number: O \ - \Ggo
D. Restoration Map Number: p
E. Ecoregion, County and Location Information:.) le ??o??'IC"?+`"`'bO'
F Coordinates and USGS Quad Name:
Sion.{ ???n?? NQ,
I G. Strew

0

1

I / I
H.
I.
K.
L.
M.
N.
i Classification Type (Rosgen):
Length of Project: ??cseye al0 l; c\ea J?ee- .
Urban or Rural Catchment: R,,?ca\.. 01
Catchment size: 1.6 m,
Who conducted the biological monitoring? ?; p?nc'dse t ?C-?
Applicant Information:
1. Name and Company: ?,usNmel ,
2. Telephone Number: Me,-) 999 --`kS4;o
3. Email Address:
Consultant Information:
1. Name and Company: ?cs?e cks C6c,?,e ,
2. Telephone Number:
3. Email Address:
Project.qtat„g-

p S oJe??' C.o n 5 4-c `?C4;or? ? c?-?Q\e?-ec?. ?j `loSCh o`?QO `off ,
Photographs:

r

i
V
'20
3
Date;
nva?G 1`?
Name of Feature: Sacs. ?S c c W` CA-ec coc`n ?O`?0 00`5 ??j°7o ? Ve caAq
Feature Location:

PEBBLE COUNT LOCATION: J?PPjpk;Mael•,?rOQ01f `.? ps? ceQS?. c Cad Q?b4 ?;,?1;.?
o n V T 1 o
CROSS - SECTION: (3`7.
NAME:1-evt ?U r,?Ne c,j NC??C? 0.\y
-WOLMAN PEBBLE COUNT USING THE
WENTWORTH SCALE FOR SIZE CLASSES
SIZE CUMMULATIVE.
CLASS NUMBER %. %
(MM) B
SANDS < 2 3 B
2-4
4-8
qg
GRAVELS 8-16
i pp
16 - 32 oZ
32 - 64
COBBLES 64 - 128
128 - 256.
256 - 512
BOULDERS 512 - 1024
1024 - 2048 . .
2048 - 4096

PEt36LG COUN-r
C t1 M lU L A-r I VS % VS SI Z F- (YY1 Yn )
\
m
F-
4
J
J'
7
tj
7)so _ C2I'll
096
PARTICLE SFZE (MM)

0
-?rz-h' 0 n C,
'APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in
' an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should represent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream. All meter readings need to be performed prior to walking the stream. When working
the habitat index, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the
' observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. There are eight different metrics in
this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
11 Looka?-?4 l??Q.c?• 4
Streamt ?? ? ? Jl? 4. Location/Road S k . \ 00 County Cr ???1 CAD,
to ©? CC# Basin C? \D Subbasin M- 03- 3 a
'
D _
' a c lcz? e
i1 a ` Observer(s ,J n ? (\Npgq X Office Location ?e C Agency
)y p?4 Type of Study: Fish Benthos Basinwide Special Study (Describe)
?o?t a?li ti
Ecoregion (circle one) MT &P Distance Surveyed 1O G meters
Physical Characterization: Land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location -
' include what you see driving thru the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section for
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other unusual conditions.
Land use: Forest?o Active Pasture _____2/o Active Crops ---2/o Fallow Fields -9/o Commercial
' Industrial __2/o Residential % Other % - Describe
Width: (meters) Stream 3.4- Channel Average Stream Depth: (m) • d 5 Velocity-L-1--- am/sec
' Flow conditions (circle one): High N a Low
Manmade Stabilization: Y[ ] N[Jj Describe
Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 Conductivity _µmhos/cm pH
Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Tannic
rlg `3
Weather Conditions: ? L? nn Q ) Photo #

Page 34

' I. Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) ?S•cco-re
A. channel natural, frequent bends (good diversity of bends or falls), ..................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends ............................:........................................................................ 3
C. some channelization present .............. .................................................................................... :....... ....
' D. more extensive. channelization, >40% of stream disrupted..* ............................................................ 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc .................. 0
' Remarks r -.Q
co or fts -cover t
iam II. instream Habitat: Consider the percenta h that i?Ve benthoj?a
Circle the habitats which occur- (Rocks)' Macrophytegs andlogs) undercut
n ave begun to
,? an or root ma ) Definition: leafpacks coof o r_ at'sr?'packe ge?lt
'Izil ves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. EXAMPLE: If >70% of the reach is rocks, 1 type
is present, circle the score of 17.
' AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%

'

'
4 or 5 types present .................
3 types present .........................
2 types present .........................
1 type present ...........................
No types present ........................ Score
20
19
18
17
... Score
16
15
14
13 Score
12
11
10
9 Score
8
7
6
5
Remarks Subtotal LL
' h for substrate scoring
e
ti
,
ac
re r
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at en
but only look at riffle for embeddedness.
Score
' A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders ::
usually only behind large boulders) .......................
little sand
<20% (ver
d
dd
b 15
,
y
e
ness
e
1. em
2. embeddedness 20-40% ............................................................................
. 12
8
I ....
3. embeddedness 40-80% .....................................................................................:.............. 3
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
14
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................
: 11
.
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................
. 6
.......................
3. embeddedness.40-80% ................................................................................ 2
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
8
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 2
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................
D. substrate homgeneous
3
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ............. :......................................................... ............................
..............
2. substrate nearly all sand ..........................................................................................
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................................................. 1
Remarks SU?6?t C n? t `c ?? e?yzs-- (A 165. nc ' ??" \ rl Subtotal a
Page 35
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence.
' Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
' 1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ........................................................................................................ 10
b. pools same size ................................................................................................................
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
' a. variety of pool sizes ............... :.......................................................................................... 6
b.pools same size ................................................................................................................. 4
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present .................................................................................................................................... 3
' 2. Runs absent ........................................................................^......................................................... 0
Remarks Qoa\5 \.I M .r 1 N ?U Ca ?- ??'• Page Total 1
' V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
' A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ...................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................10
D. riffles absent ........................................................................................................................0
Subtotal-3
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
Left Bank
Right Bank
Score Score .
A. Banks stable

'

' 1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ................................... 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... • 5.
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ....................... 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ......................... .................... . 0 0
. Total-AID.

VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No shading .................................................................................................................................. .0
Remarks Q
Page 36

u
VIII, Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
' Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the
near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.

0

A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. zone width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
3. zone width 6-12 meters .....................................................................................
4. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. zone width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c* zone width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. zone width < 6 meters .........................................................................
2 breaks common
Right Bank Left Bank
Score Score
G)
4 4
3 3
2 2
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3
b. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1
d. zone width < 6 meters........................................................................... 0
Remarks Total d
TOTALSCORE `
3
2
1
0
ADD COMMENTS, DRAWINGS:
h a ra ebb\e 4- comma v c? e a
5 S e5 5 cam.-ef,?C' ??, ?e'?-s P
1 a, (lac C d`t V\ ve.S`??6?ok'? s \es c oVtec.E-- a) a o
Lf-l
. 6 y S?cO? Q ,
Page 37
Pott Creek Mitigation Bank
Subject: Pott Creek Mitigation Bank
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 200109:01:26 -05,00 l p ''
From: Jason Guidry <[e-mail]>?}
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Dave Penrose <[e-mail]> ?-
Dave- I do not think it would be appropriate for the'"NCWRP to commen to
a permit application from the bank's sponsors since we are on the ba k
review team. However, here are our previousletters concerning the bank, w'.
Thanks, Jason IZ• 7'01
n°

r _

I
J?
Iti

!Z , l3,a/
Kevr.?; Y1?r?vk? ?.[1
'be i n c o?
7
? S5 11/30/016:28 AM

.091696

D ?,
?e

0
OF W ATF?
QG
r
bLLG?
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Perm-app.htm.
The USACE is the lead regulator- To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits. ne which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at hamv.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm, or contact one of the field
offices listed at the e- website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in I" t litional information regarding the identification and
regulation of weti, b)
The DWQ issues a C L? 1 'on (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certificatic. ..? the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are en, to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/n, -ands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and co determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for some General Certifications is not required,
provided that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet
should contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is also required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on the last page of this application).
PAYMENT Page 1 of 18
RECEIVED
: 1 1690

e"
,e

?0 W A TF9Q
?O G
> ?
"Lx?u ?_U?l r
o -c
C, 0
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Perm app.ht .
The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm, or contact one of the field
offices listed at the end of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.
The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for some General Certifications is not required,
provided that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet
should contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is also required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on the last page of this application).
PAYMENT Page 1 of 18
REC N E D
CAMA Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on
the last page of this application) the applicant should also contact the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) at [phone]. DCM will determine whether or not the project involves a
designated Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency.
In such cases, DCM will require a Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Permit and will coordinate
the 404/401 Permits.
USACE Permits - Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office (addresses are listed at the end of this
application). Upon receipt of an application, the USACE will determine if the application is complete as
soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant
to address information needs for all USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as
information required for State authorizations, certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the
information requested on this form will result in a complete application for any of the USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the minimum amount of information that must be
provided for a complete PCN for each USACE Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed.Reg. 12893
(March 9, 2000), available at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/nwpfinalFedReg_pdL
Processing times vary by permit and begin once the application has been determined to be complete.
Please contact the appropriate regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/fees.html. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.
Page 2 of 18
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 0 1 16 9
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ? N/A
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ? N/A
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Marsh Resources Inc.
Mailing Address: Marsh Resources Inc
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC 28115
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Rich MoLyensen
Company Affiliation: Marsh Resources Inc.
Mailing Address: Marsh Resources Inc
236 Transco Road
Mooresville NC 28115
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 3 of 18
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Pott Creek Mitigation Bank
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3615-0043-2588
4. Location
County: Lincoln Nearest Town: Lincolnton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The 75 acre site is located where
Killian Road (S.R. 1008) crosses Pott Creek in Lincoln County, North Carolina. The site is
situated on the south side of Pott Creek, west of Killian Road. Pott Creek flows east throup-h
the site into the South Fork of the Catawba River. The site is located north of Regpsville
Road (S.R. 1113), east of Wyant Road (S.R. 1216), and south of Hoover Road (S.R. 1217).
A vicinity mqp can be found in Appendix A.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°31'18.00571"N, 81°17'57.47740'W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: The site
is presently best classified as open meadow/pasture with wooded buffers . Previously, the
site was utilized for agricultural purposes. Cattle were removed from the site in May of
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Pott Creek.
9. River Basin: Catawba River Basin.
Page 4 of 18
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed bank is to
reestablish the wetlands historically associated with the floodplain of Pott Creek. It is
estimated in the next five to ten years, highway construction will impact 55 acres of riverine
and 20 acres of non-riverine wetlands within the Catawba River Basin. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) contracted Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP
(RK&K) in association with Marsh Resources Inc. (MRI) to provide mitigation credits
needed to compensate for projects occurring within the Catawba River Basin. The
Geographical Service Area (GSA) for this project includes those areas within the South Fork
Catawba River Basin, 8-digit hydrologic unit 03050102.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Bull dozer, rubber tire
backhoe, track backhoe with hydraulic thumb, front end loader and dump trucks.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The site is located in rural Lincoln
County and is surrounded for several miles by agricultural and forested land use areas.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
The RK&K/MRI team previously submitted a Nationwide 27 permit application for the Pott
Creek Mitigation Bank on September 1, 2000 and received authorization, Permit Number
200130081, with attached general and special conditions on October 26, 2000. A copy of the
original USACE permit is included in Appendix B along with NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) comments to the proposed plan.
An MBRT meeting was held on March 28, 2001. The RKK/MRI team received comments from
MBRT members on June 11, 2001 and submitted responses to address agency comments and
concerns on July 23, 2001. Due to the changes made in proposed design plans for the Pott Creek
site, the RKK/MRI team is submitting a second application for NCDWQ 401 Water Quality
certification that reflects updates and revisions to the initial mitigation proposal.
A jurisdictional review of wetland boundaries on site was performed on July 5, 2001. A written
determination has not been issued.
Page 5 of 18
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No additional permit requests are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 1.12 acres.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres.
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (pleasespecify)
Page 6 of 18
I Rip Rap
Stabilization 275 UT to Pott Creek 5 feet Perennial

2 Relocation
(before/after/net
loss or gain)
860/860/0
UT to Pott Creek
5 feet
Perennial

3 Relocation
(before/after/net
loss or gain) 1690/3496/
1806
UT to Pott Creek
5 feet
Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Stream impacts total
2,825 If. The net gain of restored stream reach is 1,8061f (See Appendix G).
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Page 7 of 18
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
No wetlands will be impacted during this project. Stream impacts listed under Section VI-2 are
necessary in order to complete the proposed stream restoration. Upon successful completion of
the project, there will be a net gain of 1,806 linear feet of stream restoration , thereby
outweighing any stream impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stn-ngide.html.
Page 8 of 18
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The 75-acre Pott Creek Site is located where Killian Road (S.R. 1008) crosses Pott Creek in
rural Lincoln County, North Carolina. The site is situated on the south side of Pott Creek,
west of Killian Road. Pott Creek flows east through the site into the South Fork of the
Catawba River. The site is located north of Reepsville Road (S.R. 1113), east of Wyant
Road (S.R. 1216), and south of Hoover Road (S.R. 1217) as shown in the vicinity map
included in Appendix A. The Pott Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank is intended to provide
mitigation for those areas located within the 8-digit hydrologic unit 03050102, the South
Fork Catawba River Basin.
Wetlands
No National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands are mapped on the site, however, the
RKK/MRI team assessed wetlands located on the Pott Creek Site on June 26, 2001 and
identified one 0.76-acre Palustrine, Scrub, Shrub (PSS1) wetland located along the
southeastern boundary of the site. Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE reviewed the delineation on
July 5, 2001 and relocated two flags. Mr. Lund also requested additional wetlands along the
toe of slope on the southeastern property boundary be delineated. RK&K performed the
requested delineations and re-surveyed the wetland boundaries. The total area of
jurisdictional wetlands is 1.12 acres. Wetland delineation and evaluation forms and mapping
are included in Appendix C. A written jurisdictional determination is pending.
Soils
Using the Soil Survey of Lincoln County as a guide, Gary Jellick, CPSS of Coastal
Resources and David T. Knight, Soil Survey Supervisor, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, NCDENR conducted field assessments of the site's soils. These field
investigations and studies further refined the exact extent of soil series units within the
mitigation area. Both report and letter are included in this submittal (See Appendix D).
Soils contained within the mitigation area were delineated and are primarily Chewacla (ChA)
(34.98 acres) with inclusions of Wehadkee poorly drained/hydric soils (6.57 acres). These
poorly drained/hydric soils are not referred to by name in the correspondence from David
Knight and the Wehadkee Soil Series is not contained in the Soil Survey of Lincoln County,
N.C. Subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Knight indicate that it is appropriate to
refer to this hydric inclusion as Wehadkee because in the Piedmont Phigraphic region the
most common hydric unit in Chewacla soils is Wehadkee. Other soil types on the site, but
outside the work area are Gaston (GaD) and Pacolet (PaE). The Gaston and Pacolet soils are
on the upland steep slopes. Soil mapping is included in Appendix E.
Hydrolozy
The RK&K/MRI Team has completed an extensive search of historic documentation
including aerial erial photography and other mapping sources. The earliest data is from the mid-
Page 9 of 18
1930's and shows that the agricultural ditches currently present at the site were already
constructed. A review of the available soil mapping and on-site soil investigations shows
that hydric soils or poorly drained/hydric inclusions exist on the site. A field review of the
site clearly shows that a berm was constructed along Pott Creek and exists for a major
portion of the site. This information, as well as other anecdotal evidence, indicates that most
of the site was historically a natural flood plain associated with Pott Creek. Additionally, the
surface morphology at the site, specifically the steeply sloping ground surface north and
south of Pott Creek and the subsurface textural classifications (alluvial deposition which
becomes fines with distance from the stream) indicates that this channel is frequently
flooded.
RK&K installed nine monitoring gauges on the site in May of 2000. To supplement the
existing gauges, two gauges have been installed on the reference site located west of the Pott
Creek property and two transects with up to 5 gauges each will be installed in the mitigation
site. The reference gauges will establish target hydrology goals and the gauges g the two
transects will allow us to develop a detailed hydr?ph of the mitigation site. A location
map of existing gauges is included in Appendix F.
The RKK/MRI Team is preparing a hydraulic model of Pott Creek to investigate both the
anecdotal historic and present day flooding characteristics of the Creek. In addition, the
Team is preparing hydrologic estimates and hydraulics models of the unnamed tributaries
that enter the site from the west and southwest. These studies will generate stream
restoration design elements and provide base flow and flood event data to assist in the design
of the wetland mitigation site. This modeling will be used to estimate groundwater
elevations when the agricultural ditches are filled.
Proposed Mitigation
Proposed mitigation for the Pott Creek Site is described below and a plan of proposed
mitigation areas is included in Appendix G. Detailed design plans are attached with this
J application.
1??L Wetland Mitigation
RK&K has identified a total of 1.12 acres of wetlands on the property. One 0.76 acre
wetland will be enhanced with woody tree species and 0.36 acres of wetlands located along
the toe of slope on the southeastern portion of the property will be preserved.
In addition, the RK&K/MRI Team proposes 5.45 acres of wetland restoration on the areas of
\ Wehadkee soil and 22.44 acres of wetland creation on Chewacla soils. An additional 8.88
acres of floodplain buffer/wetland creation is proposed immediately adjacent to Pott Creek.
Should these soils demonstrate wetland hydrology (hydrology within 12 inches of the surface
between 5 and 12.5 % of the rowing season), the RK&K/MRI team will suggest these soils
also be considered restoration.
The wetland mitigation plan specifies minimal surficial grading. The drainage ditches will be
plugged using on-site material generated from the stream restoration construction. The
seasonal high water table is affected by both surface and subsurface inputs. The ability for
Page 10 of 18
the groundwater to remain within the upper 12 inches of the soil matrix is dependant on
physical soil characteristics but also on the amount and availability of groundwater and
normal and storm condition stream flows. Specifically, at a minimum, the water available to
the wetland mitigation site will come from (1) existing unnamed stream channels flowing into
the site, (2) seepage and surface water inputs from the forested and unforested slopes to the
south, (3) plugging of the existing on-site agricultural drainage ditches with on-site materials
generated from the stream restoration component of the project and from (4) overbank storm
flow events within Pott Creek itself.
The species chosen for inclusion in the Pott Creek Planting Plan are based upon three
vegetative communities: 1)Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest, 2) Piedmont-Mountain
Bottomland Forest and 3) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype). The
characteristics of these communities are well documented on pages 44 through 45 and 165
through 171 of the Classi acation of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation, by Shafale and Weakley, published by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Division of Environment, Health, an
d
Natural Resources, in 1990. In addition to these references, a forested reference site will be
used to direct species chosen for planting at the Pott Creek Bank. Additional guidance used
in preparing the planting plan includes the Lincoln County Soil Survey published by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1995) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration
Program Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001). Mapping and a detailed
description of each Zone within the planting plan are included in Appendix H.
Monitoring data from the wetland mitigation reference site, located immediately west of the
proposed site will be used to document the hydrology and vegetation in an undisturbed
Chewacla soil area. The RK&K/MRI Team has permission from Jerry Thomas W_yant, who
owns the adjacent upstream property, to install groundwater monitoring gauges and use any
suitable area on his property for reference study and data collection. The Team has identified
two areas on his property for reference sites. These sites are on virtually identical
topographic positions as the mitigation site and support well-established hydrophytic
vegetation. Groundwater gauge data collected at the reference areas will be used to determine
the appropriate mitigation category (restoration or creation) for similar areas on the proposed
mitigation site.
Streams
In addition to wetlands, the RK&K/MRI team proposes 1,806 linear feet of stream
restoration. The channel will be designed as a Rosgen E5 as a riffle/pool sequence with
channel slopes less than 2% (sand dominated bed with smaller accumulations of gravel and
occasional silt/clay). Mr. Pete Colwell of NCDENR, DWQ indicated on a visit to the site on
July 05, 2001 (see Appendix I ) that the existing channel located along the base of the
forested slope and the channel flowing by the offsite pond, located south of the property, are
jurisdictional streams.
? ' or
Page 11 of 18
Final design will be based upon the findings at the selected reference reach. RK&K proposes
to use an unnamed tributary to Dutchman's Creek, located in Davie County, as a reference
reach for the proposed restoration. This tributary is an E5 stream type, similar to the Pott
Creek Site, with a bankfull cross-sectional area of 31.7 square feet. In addition, we intend to
compare our final calculations for this proposed restoration to the published Piedmont
Regional Curves developed by North Carolina State University for QA/QC purposes. Note
that one of the reaches utilized for development of the curves is located on North Pott Creek.
Upland and Floodplain Forest Preservation
Approximately 21.43 acres of mature forested upland slope area will be preserved and act as a
buffer for the restored bottomland floodplain wetlands. Numerous ephemeral channels and
seeps, as noted on the existing topographic map, conduct surface runoff from the adjacent
uplands currently being used for cattle razing. These intermittent channels direct flow and
provide primary water quality functions prior to reaching the mitigation site. The mitigation
site will provide secondary and tertiary water quality functions as well
In addition to the mature forested upland slope areas, a 3.66-acre mature forested bottomland,
non-wetland, floodplain area, will be preserved in the middle of the site. The floodplain area
will provide habitat, water storage during flood events, water quality functions and
groundwater recharge areas, as the soils are sandy and rather permeable.
Finally, an unforested slope area (approximately 7.91 acres), which is currently vegetated
with fescue, thistle and other undesirable herbaceous species, will be reforested and preserved
as an additional upland buffer. Ultimately, this area will provide similar functions to the
mature forested upland at the front of the site. It will act as a critical buffer between the
existing cattle operation and the restored wetlands. This area is also adjacent to a much larger
contiguous forest, and therefore, is an important link to a much larger forested preservation
corridor.
Mitigation Summary
Wetland: Wetland Restoration (Wehadkee soil): 5.45 Acres
Wetland Creation* : 22.44 Acres
Wetland Enhancement: 0.76 Acres
Wetland Preservation: 0.36 Acres
Floodplain Buffer/Wetland Creation: 8.88 Acres
Floodplain Buffer Preservation: 3.66 Acres
Upland Forest Preservation: 21.43 Acres
Upland Reforestation: 7.91 Acres
Stream: Stream Restoration/Buffer Area: 1,806 linear feet
*HvdroloLyv will be monitored in creation areas to determine if iurisdictional hvdrologv exists
and can be considered for restoration
Page 12 of 18
Monitoring Plan
Hydrology
The RKK/MRI team will conduct hydrologic monitoring for five years following project
construction through the use of WIAO hydrologic monitoring gauges. RK&K installed nine
monitoring gauges in May of 2000. To supplement this, two gauges have been installed in the
adjacent reference site and two transects with up to 5 gauges each will be installed in the
mitigation site after construction. As noted in the USACE guidelines, the hydrology must be
within 12 inches of the surface between 5 and 12.5% of the rig season. We estimate this
to be 18 days in this region of North Carolina. If the hydrology does not achieve these
requirements, remedial actions will be proposed and implemented.
Vegetation
Restored vegetation will be monitored for a minimum of five years from the initial planting.
To determine vegetative target densities, the forested reference site adjacent to the mitigation
site will be inventoried. Permanent, randomly located fixed-area plots 1/10 acre in size will be
established within the shrub and tree planting zones. All plots will be sampled to generate the
number of trees/acre, species composition and percentages. The resulting data, along with a
photographic log of the restoration area will be included in an annual report.
Macrobenthos
RK&K will monitor benthic macroinvertebrates within the stream restoration reach in
accordance with NCDWQ guidance: Interim, Internal Technical Guide, Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols For Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects
(NCDWQ, 2000). Two monitoring locations within the proposed stream restoration reach
have been selected and sampled for pre-construction, baseline data. Sampling Point 1 is
located on the Unnamed Tributary (UT-1) flowing south by the existing pond and into Pott
Creek. Samples were collected approximately 400 feet upstream from the convergence with
Pott Creek. Sample Point 2 is located on the Unnamed Tributary (UT-2) along the base of
the southward slope, approximately 1,000 feet west of Killian Rd. (SR 1008).
In addition, macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from an approved reference reach.
RK&K proposes to use an Unnamed Tributary to Dutchman's Creek, located in Davie
County on state-owned lands as a reference reach. RK&K has contacted Mr. Pete Colwell
(NCDWQ) to review the proposed reference reach at an on-site meeting on November
16, 2001.
In addition to pre-construction monitoring samples will be collected from the restored reach
for three years post-construction and will be submitted to a certified laboratory for
identification. Annual monitoring reports will be submitted detailing total taxa richness, EPT
taxa richness, EPT abundance, and biotic index values.
Preservation Mechanism
The site is presently owned by Marsh Resources Inc. (MRI), a subcontractor of RK&K. MRI
may eventual deed the land to the North Carolina Department of Transportation or to its
assigned land holding entity. This entity may be a nonprofit organization. MRI has
Page 13 of 18
contacted the Catawba Lands Conservancy (CLC) regarding the Pott Creek Mitigation Bank.
CLC has shown interest in providing longterm stewardship to the property. Financial
assurances will be established through performance and maintenance bonds.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 14 of 18
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The entire 75-acre site is covered with veizetation. No impervious acreage exists or is proposed
on the site. No stormwater control structures are proposed, however the peak discharge will be
reduced due to the onsite stream design.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 15 of 18
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Page 16 of 18
NOV-14-2001 15:54
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
P. 02/02
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control). 11
Applicant/Agent's Signati e u ' Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
YTS Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell Union
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk Watauga
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Yancey
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham Wilson
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alieghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret' Green Pamlico
Telephone: (252) 975-I616 Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
"Croatan National Forest Only
Page 17 of 18
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 18 of 18
Z.

?
C
C )-

2 ccu
L.. ?--? G

_ N
O
?

,

a
rn a?
w

C)
°o °o W
O N g
WQQ

o

0
N

a,

"f=
t

-77

Zp`

i,

)
y1
- i
)f

f

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
October 25, 2000
Regulatory Division
a V 39211%
t wit
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
R:-ALM.9. t4r
Action ID No. 200130081 and Nationwide Permit No. 27 (Stream and Wetland Restoration
Activities)
Mr. Marc Seelinger..
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Fanngdon Place, Suite 105,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27609-3960 ,
Dear Mr. Seelinger:
Reference your application of September 1, 2000 for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to undertake wetland restoration activities on the 75-acre tract of land owned by
Marsh Resources, Inc. located off SR 1008 (Killian Road) adjacent to Pott Creek, approximately
3.5 miles northwest. of.Lincolntoz-- Lincoln CourIty,.North Carolina.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000,"lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, was provided for activities in waters of the United States associated with the
restoration of former waters, the enhancement.-of degraded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and
riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas and the restoration
and enhancementjof hon-tidal streams and non-tidal open water areas on private lands.
Your work is"authorized by Nationwide Permit # 27 provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the attached General Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
a. The Permittee shall fully implement the mitigation plan, entitled Pott Creek Mitigation
Plan, Lincoln County, North. Carolina, dated August 30, 2000, except as conditioned below.
b. Authorization is provided for construction of the proposed mitigation site and in no way
obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), or any other Mitigation Bank Review Team
member or agency to recognize this project as a mitigation bank.
c. The Corps does not recognize as valid any references to mitigation "credits", service
area or any other issues associated with a mitigation bank contained within the mitigation plan
referenced in Special Condition (a.) above.
d. In order to function as a mitigation bank, all work performed on this site must be in
compliance with an approved mitigation banking instrument (MBI). Any work performed prior
to a final MBI must be brought into compliance with the MBI prior to any credits being released
from the bank.
e. Acceptance of hydrology success criteria of less than 12.5 percent of the growing season
is contingent on the permittee presenting sufficient comparative data from an acceptable
reference wetland site.
You should contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, telephone
[phone], regarding Section 401 Water Quality Certification. This nationwide permit does
not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval. This
verification will be valid for two years from the date of this letter unless the nationwide
authorization is modified, reissued or revoked.
If you have any questions please contact Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Marsh Resources, Incorporated
Post Office Box 1396
Houston, Texas 77056
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
2
Ms. Becky Fox
Wetlands Section - Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
Ms. Marella Buncick
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Jeff Jurek
Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
3
Permit Number: 200130081
Name of Permittee: Marsh Resources, Inc./Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Issuance: 10/26/2000
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by
the permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY COE/WILMINGTON DISTRICT
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S.
.Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are
subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required
mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47 / Thursday, March 9, 2000 /Notices
12893
S

tates adversely affected by the project;
(2) A written statement to the District
Engineer detailifig compliance with
paragraph (b), above (Le., why the
discharge must occur in waters of the
United States and why additional
minimization cannot be achieved); (3)
description of measures taken to ensure
that the proposed work, complies with
paragraphs (c) through (f), above; and (4
A reclamation plan (for aggregate
mining in isolated waters and non-tidal
wetlands adjacent to headwaters and
hard rock/mineral mining only).
This NWP does not authorize hard
rock/mineral mining, including placer
mining, in streams. No hard rock/
mineral mining can occur in waters of
the United States within 100 feet of the
ordinary high water mark of headwater
streams. The terms "headwaters" and
"isolated waters" are defined at 33 CFR
330.2(d) and (e), respectively. For the
purposes of this NWP, the term "lower
perennial stream" is defined as follows:
"A stream in which the gradient is low
and water velocity is slow, there is no
tidal influence, some water flows
throughout the year, and the substrate
consists mainly of sand and mud."
(Sections 10' and 404)
C. Nationwide Permit General
Conditions
The following general conditions
must be followed in order for any
authorization by an NWP to be valid:
1. Navigation. No activity may cause
more than a minimal adverse effect on
navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure
or fill authorized shall be properly
maintained, including maintenance to
ensure public safety.
3. Soil Erosion and Sediment
Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and
sediment controls must be used and
maintained in effective operating
condition during construction, and all
exposed soil and other fills, as well as
any work below the ordinary high water
mark or high tide line, must be
permanently stabilized at the earliest
practicable date.
4. Aquatic Life-Movements. No
activity may substantially disrupt the
movement of those species of aquatic
life indigenous to the waterbody,
including those species which normally
migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to
impound water. Culverts placed in
streams must be installed to maintain
low flow conditions.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment
working in wetlands must be placed on
mats, or other measures must be taken
to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and Case-By-Case
Conditions. The activity must comply
with any regional conditions which may
have been added by the division
engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with
any case specific conditions added by
A the Corps or by the State or tribe in its
Section 401. water quality certification
and Coastal Zone Management Act
consistency determination.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity
may occuranin a component of the
National Wild and Scenic River System;
or in a river officially designated by .
Congress as a "study river" for possible
inclusion in the system, while the river
is in an official study status; unless the
appropriate Federal agency, with direct
management responsibility for such
river, has determined in writing that the..
proposed activity will not adversely
affect the Wild and Scenic River
designation, or study status. Information
on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be
obtained from the appropriate Federal
land management agency in the area
(e. a., National Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its
operation may impair reserved tribal
rights, including, but not limited to,
reserved water rights and treaty fishing
and hunting rights.
. 9. Water Quality. (a) In certain States
and tribal lands an individual 401 water
quality certification must be obtained or
waived (See 33 CFR 330.4(c)).
(b) For NWPs 12, 14, 17, 18, 32, 39,
40, 42, 43, and 44, where the State or
tribal 401 certification (either
generically or individually) does not
require or approve a water quality
management plan, the permittee must
include design criteria and techniques
that will ensure that the authorized
work does not result in more than
minimal degradation of water quality.
An important component of a water
quality management plan includes
storiimwater management that minimizes
degradation of the downstream aquatic
system, including water quality. Refer to
General Condition 21 for stormwater
management requirements. Another important component of a water quality
management plan is the establishment
and maintenance of vegetated buffers 1
next to open waters, including streams.
Refer to General Condition 19 for
vegetated buffer requirements for the
N VVPs.
10. Coastal Zone Management. In
certain states, an individual state coastal a
zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived b
(see Section 330.4(d)).
11. Endangered Species. (a) No e
activity is authorized under any NWP
which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or
endangered species or a species
proposed for such designation, as
identified under the Federal Endangered
Species Act, or which will destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat of
such species. Non-federal permittees
shall notify the District Engineer if any
listed species or designated critical
habitat might be affected or is in the
vicinity of the project, or is located in
the designated critical habitat and shall
not begin work on the activity until
notified by the District Engineer that the
requirements of the Endangered Species
Act have been satisfied and that the
activity is authorized. For activities that
may affect Federally-listed endangered
or threatened species or designated
critical habitat, the notification must
include the name(s) of the endangered
or threatened species that may be
affected by the proposed work or that
utilize the designated critical habitat
that may be affected by the proposed
work. As a result of formal or informal
consultation with the FWS or NMFS,
the District Engineer may add species-
specific regional endangered species
conditions to the NWPs.
(b) Authorization of an activity by a
nationwide permit does not authcrize
the "`take" of a threatened or endangered
species as defined under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. In the absence
of separate authorization (e.g:, an ESA
Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion
with "incidental take" provisions, etc.)
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
or the National Maxine Fisheries
Service, both lethal and non-lethal
"takes" of protected species are in
violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Information on the location of
threatened and endangered"species and
their critical habitat can be obtained
directly from the offices of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service or their world
wide web pagges at
http://www.gs.gov/rgen dsp p/
endspppp.html and
http://w-ww, nfms.gov/p rot_res/
esahome.html, respectively.
12. Historic Properties. No activity
which may affect historic properties
isted, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register of Historic Places is
authorized, until the DE has complied
vith the provisions of 33 CFR part 325,
Appendix C. The prospective permittee
must notify the District Engineer if the
uthorized activity may affect any
historic properties listed, determined to
e eligible, or which the prospective
permittee has reason to believe may be
ligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, and shall not
12894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47 / Thursday, March 9, 2000/Notices
begin the activity until notified by the
District Engineer that the requirements be used to authorize any part of the
proposed project or any related activit sale agreement or other contract for sale

of the National Historic Preservation Ac
hava been satisfied and that the
ti
it y;
t and orp urchase has been executed;
(10) For NWP 31. Maintenance of
ac
v
y
is authorized. Information on the (4) For NvVPs 7, 12, 14, 18, 21, 34, 38,
39, 40, 41, 42
and 43
the PCN
t Existing'Flood Control Projects, the
i

location and existence of historic
resources can be obtained from the St
t ,
,
mus
.
also include a delineation of affected prospect
ve permittee must either notify
the District Engineer with a PCN prior
a
e
Historic Preservation Office and the
National Register of Historic Pl
( special aquatic sites, including
wetlands, vegetated shallows (e.g., to each maintenance activity or submit
a five year (or less) maintenance plan

aces
see
33 CFR 330.4(8)). For activities that may
ff
h
submerged aquatic vegetation, seagrass
beds), and riffle and pool complexes .
In addition, the PCN must include all of
the followin
:
a
ect
istoric properties listed in, or
eligible for listing in
the National (see paragraph 13(f)); g
(i) Sufficient baseline information so
,
Register of Historic Places, the
notification must state which historic (5) For NWP 7, Outfall Structures and
Maintenance, the PCN must include as to identify the approved. channel
depths and configurations and existing

property may be affected by the
proposed work or include a vicinity information regarding the original
design capacities and configurations of facilities. Minor deviations are
authorized, provided the approved flood

map indicating the location of the those areas of the facility where control protection or drainage is not

historic property. maintenance dredging or excavation is increased;

13. Notification. (a) Timing: Where
required by the terms of the NWP
the proposed.
(6) For NWP 14, Linear (ii) A delineation of any affected
special aquatic sites, includin
g
,
prospective permittee must notify the
District Engineer with a preconstruction
i
t
c Transportation Crossings,
the PCi?I must
include a compensatory mitigation wetlands; and,
(iii) Location of the dredged material
notification (PCN)
early
as as
possible.
The District En
ine
t d Proposal to offset permanent losses of
waters of the United States and a- disposal site.
(11) For NWP 33, Temporary
g
er mus
etermine if
the PCN is complete within 30 days of statement describing how temporary Construction, Access, and Dewaterin0'

the date of receipt and can request the
dditi
l losses of waters of the United States will
be minimized to the maximum extent the PCN must also include a restoration
plan of reasonable measures to avoid
a
ona
information necessary to
make the PCN complete only once. practicable. and minimize adverse effects to aquatic

However, if the prospective permittee
does not provide all of the requested (7) For NWP 21, Surface Coal Mining
Activities, the PCN must include an resources.
(12) For NWPs 39, 43, and 44, the
P

information, then the District Engineer
ill Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or state-
approved mitigation
lan CN must also include a written
statement to the District Engineer

w
notify the prospective permittee
that the PCN is still incomplete and the p
,
(8) For NWP 27, Stream and Wetland .
explaining how avoidance and

PCi?1 review process will not commence

til
ll Restora
Restoration, the PCN must include

d°cumentation of the
rior conditio
of minimization of losses of waters of the

United States .were achieved on the
un
a
of the requested information
has been received by the District p
n
the site that will be reverted by the Project site.
(13) For NWP 39
Residenti
l

Engineer. The prospective permittee
shall not begin the activit
:
permittee.
(9) For NWP 29, Single-Family ,
a
,
Commercial, and Institutional
D
y
(1) Until notified in writing by the
District Engineer that the activity ma
Housing, the PCN must also include:
(i) Any past use
this NWP by the evelopments, and NWP 42,
Recreational Facilities, the PCN must
i
l
d
y
proceed under the NWP with any ee
individual permitt and/or the
' nc
u
e a compensatory mitigation
proposal that offsets unavoidable lo

special conditions imposed b the
Y
District or Division Engineer; or
permittee
s spouse;
(ii) A statement that the single-family sses

of waters of the United States or

(2) If notified in writing by the District
or Division Engineer that an individual h
housing activity is for a personal
residence of the permittee; justification explaining why
compensatory mitigation should not be

permit is required; or
(3) Unless 45 days have passed from
(iii) A description of the entire parcel,
including its size, and a delineation of re wired.
(q14) For NWP 40, Agricultural

the District Engineer's receipt of the
wetlands. For the purpose of this NWP Activities, the PCN must include a

complete notification and the ,
parcels of land measuring 1/4 acre or less compensatory mitigation proposal to
offset losses of waters of the Unit
d
prospective permittee has not received will not require a formal on-site e
States

written notice from the District or
Division Engineer. Subsequently, the
delineation. However, the applicant
shall provide an indication of where the .
(15) For NWP 43, Stormwater
Management Facilities
the PCN must
permittee's right to proceed under the wetlands are and the amount of ,
include, for the construction of new
NWP may be modified, suspended, or
revoked only in accordance with the wetlands that exists on the property. For
parcels greater than 1/4 acre in size
a stormwater management facilities, a

procedure set forth in 33 CFR ,
formal wetland delineation must be maintenance plan (in accordance with
State and local requirements
if
330.5(d)(2).
(b) Contents of Notification: The prepared in accordance with the current
method required by the Corps. (See ,
applicable) and a compensatory
mitigation proposal to offset losses of
notification must be in writing and
include the following.informatiori: paragraph 13(f));
(iv) A written description of all land waters of the United States.
(16) For NWP 44
Mining A
ti
iti

(1) Name, address, and telephone
(including, if available, legal ,
c
v
es,
the PCN must include a description of
numbers of the prospective permittee;
(2) Locati
f th descriptions) owned by the prospective all waters of the United States adversely
on o
e proposed project;
(3) Brief descri
ti
f th permittee and/or the prospective
' affected by the project, a description of
p
on o
e proposed
project; the project's purpose; direct and
indirect adverse environmental
ff
t permittee
s spouse, within a one mile
radius of the parcel, in any form of measures taken to minimize adverse
effects to waters of the United States, a
e
ec
s
the project would cause; any other ownership (including any land owned
as
t
' description of measures taken to comply

MVP(s), regional general permit(s), or
individual permit(s) used o
i
t
d
d a par
ner
, corporation, joint tenant,
co-tenant, or as a tenant-by-the-entirety) with the criteria of the N4VP, and a
reclamation plan (for aggregate mining
r
n
en
e
to and any land on which a purchase and activities in isolated waters and non-
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47/Thursday'
, March 9, 2000 /Notices 12895

tidal wetlands adjacent to headwaters
and any hard rock/mineral mining
activities).
(17) For activities that may adversely
affect Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species, the PCN must
include the name(s) of those endangered
or threatened species that may be
affected by the proposed work or utilize
the designated critical habitat that may
be affected by the proposed work.
(18) For activities that may affect
historic properties listed in, or eligible
for listing in, the National Register of
Historic Places, the PCN must state
which historic property may be affected
by the proposed work or include a
vicinity map indicating the location of
the historic property.
(19) For NWPs 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42,
43, and 44, where the proposed work
involves discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States
resulting in permanent, above-grade fills
within 100-year floodplains (as
identified on FEMA's Flood Insurance
Rate Maps or FEMA-approved local
floodplain maps), the notification must
include documentation demonstrating
that the proposed work complies with
the appropriate FEMA or FEMA
approved local floodplain construction
requirements.
(c) Form bf Notification: The standard
individual permit application form
(Form ENG 4345) may be used as the
notification but must clearly indicate
that it is a PCN and must include all of
the information required in (b) (1)-(19)
of General Condition 13. A letter
containing the requisite information
may also be used.
(d) District Engineer's Decision: In
reviewing the PCN for the proposed
activity, the District Engineer will
determine whether the activity
authorized by the NWP will result in
more than minimal individual or
cumulative adverse environmental
effects or may be contrary to the public
interest. The prospective permittee may,
optionally, submit a proposed
mitigation plan with the PCN to
expedite the process and the District
Engineer will consider any proposed
compensatory mitigation the applicant
has included in the proposal in
determining whether the net adverse
environmental effects to the aquatic
environment of the proposed work are
minimal. If the District Engineer
determines that the activity complies
with the terms and conditions of the
NWP and that the adverse effects on the
aquatic environment are minimal, the
District Engineer will notify the
permittee and include any conditions
the District Engineer deems necessary.
Any compensatory mitigation
proposal must be approved by the
District Engineer prior to commencing
work. if the prospective permittee is
required to submit a compensatory
mitigation proposal with the PCN, the
proposal may be either conceptual or
detailed. If the prospective permittee
elects to submit a compensatory
mitigation plan with the PCN, the
District Engineer will expeditiously
review the proposed compensatory
mitigation plan. The District Engineer
must review the plan within 45 days of
receiving a complete PCN and
determine whether the conceptual or
specific proposed mitigation would
ensure no more than minimal adverse
effects on the aquatic environment. If
the net adverse effects of the project on
the aquatic environment (after
consideration of the compensatory
mitigation proposal) are determined by
the District Engineer to be minimal, the
District Engineer will provide a timely
written response to the applicant stating
that the project can proceed under the
terms and conditions of the nationwide
permit.
If the District Engineer determines
that the adverse effects of the proposed
work are more than minimal, then he
will notify the applicant either; (1) That
the project does not.gpal-i r. for
authorization under the NWP acid
instruct the applicant on the procedures
to seek authorization under an
individual permit; (2) that the project is
authorized under the-NWP subject to
the applicant's submission of a
mitigation proposal that would reduce
the adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to the minimal level; or (3)
that the project is authorized under the
NWP with specific modifications or
conditions. Where the District Engineer
determines that mitigation is required in
-order to ensure no more than minimal
adverse effects on the aquatic
environment, the activity will be
authorized within the 45-day PCN
period, including the necessary
conceptual or specific mitigation or a
requirement that the applicant submit a
mitigation proposal that would reduce
the adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to the minimal level.
When conceptual mitigation is
included, or a mitigation plan is
required under item (2) above, no work
in waters of the United States will occur
until the District Engineer has approved
a specific mitigation plan.
(e) Agency Coordination: The District
Engineer will consider any comments
from Federal and State agencies
concerning the proposed activity's
compliance with the terms and
conditions of the NWPs and the need for
mitigation to reduce the project's
adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to a minimal level.
For activities requiring notification to
the District Engineer that result in the
loss of greater than V, acre of waters of
the United States, the District Engineer
will, upon receipt of a notification,
provide immediately (e.g., via facsimile
transmission, overnight mail, or other
expeditious manner), a copy to the
appropriate offices of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, State natural resource
or water quality agency, EPA, State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
and, if appropriate, the National Marine
Fisheries Service. With the exception of
NWP 37, these agencies will then have
10 calendar days from the date the
material is transmitted to telephone or
fax the District Engineer notice that they
intend to provide substantive, site-
specific comments. If so contacted by an
agency,'the District Engineer will wait
an additional 15 calendar days before
making a decision on the notification.
The District Engineer will fully consider
agency comments received within the
specified time frame, but will provide
no response to the resource agency,
except as provided below. The District
Engineer will indicate in the
administrative record associated with
each notification that the.resource
agencies' concerns were considered. As
required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
District Engineer will provide a
response to National Marine Fisheries
Service within 30 days of receipt of any
Essential Fish Habitat conservation
recommendations. Applicants are
encouraged to provide the Corps
multiple copies of notifications to
ex edite agency notification.
?f) Wetlands Delineations: Wetland
delineations must be prepared in
accordance with the current method
required by the Corps. For NWP 29 see
paragraph (b)(9)(iii) for parcels less than
'A acre in size. The permittee may ask
the Corps to delineate the special
aquatic site. There may be some delay
if the Corps does the delineation.
Furthermore, the 45-day period will not
start until the wetland delineation has
been completed and submitted to the
Corps, where appropriate.
14. Compliance Certification. Every
permittee who has received a
Nationwide permit verification from the
Corps will submit a signed certification
regarding the completed work and any
required mitigation. The certification
will be forwarded by the Corps with the
authorization letter. The certification
will include: (a) A statement that the
authorized work was done in
12896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47/Thursday', March 9, 2000/Notices
accordance with the Cofps
authorization, including any general or all wetland impacts requiring a PCN.
Consistent with National polic
the to submit a compensatory mitigation
l

specific conditions; (b) A statement that
any mqui red mitigation was com
leted y,
District Engineer will establish a
f proposa
with the PCN, the proposal
may be either conceptual or detailed
p

p
in accordance with the permit
d
pre
erence for restoration of wetlands to
meet the minimum compensatory .
'` (d) To the extent a
propriate,
permittees should consider miti
ti

con
itions; and (c) The signature of the
permittee certifying the completion of
mitigation ratio, with preservation used
only in exceptional circumstances ga
on
:banking and other appropriate forms of
c

the work and mitigation.
15. Use of Multiple Nationwide .
(b) To be practicable, the mitigation
must be available and capable of bein ompensatory mitigation. If the District
Engineer determines that compensatory
iti
i

Permits. The use of more than one NWP
for a single and complete project is g
done considering costs, existing
technology, and logistics in li
ht of th m
gat
on is necessary to offset losses of
waters of the United States and ensure
h
h

prohibited, except when the acreage loss
of waters of the Unit
d St
t g
e
overall project purposes. Examples of t
at t
e net adverse effects of the
authorized work on the aquatic
e
a
es
authorized by the NWPs does not
exceed the acrea
e limit of the NWP mitigation that may be appropriate and
practicable include, but are not limited
t
d environment are minimal, consolidated
mitigation approaches, such as
g
with the highest specified acreage limit.
F o: re
ucing the size of the project;
establishing and maintaining wetland or mitigation banks, will be the preferred
method of providin
com
e

or example, if a road crossing over
tidal waters is constructed under NWP
upland vegetated buffers to protect open
waters such as streams; and re
lacin g
p
nsatory
mitigation, unless the District Engineer
d
t
i

14, with associated bank stabilization
authorized by NWP 13, the maximum p
g
losses of aquatic resource functions and
values by creatin
rest
i
h
i e
erm
nes that activity-specific
compensatory mitigation is more

acreage loss of waters of the United
States for the total project cannot exceed g,
or
ng, en
anc
ng,
or preserving similar functions and
values, preferably in the same appropriate, based on which is best for
the aquatic environment. These types of
iti

1/3 acre.
16. Water Supply Intakes. No activity,
watershed;
(c) The District Engineer will require m
gation are preferred because they
involve larger blocks of protected
a
ti
i

including structures and work in
navigable waters of the United St
t
restoration, creation, enhancement, or qua
c env
ronment, are more likely to
meet the mitigation goals, and are more
a
es or
discharges of dredged or fill material, preservation of other aquatic resources
in order to offset the authorized impacts easily checked for compliance. If a
mitigation bank o
th

may occur in the proximity of a public
water supply intake except where the
to the extent necessary to ensure that
the adverse effects on the a
uatic r o
er consolidated
mitigation approach is not available in
h

activity is for repair of the public water
supply intake structures or adjacent q
environment are minimal. An important
element of any compensatory miti
ation t
e watershed, the District Engineer will
consider other appropriate forms of

bank stabilization.
17. Shellfish Beds. No activity, g
plan for projects in or near streams or,
other open waters is the establish
t compensatory mitigation to offset the
losses of waters of the United States to

including structures and work in
navigable waters
of the
United States or men
and maintenance, to the maximum ensure that the net adverse effects of the
authorized work on the aquatic
,
.
discharges of dredged or fill material, extent practicable, of vegetated buffers
next to. open waters on the project site. environment are minimal.
20. Spawning Areas
Activities

may occur in areas of concentrated
shellfish populations
unless the activit
The vegetated buffer should consist of
i .
,
including structures and work in
,
y
is directly related to a shellfish
harvesting activity authorized b
NWP nat
ve species. The District Engineer
will determine the appropriate width of
th navigable waters of the United States or
discharges of dredged or fill material, in
y
4 e vegetated buffer and in which cases spawning areas during spawning
.
18. Suitable Material. No activity, it will be required. Normally, the
vegetated buffer will be 25 to 50 feet seasons must be avoided to the
i

including structures and work in
navigable waters of the United St
t
wide on each side of the stream, but the max
mum extent practicable. Activities
that result in the physical destruction
a
es or
discharges of dredged or fill material,
ma
i
t
f District Engineer may require wider
vegetated buffers to address (e.g., excavate, fill, or smother
downstream by substantial turbidit
) of
y cons
s
o
unsuitable material (e.g.,
trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.) documented water quality concerns. If
there are open waters on the project site y
an important spawning area are not
authorized

.and material used for construction or
discharged must be free from toxic
and the District Engineer requires .
21. Management of Water Flows. To

pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section compensatory mitigation for wetland
impacts to ensure that the net adverse the maximum extent practicable, the
activity must be designed to maintain
307 of the Clean Water Act).
19. Mitigation. The project must be
d effects on the aquatic environment are
minimal, any vegetated buffer will preconstruction downstream flow
conditions (e.g., location
ca
acit
and
esigned and constructed to avoid and
minimize adverse effects to waters of comprise no more than 1/3 of the
i
i ,
p
y,
flow rates). Furthermore, the activity

the United States to the maximum rema
n
ng compensatory mitigation
acreage after the permanently filled must not permanently restrict or impede
the passage of normal or expected hi
h
extent practicable at the project site (i.e.,
on site)
Miti
ation will be re
ui
d wetlands have been replaced on a one- g
flows (unless the primary purpose of the
.
g
q
re
when necessary to ensure that the to-one acreage basis. In addition,
compensatory mitigation must address fill is to impound waters) and the
structure or discharge of dred
ed or fill
adverse effects to the aquatic adverse effects on wetland functions g
material must withstand expected high
environment are minimal. The District
Engineer will consider the facto and values and cannot be used to offset
th
w flows. The activity must, to the
rs
discussed below when determining the e acreage of
etland losses that would
occur in order to meet the acreage limits maximum extent practicable, provide
for retaining excess flows from the site

acceptability of appropriate and
practicable mitigation necessary to
of some of the NWPs (e.g., for NWP 39,
1/4 acre of wetlands cannot be created to ,
provide for maintaining surface flow
rates from the site similar to
offset adverse effects on the aquatic
environment that are more than change a 1/2 acre loss of wetlands to a
1/4 acre loss; however, 1/z acre of created preconstruction conditions, and must
not increase water flows from the
minimal.
(a) Comperisatory mitigation at a
i
i wetlands can be used to reduce the
impacts of a 1/3 acre loss of wetlands). project site, relocate water, or redirect
water flow beyond preconstruction
m
n
mum 1:1 ratio will be required for If the prospective permittee is required conditions. In addition, the activity
Federal Rea I
i,ter/Vol. 65, No. 47/Thursday, March 9, 2000/Notices 12897
must, to the maximum extent
practicable, reduce adverse effects such
as flooding or erosion downstream and
upstream of the project site, unless the
activity is part of a larger system
designed to manage water flows.
22. Adverse Effects From
Impoundments. If the activity, including
structures and work in navigable waters
of the United States or discharge of
dredged or fill material, creates an
impoundment of water, adverse effects
on the aquatic system caused by the
accelerated passage of water and/or the
restriction of its flow shall be
minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
23. Waterfowl Breeding Areas.
Activities, including structures and
work in navigable waters of the United
States or discharges of dredged or fill
material, into breeding areas for
migratory waterfowl must be avoided to
the maximum extent practicable.
24. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any
temporary fills must be removed in their
entirety and the affected areas returned
to their preexisting elevation.
25. Designated Critical Resource
Waters. Critical resource waters include,
NOAA-designated marine sanctuaries,
National Estuarine Research Reserves,
National Wild and Scenic Rivers,
critical habitat for Federally Listed
-threatened and endangered species,
coral reefs, State natural heritage sites,
and outstanding national resource
waters or other waters officially
designated by a State as having
particular environmental or ecological
significance and identified by the
District Engineer after notice and
opportunity for public comment. The
District Engineer may also designate
additional critical resource waters after
notice and opportunity for comment.
(a) Except as noted below, discharges
of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States are not authorized by
NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35,
39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 for any activity
within, or directly affecting, critical
resource waters, including wetlands
adjacent to such waters. Discharges of
dredged or fill materials into waters of
the United States may be authorized by
the above NWPs in National Wild and
Scenic Rivers if the activity complies
with General Condition 7. Further, such
discharges may be authorized in
designated critical habitat for Federally
listed threatened or endangered species
if the activity complies with General
Condition 11 and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service has concurred in a
determination of compliance with this
condition.
(b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19,
22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and
38, notification is required in
accordance with General Condition 13,
for any activity proposed in the
designated critical resource waters
including wetlands adjacent to those
waters. The District Engineer may
authorize activities under these NWPs
only after he determines that the
impacts to the critical resource waters
will be no more than minimal.
26. Fills Within 100- Year Floodplains.
For purposes of this general condition,
100-year floodplains will be identified
through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA-approved
local floodplain maps.
(a) Discharges Below Headwaters.
Discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States
resulting in permanent, above-grade fills
within the 100-year floodplain at or
below the point on a stream where the
average annual flow is five cubic feet
per second (i.e., below headwaters) are
not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40, 42,
43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the
prospective permittee must notify the
District Engineer in accordance with
General Condition 13 and the
notification must include
documentation that any permanent,
above..; ade fills in waters of the United
States within the 100-year floodplain
below headwaters comply with FEMA
or FEMA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
(b) Discharges in Headwaters (i.e.,
above the point on a stream where the
average annual flow is five cubic feet
per second).
(1) Flood Fringe. Discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States resulting in
permanent, above-grade fills within the
flood fringe of the 100-year floodplain of
headwaters are not authorized by NWPs
12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44, unless
the prospective permittee notifies the
District Engineer in accordance with
General Condition 13. The notification
must include documentation that such
discharges comply with FEMA or
FENLA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
(2) Floodwav. Discharges of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United
States resulting in permanent, above-
grade fills within the.floodway of the
100-year floodplain of headwaters are
not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40,--2,
43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the
permittee must notify the District
Engineer in accordance with General
Condition 13 and the notification must
include documentation that any
permanent, above grade fills proposed
in the floodway comply with FEMA or
FEMA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
D. Further Information -
1. District engineers have authority to
determine if an activity complies with
the terms and conditions of an NWP.
2. NWPs do not obviate the need to
obtain other Federal, State, or local
permits, approvals, or authorizations
required by law.
3. NWPs do not grant any property
rights or exclusive privileges.
4. NWPs do not authorize any injury
to the property or rights of others.
5. NWPs do not authorize interference
with any existing or proposed Federal
project.
E. Definitions
Best management practices: Best
Management. Practices (BMPs) are
policies, practices, procedures, or
structures implemented to mitigate the
adverse environmental effects on
surface water quality resulting from
development. BMPs are categorized as
structural or non-structural. A BMP
policy may affect the limits on a
development.
Compensatory mitigation: For
purposes of Section 10/404,
compensatory mitigation is the
restoration, creation, enhancement, or in
exceptional circumstances, preservation
of wetlands and/or other aquatic
resources for the purpose of
compensating for unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable avoidance
and minimization has been achieved.
Creation: The establishment of a
wetland or other aquatic resource where
one did not formerly exist.
Enhancement: Activities conducted in
existing wetlands or other aquatic
resources which increase one or more
aquatic functions.
Ephemeral stream: An ephemeral
stream has flowing water only during,
and for a short duration after,
precipitation events in a typical year.
Ephemeral stream beds are located
above the water table year-round.
Groundwater is not a source of water for
the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the
primary source of water for stream flow.
Farm tract: A unit of contiguous land
under one ownership which is operated
as a farm. or part of a farm.
Flood Fringe: That portion of the 100-
year floodplain outside of the floodway
(often referred to as "floodway fringe."
Fooodway: The area regulated by
Federal, state, or local requirements to
provide for the discharge of the base
flood so the cumulative increase in
water surface elevation is no more than

P/ 3oa^0039
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CC, MS
K$4
NCDENR
January 3, 2001-s _
Mr. Marc SeeIinger
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
MAIN % 2 2001

Subject: Proposed Pott Creek Mitigation Plan, Lincoln County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Seelinger:
This letter is in reference to the Pott Creek Mitigation Site Plan listed above. The
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. We understand that the NC Department of Transportation wishes to use this
site mitigation for highway project impacts in the Catawba River Basin. The DWQ offers
the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
1. The plan appeared to be very conceptual. There was not enough evidence in the file
to determine that stream restoration would be achieved. Please refer to the DWQ
Guidance documents for detail. These can be downloaded from our website
[http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/NDbranch/wetland/strm0aide.html].
2. The plan does not address whether cattle will be excluded from the creek. It was not
addressed in the design (Appendix L) and noted generally in Section 72 Erosion
Control Measures.
3. Please provide explanation/clarification of the Functional Capacity Index (mentioned
in Section 3.2) and how it is used.
4. The design plans lack detail. The plan indicates that instream structures are not
planned for this project? How was that determination made?
The monitoring protocols are extremely vague. Please note that DWQ guidance is
also provided for monitoring benthic m acroi n vertebrate community structure on the
website. These surveys need to be conducted at appropriate monitoring locations
prior to and post construction. The monitoring plan should also the biological
laboratory conducting the surveys.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. A formal request for a Nationwide
Permit 27 (DWQ Water Quality Certification No. 3257) requires three copies and the
application fee. We would request a visit to the mitigation bank site If you have any
questions; please contact either myself or Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
Sincerely;
R. Dorney
r Ouality Certifi ation Program
cc: Steve Lund, USACE
David Cox. NCWRC
Marella,Buncick, USFWS
Central Files
<;
�:
i
1:
.l ' -.'`�
f.
#.
�
{
f:
{:
f
:'.I
"�.
I
I
i

W cn
L
-
? U LPL
f?/
/1? CC
Q? U G a°i O
C: m m C) CD
O
U O - c c

co -t Z _GQQ
I= s s
C: _0 _0
_0 _0
Q +-+ a) cl d ii [i
^
+
L.L O
c
G I O
O
M

s
aj?
C .
a Y
9
?
i [
Ah,

? i'
Irk -

v
e
N. 4

4 ?
e
)

0
Q
17

+`., ?` r,'C. ',mss,: ?' - •^- y
AJ
?.. # '? ?"?
?_ ` .vim ?? S , ? T? ? '? ? ?' 1
?'•Y
?
4 'R.
' -
!.
.
4"'
a?G-w t?.yf f.4

14

F
"
i
7f
t ?i-;yc'
?'".0 ?.
4' ?
•. s. _ ? - .:. ?t„
?:'` E t?4
'
a
`.
+
e
•
'-?
?..
y y
L
?
..y?
a ?C
?:.5! S? a 51 ',1... K. :}'?`...+? ? `Y3'X J'?S' . <• -? _ f-,r ?F ? Lriti
VS

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjectlSite: Pott Creek Project No: Pott C
Applicant/Owner: Marsh Resources, RK&K
Investigators: MRI, RK&K
Date: 27-Jun-2001
County: Lincoln
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Scrub shrub wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? es Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes S Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) Southeastern portion of site
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
e an ra v?rginica er oe mena cy77nnca er +
Arum,Arrow False- ett e, ma I- pi e
uncus a usus er + ep a an us occ? en a is er
ZMT-
Rush,Soft Button ush, ommon
o ygonum sage a um Herb a anus occi en a is Tree -
eartumb,Arrow- ea ycamore, mencan
i c e a repens er + runus sera ina ree FAG=
Partridge-Berry erry, ac
raxinus pennsy vanica Tree FACW u us e u ffo ius ru
s reen Blackberry
a ix nigra ree OBL
Willow, lack

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 9/11 =81.82% FAC Neutral: 8/10 = 80.00%
Numeric Index: 23/11 =2.09
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs YES Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data
- NO Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations YES Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: = 2 (in.) YES Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) NO Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Page 1 of 2 WetFormtm
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Marsh Resources, RK&K
MRI, RK&K
SOILS
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
Remarks:
Page 2 of 2
ng
No:
County: Lincoln
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 1
WetFormll

Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name Nearest Road t? ICV1J ?s ?$,
County (NCcl n Wetland Acreage Wetland-Width -EFD@t)--s? ?.
Name of Evaluator VE v , n w\? e P -J & QC.1 J? Date 1kne aZ ? , ado 7
I if Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/S mile upstream, upslope or

• On pond or lake radius)
0 On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation -6 0 %
• On intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban _?SQ %
•' Within interstream divide • Impervious surface 10 %
• Other
Soil Series DoMinant Vegetation

• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
Peat
(2) ,
O l t U (3'?
• Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
; e=t' S U
J_(
• Predominantly sandy (3) j l n uC
S
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
• Ditched or channelized Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
J adwater fore
wamn forest ( MOn
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
R A TTNG-
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage GZ X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization _ X 4.00 = 1 a
4 Pollutant removal X 5.00 =
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 = q
O
Aquatic life value X 4.00 = a
^
Recreation/ Education o"2 X 1.00 =
COMMENTS: Mn ct. A; ? ;n)k o(n',
L.. _N11
RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower
. ss
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Tv# C>rak, Date: ?/f d
Applicant/Owner' e?,ev?lrt? V_
_MM-4 Z1 Investigator: wv? &Y.Zjf County: _LitAw V\ •
State: 1 G
.Da Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID: TZI.
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: zc"To t
Is the area a-potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:?
w?
I
11
If needed, explain on reverse. ,
0twin.&A

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecfes Stratum Indic
t

- 'Nr e u IE}nU tM a
or
9.
n
2. ?t tArt? var IV •IyttC {- 10.
FA 11.
4.?tJtOf?M ivlll?l '?-?? _[I_
5. 12.
13.
6. ZLt 1 2 X1/1 E7?
?
? 14

7. -
? -
LL -----LL
! rI1tW .
15.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
Y.
(excluding. FAC-
Remarks;
-
LL ?Zbu_zt

_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines

Field Observations: _
Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.} _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
'-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil: ^ rlZt? (in.) - FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
B2 Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
SOILS
Map Unit Name (??
(Series and Phase): rL t
Drainage Class: 5

Taxonomy (Subgroup):
T7 V. Field Observations.

Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moiistl
Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(Munself Moist) Size/ContrasE Structure . .t
17-
2-11 10 2 SYR.2 `lILI Gnu ,
?•SyZ g/J Sit„ l
Hydric Soli Indicators:
_ FGstosol
Hstic Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic 0dor
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Organic Streaking In,Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local,Flydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
?Gleyed orLovtChroma Colors _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION

11 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? a No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
- . --]I
Hydric Soils Present? es No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks: n
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms B3
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name Nearest Road 141 I 1 t S?V) ??'?
County L1 h Co? Wetland Acreage 0. 2- Wetland Width (Feet)
Name of Evaluator 2.v tv\ V nv\ {N. Date :7 1101 b
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
Q On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation -5 0 %
• On'intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban q D _%
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface 10 %
• Other
Soil Series Che_wzclz Dominant Vegetation
(1) V ?/1T YU ?Pnfl} Yet
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or g
`"? 1
??
Peat (2) ?
A VA
• Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
A
• Predominantly sandy. (3) ,4_J ,z, °A'14 tG,
IyvvID
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
O Ditched or channelized • Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet • Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage Z X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization Z X 4.00 = Q
U
Pollutant removal 1 -a X 5.00 = 2.5
Wildlife habitat 4 X 2.00 = Q
Aquatic life value Z- X 4.00 = U
Recreation/ Education 3 X 1.00 = 3
RATING VALUES:
----------- -

3?.5
COMMENTS:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower
yeNV sw-cd W41"
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name ?? t i tX Nearest Road
County_L in be) 1 Vi Wetland Acreage 0'13 Wetland Width (Feet) 57 0
l y1 V1 t?Lr Date l0 ! d
Name of Evaluator Le"i
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within V2 mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
O On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 50 %
• On intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban 0 %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface fl) %
• Other
Soil Series omrnant Vege ation
t
(1) W4
j ur ?aG? 1. ?
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or -
?
Peat (2) w
? L4 `A 4/1k.
• Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
• Predominantly sandy (3) ?
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
• Ditched or channelized • Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_Bottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest.
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage 2 X 4.00 = g
Bank/Shoreline stabilization X 4.00 =
Pollutant removal X 5.00 =
2-5
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 =
Aquatic life value L X 4.00 = p?
Recreation/ Education .3 X 1.00 = 3
RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower

3`J•5
COMMENTS:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: - (nal' Date: N7/ A
Applicant/Own r,. 1y1 County:
Investigator: T n J u u tAOA" State:
-flo Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No
' Community ID:
Es the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transec ID: A6-.rtA At"
Is the area a-potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID. 0
Of needed, explain on reverse.

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecles Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species St
t

1. i 21 i??? ra
um Indicator
s.
2. _ t o.
3. L 11.
4..
_ 12.
5. -
UMQ&AA11
13.
6,
14.
is

8. .
i 6.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC o?
(excluding FAC- . W
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
_Other
No Recorded Data Available Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
•
ld Sediment Deposits
Fie
Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
f
th
D
f S
f
-IZ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
ep
o
ur
ace Water:
(fn.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
t _ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
B2 Appendix B Blank and Exam pie Data Forms
SOILS
Map Unit Name ii
S
i
Ueu)
'
er
(
es and Phase): Dralnage
Class: acs i .?(??
pp "
Taxonomy (Subgroup); ??UU??Iai>t,?
` y? ( h Y
IJ,A Vt7 d" Field Observations. Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color
(inches) I forizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Size/Coritrast Structure, etc.
A_ _76VU/

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Hstosol ' _ Concretions
_, Hstic Epipedon _ Hgh Organic Content In Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
- Suifidic Odor -Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
'7
C Listed on Local.Hydric Soils List
Reducing
onditions
:ZGl
d
L
Ch
l
C _ Listed on National Hyde c Soils List
eye
or
ow
roma
o
ors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION `
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?. No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? a No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? a No
Remarks:
J
Approved by HOUSACE 3192
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms B3
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name 114 Gt-e_ ? Nearest Road
County t-1 ?G('b V\ Wetland Acreage D - l q Wetland Width (Feet)-745_
Name of Evaluator Ve-v? ? I V UW?L? Date
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/z mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
Q On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 5 0 %
• On'intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban HO %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface It %
• Other
Soil Series nn porninant Vegetation
(1) I?1Ck1? ?sT r'/Vvv\
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
2
h Qt ?M 5 5
I&
J
Peat (
) w
i
Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
o 1
Le
--S
1 wr
• Predominantly sandy. (3) e, r
-
y
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
O Ditched or channelized O Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood'forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage Z- X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization -3 X 4.00 = Z
Pollutant removal Z- X 5.00 = D
Wildlife habitat If X 2.00 = c?
Aquatic life value 3 X 4.00 = z
Recreation/ Education X 1.00 = 3
RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower
- 53
COMMENTS:
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name Nearest Road l I I t & RY/I
County Ir1tilt Wetland Acreage D -7 Wetland Width (Feet)
Name of Evaluator t?=-V I U\ Null vw \ Date
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within Vi'mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 5 0 %
• On intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban 40 %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface -W-%
• Other
Soil Series Dominant Vegetation

• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
tnh
e
T" $
Peat (2) r
J?
Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
4r'7 i
L"
• Predominantly sandy. (3) -
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
Q Ditched or.channelized Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet • Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
R?ttnmlanri harriwnnrl forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Water storage 2 X 4.00 =
8
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 X 4.00 =
12...
Pollutant removal Z X 5.00 =
0
Wildlife habitat x 2.00 =
Aquatic life value 3 X 4.00 =
lZ
Recreation/ Education 3 X 1.00 =
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
RATING VALUES: .

High=60 or higher
Medium(High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Law=39 or lower
53
COMMENTS:
BURKE COUNrY In Cooperation with
SOIL SURVEY Burka Sall & Water
Conservation District
NC Dept of Environment
and Natural Resources, and
USDA, Naturai Resources Consetvation Servlee
Human Resource Center
700 E. Parker Road
Room 104 .
Morganton, NC 28855
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
April 11, 2001
Richard K. Mogensen
Marsh Resources, Inc.
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NO 28115
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
This letter reports the findings from my evaluation of the soils mapping for the Pott
Creek Wetiand project in Lincoln County.
At the request of Tim Baumgartner, Environmental Scientist with Rummel, Klepper &
Kahl, I met with you, Tim, and Gary Jellick to examine the property along Pott Creek looking to
validate previous soil mapping for the area.
The Soil Survey of Lincoln County, North Carolina shows the flood plain along Pott
Creek on this property to be in the Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded map
unit. The description of the map unit in the report says these soils are somewhat poorly drained,
on flood plains, and are frequently flooded (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any
year) for brief periods (2 to 7 days).
The site project's consulting soil scientist identified an area of inclusion of poorly
drained/hydric soils in the Chewacla map unit. This delineation begins adjacent to the road (SR
1008) and extends west along the base of the upland slope approximately 1100 feet as shown on
the project map. From my examination, I agree that there are poorly drained/hydric soils within
this delineation.
X011 eV81U8tI0n5 Of other random m r spots ri h iii u 2 pivje?k area that appea red to have
wetland hydrology and vegetation (outside of the "hydric" delineation) supported the non-hydric
Chewacla map unit.
If I can be of further assistance please let me know. I am a certified by the US Army
COE in wetland identification and delineation and a licensed soil scientist by the State of NO.
Si rely,
David T. Knight
Mooresville Regional Soil Scientist
NC Division of Soil & Water Conservation
COASTAL
RESOURCES
wC.
2988 Solomons Island Road
Edgewater, MD 21037
410-956-9000
410-956-0566 (Fax)'
August 28, 2000
Mr. Richard Mogensen
Marsh Resources, Inc.
236 Transco Road
N-10oresville, NC. 28115
Re: Potts Creek Wetland Mitigation Site
Soils Flapping, Lincoln County, ITC
Deal- Mr. Mogensen:
Coastal Resources, Inc. (CRI) has completed a soils evaluation and field mapping of soil types on the
proposed wetland mitigation site, a 50+ acre parcel located in the floodplain of Potts Creek in
noalicentral Lincoln County, North Carolina. The purpose of this investigation was to verify and refine
the accuracy of soil map units as shown in the Soil Survey of Lincoln County.
Summarv
The entire floodplain of the site is mapped as Chewacla loam 0-2 percent slope, frequently flooded
(ChA) in the Soil Survey of Lincoln County. Chewacla soils formed in recent alluvium derived from
metamorphic and igneous rocks, and are somewhat poorly drained. The Chewacla series is classified as
hydric, in \Torth Carolina by the Natural Resources Conservation Service `1IRCS) based on the
frccluency and duration of floodingg.
Soil profiles from twelve, hand-auger borings were examined and described to assess soil characteristics
throut,hout the site. The soil borings were typically advanced to a depth of 60 inches or until
graundwater was encountered. We found that the majority of soils on the site closely resemble the
official series description (OSD) prepared by the NRCS for Chewacla soils. Approximately 28 acres of
tlic site contain Chewacla soils. Inclusions of dissimilar soils were also identified on the site, including
approximate 8 acres of poorly drained soils (Wehadkee series), and, approximately 15 acres of well
drained. soils (Riverview series).
We also observed a.number of drainage ditches throughout the site, and a man-made levee along the
banks of Potts Creek. The ditches and flood control measures appear to have altered drainage to
promote agricultural use of the site: It is our opinion that elimination of the drainage ditches and
breeching the levee would re-establish frequent flooding for long duration on the site, and therefore
restore the hydrology to drained, hydric soils under criterion 4 of the Criteria for Hydric Soils,
established by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (2000).
Poas.Creck
Copies of the soil profile descriptions, boring location plan, and official series description.for the
Chewacla, Wehadkee, and Riverview soils are enclosed. The boundary of Chewacla soils on the site
has been delineated in the field using pink, wire pin flags. We understand that your engineer will survey
the location of these flags for accurate representation on the site plan.
If you have any questions concerning our findings, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Coastal Resources, Inc.
Gary.Jellick
Certified Professional Soil Scientist
ARCPACS No. 1717
j encl.
cc; Mark Seelinder (RKK-Raleigh)
1

l
Jun-25-O1 01:04P Coastal Resources, Inc- 4109560566
1
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P-02

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-2
DATE: 8/14101
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE.:
50
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG: A rostis, few Pas alum

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
I 7.5YR4/4 Mica
6-20 I 5YR414 Mica
20-28 cl 5Y416 F1F Mnsoft
28-32 sicl 5YR411 C3P
32-40 cl 2,5Y2.5/1
40 fscl 2.5Y2.512

TEXTURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
I -loam sicl -silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sit - silt loam scl -sandy clay loam
sl - sandy loam sc - sandy day f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
cf - clay loam s - sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f - fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
un-25-O1 01:04P Coastal Resources, Inc- 4109560566
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P-03

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-3
DATE: 8/14101
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
32
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG: A rostis, few Flatsed e

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-4 1 12 7.5YR413
6-12 cl 27 7.5YR4/4
12-20 d 30 5YR416 7.5YR513 C2D 10% Mn soft
20-30 scl 20 5YR4/6 7.5YR5/3 M3P 25 Mn
30+ fscl 25 2.5Y412

TEXTURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
1 - loam std - silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sit -silt loam scl - sandy clay loam
sl - sandy loam sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
cl - clay loam s - sand m - many (>20%) 3 -coarse (>f 5) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f - fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
un-25-O1 01_05P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION I
P.04

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTYI
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-4
DATE: 8114101
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
42
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG. as alum, bottlebrush

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-5 I 15 7.5YR414
5-18 cl, 25 5YR4/4
18-36 sicl 30 5YR4/4
20 36-48 SIC[ 35 7.5YR416 10YR512

TEXTURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
I - loam sicl -silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sit -silt loam scl -sandy clay loam
st - sandy loam sc. - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
cl - clay loam s -sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f -fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
Jun-25-01 01:05P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
1
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
1
i
P.05

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-5
DATE: 8114/01
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood fain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
[CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG:

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-4 1 10 7.5Y
4-16 1 15
18-24 sl 10 30% man soft Mn
24-34 sl 15 10YR5/3 10 Mn
34-48 si COWS 30

REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
TEXTURAL CLASS:
I - loam sici -silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sil - silt loam scl . sandy clay loam
sl -sandy loam sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty day Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
cl - clay loam s -sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f - fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Tnc.
un-25-O1 01:05P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
l SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
I •
P-06

PROJECT:
Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-6
DATE: 8/14/01
LANDSCAPE
POSITION:
Flood lain SLOPE!
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG:
water hemp, ironweed, soft rush, of onum h dro i eroides, carex s p., flatsed e

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %a
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-6 1 15 7.5Y3/1 C2P Mn and redish brown alon ores
6-18 cl 25 7.5YR4/4 7.5YR512 C2D
18-30 cl 25 7.5YR4/6 C20 Mn masses
30-46

rURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
I -loam sicl - silty clay loam Abundance Size:
sil -silt loam scl - sandy clay loam
sl - sandy loam sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm)
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 --medium (5-15)
cl - clay loam s -sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (> 15)
c - clay
Modifiers: f -fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Contrast
f- faint
d- distinct
p- prominent
CoastaZ Resources, Inc.
Jun-25-01 01:06P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
1.
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P.07

PROJECT:
Potts Creek COUNTY(
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-7
DATE: 8114101
LANDSCAPE
POSITION:
Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG:
soft rush, ironweed

REMARKS: same as B-6 except sl throughout A/B
B-8 - no redox within 36"

HORIZON DEPTH.
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-6 sl 10
6-20 sl 10
20-34 sl 10
2C 34 sicl 28 same as C

TURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
I -loam sicl -silty clay loam Abundance Size:
sil -silt loam scl - sandy clay loam
sl -sandy loam sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm)
sic - silty day Is -loamy sand c- common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15)
cl -clay loam s - sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse M 5)
c - clay
Modifiers: IF -fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Contrast
f- faint
d- distinct
p- prominent
Coastal Resorcrces, Inc.
Tun-25-01 01:06P Coastal Resources, Inc.
l Series Description - CHEWACLA Series
LOCATION CHEWACLA NC+AL FL GA MS SC TN CIA
Established Series
Rev. AG
07/1999
CHEWACLA SERIES
4109560566
P-08
http://www.statlab.lastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/C/CHEWACLA.htmi
The Chewacla series consists of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on flood plains.
They formed in recent alluvium washed largely from soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite,
and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about Q
inches, and mean annual temperature is about 59 degrees near the type location.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Chewacla loam--cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 8 inches; brown (1 OYR 4/3) loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; few fine flakes of mica; few
small pebbles; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 10 inches thick)
Bw1--8 to 14 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; few fine
flakes of mica; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bw2--14 to 24 inches; yellowish brown (1OYR 5/6) silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
common fine flakes of mica; few fine prominent light brownish gray (10YR 612) iron depletions and few fine distinct
strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation,; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bw3-24 to 34 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few
fine flakes of mica; common fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation and light
brownish gray (10YR 612) iron depletions which increase in amount with depth; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
(Combined thickness of the Bw horizons is 6 to 60 inches)
Bg--34 to 58 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) silty clay loam; massive; friable; few fine flakes of mica; few fine
black and dark brown concretions; many fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 516) soft masses of iron accumulation;
strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 50 inches thick)
Cg--58 to 70 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) stratified sand and extremely gravelly sand; common flakes of
mica; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Burke County, North Carolina; 5 miles northwest of Morganton, North Carolina; along North
Carolina Highway 126; approximately 450 feet east and 70 feet north of Canoe Creek bridge.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 15 to 70 inches. Depth to bedrock is 5 feet to more
than 10 feet. Few to many mica flakes are throughout the soil. Content of coarse fragments is less than 5 percent by
volume in the A and upper B horizons. In some pedons, gravel content ranges to 15 percent by volume in the lower B
horizons. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid to slightly acid to a depth of 40 inches except for soils that have
been limed. Below 40 inches reaction ranges from very strongly acid to mildly alkaline. Concretions are few to
common in some pedons.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 1 to 6. Al or Ap horizons with value less
than 4 are less than 7 inches thick. The A horizon is fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or clay loam.
The Ab horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to 5, and chroma of 1 or 2. Texture is fine sandy
loam, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand.
The AB or BA horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8. It is loam, silt
loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam.
The Bw horizon has hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and dominant chroma of 3 to 8. Iron depletions of chroma 2
8125/00 12:32 PM
1 of 3
Jun -25-01 01_07P Coastal Resources, Inc_ 4109560566 P_09
lal Series Description - CHEWACLA Series http://www,statiab.lastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/C/CHEWACLA.html
l or less are within 24 inches of the surface. Masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown, yellow or red are also
j common in the Bw horizon. Some subhorizons are without dominant matrix hue and have iron depletions and
masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown, red and gray. Texture is typically sandy clay loam, sandy loam, fine
sandy loam, loam, or clay loam, silt loam or silty clay loam. Weighted average clay content of the particle size control
section is 18 to 35 percent and sand coarser than very fine is more than 15 percent.
The Bg horizon, where present, is neutral, or has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to-2. Many
pedons contain soft masses of iron accumulation in shades of yellow, brown or red. The texture range is the same as
the Bw horizon.
The BC or BCg horizons, where present, are similar in color and texture to the Bw and Bg horizons respectively.
The C or Cg horizons have colors similar to the Bw and Bg horizons respectively, and are loamy if they are within a
depth of 40 inches. Below 40 inches, texture is variable, ranging from extremely gravelly sand to clay.
COMPETING SERIES: Oakboro is the only other series in this family. These soils have bedrock at depths of 40 to 60
inches.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Chewacla soils formed in recent alluvium on nearly level flood plains along streams that
drain from the mountains and piedmont. Slopes are less than 2 percent. The loamy sediments washed largely from
soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, ph} llite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Mean
annual precipitation is about 48 inches and the average annual temperature is more than 59 degrees F. near the type
location.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Oakboro series, these include the
Buncombe, Cartecay, Chastain, Chenneby, Congaree, Enoree, Riverview, Tawcaw, and Wehadkee series on flood
plains, and the Altavista, Augusta, Roanoke, and Wickham series on stream terraces. Altavista, Augusta, Roanoke,
and Wickham soils have argillic horizons. Buncombe soils are sand or loamy sand and are excessively drained.
Cartecay and Enoree soils are coarse-loamy. Chastain and Tawcaw soils are clayey. Chenneby soils are fine-silty.
Congaree soils do not have a cambic horizon. Riverview soils are well drained; and Wehadkee soils are poorly
drained.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Somewhat poorly drained; slow runoff; moderate permeability. Most areas flood
frequently, but flooding frequency ranges from rare to frequent.
USE AND VEGETATION: Much of the soil is cleared and is in pasture or cropland. The remainder is in forest. Corn
is the principal crop, and small grains and hay account for most of the remainder. Common trees in forested areas
include yellow poplar, sweetgum, water oak, eastern cottonwood, green ash, blackgum red maple, willow oak, and
American sycamore. Loblolly pines are in some areas that are not subject to frequent flooding. Common understory
plants include river birch, winged elm, hackberry, greenbrier, American holly, black willow, sourwood, eastern and
hophornbeam.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia. The series is of large extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Hall County, Georgia; 1937.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface of the soil to a depth of 8 inches (the Ap horizon).
Cambic horizon - the zone between depths of 8 and 34 inches (the 8w1, Bw2 and Bw3 horizons).
Aquic conditions - periodic endosaturation and redox depletions within a 24 inch depth (Bw2 horizon)
MLRAs: 136,133A, 153A, 153B
REVISED: 915/97, RLV
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
8/25/00 12:32 PM
2of3
Tn -25-01 01:07P Coastal Resources, Inc.
Series Description - CHEWACLA Series
4109560566 P_10
http:ltwww.statiab.iastate.edu/soils/0sd/dat/C/CHEWACLA.htmi
SOI15 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NCO055 CHEWACLA 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 10- 700
11C0296 CHEWACLA 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 10- 700
SOI-5 -F1oodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
NC0055 RARE FREQ 0.5-2.0 APPARENT NOV-APR 60-60
NC0296 COMMON - APPARENT - 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 Clayt -CEC-
NC0055 0- 8 FSL SL 0- 0 95-100 5-20 4- 20
N00055 0- 8 SIL L CL 0- 0 95-100 10-35 5- 30
N00055 B-24 SIL SICL CL 0- 0 95-100 18-35 10- 25
NCO055 24-34 SCL L SL 0-• 0 95-100 18-35 10- 25
l N00055 34-58 SIL CL SICL 0- 0 75-100 18.35 10- 25
N00055 58-70 VAR
NC0296 0- 8 FSL SL 0- 0 95-100 5-20 2- 8
NC0296 0- 8 SIL L CL 0- 0 95-100 10-35 2- 11
j NC0296 8-24 SIL SICL CL 0- 0 95-100 18-35 4- 9
NC0296 24-34 SCL L SL 0- 0 95-100 18-35 4- 9
NC0296 34-58 SIL CL SICL 0- 0 75-100 18-35 4- 9
NC1296 58-70 VAR' - -
SOI-5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
N00055 0- 8 4.5- 6.5 1.-4. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
j N00055 0- B 4.5- 6.'S 1.-4. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
11 N00055 8-24 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
N00055 24-34 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
N00055 34-58 4.5- 7.8 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
1 N00055 58-70 - - - -
NC0296 0- 8 4.5- 6.5 1.-4. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
NC0296 0- B 4.5- 6.5 1.-4. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
NCO296 8-24 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
NC0296 24-34 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
NC0296 34-58 4.5- 7.B .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
NC0296 58-70 - - - -
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
1 of 3 8/25/00 12:32 PM
un-25-01 01:08P Coastal Resources, Inc_
fial Series Description -RIVERVIEW Series
LOCATION RIVERVIEW AL+FL GA NC SC VA
Established Series
Rev. MGM:PGM
0512000
RIVERVIEW SERIES
4109560566
P.11
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/R/RIVERVIEW.html
The Riverview series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in loamy alluvium
on flood plains. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Near the type location, the average annual temperature is about 66
degrees F. and the average annual precipitation is about 58 inches.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluventic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Riverview silt loam--forested. (Colors are for moist soil.)
A:-0 to 6 inches; very dark grayish brown. (10YR 3/2) silt loam; weak medium granular structure; friable; many fine
roots; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (3 to 12 inches thick)
Bw1--6 to 12 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
many fine roots; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bw2--12 to 23 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 414) loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
faces of peds are brown (7.5YR 514); few flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bw3--23 to 31 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 514) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; faces of
peds are brown (7.5YR 514); common flakes of mica; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of
the Bw horizon is 14 to 50 inches.)
BC--31 to 39 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 514) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
few spots of uncoated sand grains; common flakes of mica; few fine distinct yellowish red (5YR 516) masses of iron
accumulations; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick)
C--39 to 70 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 616) loamy fine sand; single grained; loose; few thin strata of darker, finer
textured material; common flakes of mica; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Escambia County, Alabama; 4 miles east of junction of U. S. Highway 29 and Alabama Highway
41 south of Brewton and 1.35 miles east and south on woods road. Site is 10 feet east of road and 0.2 mile north of
Conecuh River in the NW114SE1/4 sec. 5, T. 1 N., R. 11 E.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 24 to 60 inches. Depth to bedrock is more than 60
inches. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid to slightly acid in the A horizon and from very strongly acid to
moderately acid in the Bw, BC, and C horizons. Buried A and/or B horizons, present in some pedons below a depth
of 25 inches, have the same range in color and texture as the A or B horizons. Content of mica flakes ranges from
none to common throughout the solum.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 7.5YR o'r I OYR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 to 6. Horizons with value of 3 and
chroma of 2 are less than 7 inches thick: Texture is very fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam, fine sandy loam, sandy
loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand.
The Bw horizon has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 3 to 6 and chroma of 3 to 8. Some pedons have a subhorizon of
the Bw with hue of 5YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 3 or 4. Iron_ concentrations in shades of yellow, brown, or red
range from none to common. At depths of 24 inches or more, iron depletions of chroma 2 or less range from none to
common. Texture is clay loam, sandy clay loam, loam, fine sandy loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam.
The SC horizon, present in most pedons, has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 to 6. Iron
concentrations in shades of yellow, brown, or red range from none to common. At depths of 24 inches or more, iron
depletions of chroma 2 or less range from none to common. Texture is sandy clay loam, loam, sandy loam, or fine
sandy loam.
Z 01 `3 8125/00 12:34 PM
un-25-01 01:08P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P-12
ki Series Description • RIVERVIEW Series http://Www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/R/RIVERVIEW.htmi
T
The C horizon has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 4 to 8. Iron concentrations in shades of
yellow, brown, or red range from none to common. Iron depletions in shades of gray, brown, or yellow range from
none to common. Texture is loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loamy fine sand, loamy sand, or sand. Strata of finer
or coarser textured material are present in most pedons. Flakes of mica range from few to common.
COMPETING SERIES: Starr is the only known series in the same family. Other competing series in related families
include the Alamuchee, Congaree, Ennis, Pruitton, and Shellbluff series. Starr soils typically have Bw horizons with
hue of 7.5YR or redder throughout. Alamuchee, Ennis, and Pruitton soils have siliceous mineralogy. Congaree soils
do not have a cambic horizon. Shellbluff soils have a fine-silty particle size control section.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Riverview soils are on high parts of flood plains of rivers and streams draining the Coastal
Plain and Southern Piedmont. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. They formed in loamy alluvium. The average annual
air temperature ranges from 61 to 68 degrees F. and average annual precipitation ranges from 50 to 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Bruno, Buncombe, Cahaba, Chewacla, Kalmia,
Ochlockonee, State, Wehadkee, Wickham series. Bruno soils, on slightly higher positions,'have a sandy particle-size
class. Buncombe and Ochlockonee soils are on slightly higher parts of natural levees and are coarse-loamy.
Cahaba, Kalmia, State, and Wickham soils are on adjacent low terraces and have argillic horizons. The somewhat
poorly drained Chewacla soils and poorly drained Wehadkee soils are in slightly lower positions.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained. Runoff is slow. Permeability is moderate. These soils flood for
short periods mostly in winter or early spring months.
USE AND VEGETATION: Chiefly in woodland. Native vegetation is forests of sweetgum, oak, beech, yellow poplar
and loblolly pine.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Coastal Plain and Southern Piedmont of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Virginia. The series is moderately extensive.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Escambia County, Alabama; 1969.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon -- the zone from the surface to a depth of 6 inches (A horizon)
Cambic horizon -- the zone from 6 to 31 inches (Bwl, Bw2, and Bw3 horizons)
Dystric feature -- base saturation less than 60 percent in subhorizons between depths of 25 and 75 cm below the soil
surface
Fluventic feature -- irregular decrease in organic matter content with depth .
ADDITIONAL DATA:
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
AL0022 RIVERVIEW 0- 5 61- 66 200-230 50- 60 100- Soo
SOI-5 F1oodL.FloodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
AL0022 COMMON 3.0-5.0. APPARENT DEC-MAR 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 Clays -CEC-
AL0022 0- 6 SIL L VFSL 0- 0 100-100 10-27 3- 12
AL0022 0- 6 LS LFS 0- 0 90-100 3-10 2- 6
AL0022 0- 6 SL FSL 0- 0 90-100 4-18 .3- 12
AL0022 6-39 SCL SICL L 0- 0 100-100.18-35 4- 10
AL0022 39-70 LFS SL S 0- 0 100-100 4-18 2- 6
SOI-5 Depth -pH- O.M. SAlin Permeab Shnk-Swll
AL0022 0- 6 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
AL0022 0- 6 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 2.0- 6.0 LOW
12 of 3 8/25/00 12:34 PM
un-25-O1 01:09P Coastal Resources, Inc.
ia( Series Description - RIVERVIEW Series
AL0022 0- 6 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
AL0022 6-39 4.5- 6.0 .5-1. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
AL0022 39-70 4.5- 6.0 .5-1. 0- 0 2.0- 6.0 LOW
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
Jof 3
4109560566 P-13
http:/Iwww.statiab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/daUR/RIVERVIEW.htrni
8125/00 12:34 PM
un-25-O1 01:09P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P.14
ial Series Description - WEHADKEE Series http://Www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/WIWEHADKEE.htmi
LOCATION WEHADKEE NC+AL AR FL GA MS SC TN VA
Established Series
Rev. RM:AG
07(1999
WEHADKEE SERIES
The Wehadkee series consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils on flood plains along
streams that drain from the mountains and piedmont. They are formed in loamy sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2
percent. Near the type location, mean annual precipitation is about 48 inches, and mean annual temperature is about
60 degrees F,
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Wehadkee fine sandy loam -- cultivated (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 8 inches; grayish brown (10YR 512) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable; few
flakes of mica; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 14 inches thick)
Bg1--8 to 17 inches; dark gray (10YR 411) loam; common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses
of iron accumulation; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few flakes of mica; moderately acid;
clear smooth boundary. (8 to 20 inches thick)
Bg2--17 to 40 inches; gray (10YR 611) sandy clay loam;-common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft
masses of iron accumulation; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common flakes of mica; moderately
acid; clear smooth boundary. ( 0 to 30 inches thick)
Cg--40 to 50 inches; gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam; common medium faint grayish brown (10YR 5/2) iron depletions
and prominent strong brown (7.5YR 516) soft masses of iron accumulation; massive; friable; common flakes of mica;
moderately acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Catawba County, North Carolina; 1/2 mile south of Witherspoon Crossroads on SR 1801, 3/4
mile east on SR 1807, and 650 feet north of bridge on Hogan Creek.
RANGE IN CHARAC T ERIS T 1CS: Solu i u ickn8ss ranges from about 20 to more than 60 inches. The content of
mica flakes ranges from few to many. The soil ranges from very strongly acid through neutral, but some part of the
10 to 40 inch control section is moderately acid through neutral.
The Ap or A horizon has hue of 1 OYR or 2.5Y or is neutral, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 4. Some pedons have
soft masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown or red. Texture is fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam,
silty clay loam, sandy loam, or silt loam. Some pedons have recent layers of overwash as much as 20 inches thick
that are loamy and variable in color. Many pedons have an Ab horizon that has the same color and texture range as
the A horizon.
The Bg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2. Soft masses of iron
accumulation are in shades of red, yellow, and brown. Texture is sandy clay loam, silt loam, loam, clay loam, or silty
clay loam.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2. Soft masses of iron
accumulation are in shades of brown, red, and yellow. Texture is commonly sandy loam, loam, or silt loam, but in
some pedons the Cg horizon contains stratified layers of sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, loamy sand,
sand, and gravel. Sandy textures are restricted to depths below 40 inches.
COMPETING SERIES: There are no other know. ii* series in this family. Series in closely related families are Bibb,
Chastain, Chewacla, Chowan, Englehard, Hatboro, Kinston, Lee, Mantachie, Mhoon, Muckalee, Rosebloom, and
Una series. Bibb and Muckalee soils are coarse-loamy with siliceous mineralogy. Bibb soils have reaction of strongly
acid or more acid throughout the control section. Chastain and Una soils are clayey and reaction is strongly acid or
more acid throughout the control section. Chewacla soils have dominant chroma of more than 2 in the upper 20
1
I of 3 8125/00 12:24 PM
Jun-25-01 01:10P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P.1b
?al Series Description - WEHADKEE Series http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/dat[WIWEHADKEE.htmi
l inches of the soil. Chewacla soils are Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts. Chowan, Mhoon, and Rosebloom soils are
j fine-silty. The subgroup for Chowan is Thapto-Histic. Englehard soils are coarse-silty and their subgroup is
Humaqueptic. Hatboro soils are mesic. Kinston and Lee soils have siliceous mineralogy and reaction is strongly acid
or more acid throughout the control section. Mantachie soils have siliceous mineralogy and reaction is strongly acid
or more acid throughout the control section.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Wehadkee soils occur on flood plains, along streams that drain from the mountains and
piedmont. Slopes are generally less than 2 percent. Wehadkee soils formed in loamy sediments washed from soils
that formed from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Mean annual..
precipitation is about 48 inches near the type location and mean annual temperature is about 60 degrees F. Mean
annual precipitation ranges from 37 to 69 inches, and mean annual air temperature ranges from 58 to 68 degrees F.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the competing Chewacla series and Altavista, Augusta,
Buncombe, Congaree, Riverview, Roanoke, State, and Wickham series. Altavista, Augusta, Roanoke, State, and
Wickham soils are on terraces and have argillic horizons. Buncombe soils are on flood plains typically beside stream
channels and. are sandy and excessively drained. Chewacla soils are on flood plain positions that are higher or
nearer to stream channels and are somewhat poorly drained. Congaree and Riverview soils are on flood plains
adjacent or near stream channels and are better drained.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly drained and very poorly drained. Runoff is very slow and internal
drainage is very slow. Permeability is moderate. Most areas are frequently flooded.
USE AND VEGETATION. Most of the area is in forest; chiefly water tolerant hardwoods such as sweetgum,
blackgum, water oak, willow, oak, poplar, hickories, beech, and elm. Drained areas are used for pasture, corn, and
hay.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia. The soil is of moderate extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Johnston County, North Carolina; 1911.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - The zone from 0 to 8 inches (Ap horizon)
Irregular decrease In organic carbon with depth
Aquic conditions - redoximorphic features associated with wetness in the zone from 8 to 50 inches (Bg1, Bg2, and Cg
horizons)
MLRA = 133A, 1336, 136, 153A, 153B
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NC0052 WEHADKEE 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 5- 700
NC0233 WEHADKEE 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 5- 700
S0I-5 F1oodL FloodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
N00052 COMMON 0-1.0 APPARENT NOV-MAY 60-60
NC0233 COMMON - APPARENT - 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 C1ay% -CEC-
NC0052 0- 8 FSL L SL 0- 0 95-100 5-20 5- 20
N00052 0- 8 SIL SICL 0- 0 98-100 6-40 5- 35
N00052 8-40 SICL L SCL 0.- 0 99-100 18-35 5- 25
N00052 40-SO VAR - - - -
NC0233 0- 8 FSL L SL 0- 0 95-100 5-20 3- 9
NC0233 0- 6 SIL SICL 0- 0 95-100 6-40 3- 12
1
„'of 3 8125/00 12:24 PM
ioil
t
1
1
I
'yY
I
t
F
1

w1O..t{.
mak'
r
v:
5,
V
e
2>
u J
wo
}
O
O T: 1 CD
CD T
AA qW
_.. i,.
lie
a.
a.
f
Y � / 1
O V ,
O O
r
°`mmo I CD
:) —_
CF) U)
Nr C �-
m CL CD 0 0 0 o a O
o° °11 CD ° ° CD
° i�-t-
• o I ,�CD
n� v O ��Z ° m m m _0CD e --f
® '�Q CnCD-0 00 d Q ° O
go 2.. "DD's CD S CD CD
< CD
CD `� g ni Q (.0 V) CD
Q O c v CD
m e�-F
O �
�• p
CD
CCD

Appendix F
U)
1 ? ? c

U)
Q?
p U U)
a
W J
C
G
Li

o -

°o °c1r)

O
O
M

111
?? ?
}
?
???
r
? ?'4fy?
. • ,...+'JA! '.w`_?'?
P

c..

y
} ! ?. 'yf

I lie"

?
t..>
'?'
O ?
4
?
?
?
J
' P
h
}.
?
` `?! ?'+F ? ?
v• ?
? :l.w ``//
,
? T ? WS
-?

.. 4
f ? `
' hhhhh ,
?
c
,
P3
p
i
r ?f .4• ?

Y R.^Y O yI? 3 ,?-?
a -it .`'r. - Y'E`A "i "•• -,°?i. ;?+?.- _ ..?Cqg4 ??`r
a a' yt, F .itM + ` iy ti \ As B'R'A.
,•,! _ E
? 1
h ?
ff
hh
j, LL
W • t'

.
7. ?
S
'
? ?
`?
?
?^
3!
?
, ?' =
?` YM 1?
?jC lr?? '"
a1i ?C .,3?.,
jtY.•.?
j ?
±j

Appendix G
Appendix H
UTFA
on PA
?
RUMMEL, KLEPPER &. KAHL, LLP
Consulting Engineers
Howard T. Woodall, III P.E.
Design Engineer
5800 Faringdon Place • Suite 105 • Raleigh, NC 27609-3960
Telephone: [phone] • Facsimile: 919-790-8382
E-mail: hwoodall 0 rkkengineers.com
Pott Creek Planting Plan
This wetland mitigation site will involve the establishment of a Piedmont-Mountain Levee
Forest (adjacent to Pott Creek ) natural community that grades into a Piedmont-
Mountain Bottomland Forest community progressing inland perpendicular to the main
stream and eventually transitioning to a Mesic, Mixed hardwood forest located along the
toe-of-slope of the Pott Creek site. Transitional species will be planted between zones to
allow for an ecotone effect. Because of the susceptibility of communities in this
geomorphic position to long-term flooding and /or long-term ponding, the natural
communities are populated with'species adapted to survival under these conditions.
The characteristics of these communities are well documented on pages 44 through 45
and 165 through 171 of the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation, by Schafale and Weakley, published by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC Division of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, in 1990 (herein afterwards referred to as Schafale and
Weakley). Evidence indicates such communities existed onsite and predate the
historical agricultural activities on the project site. The soils in this location are mapped
by the NRCS as Chewacla (Fluvaquentic Dystrocrepts) adjacent to Pott Creek, and
these grade into Wehadkee (Typic Fluvaquent) moving outwards towards the toe of
slope. This is consistent with the community descriptions outlined in Schafale and
Weakley. Additional guidance used in preparing the planting plan includes the Lincoln
County Soil Survey (NRCS, 1995) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program Guidelines for
Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001).
The intent of this restoration planting is to guide vegetative succession to a mature
(trees) stand representative of these communities. Success will be gauged by survival
rates of the tree plantings. With this in mind, the broad diversity of herbaceous and
shrub species in the early successional stages of the project will be dependent on the
seed stock transported to the site by wind and flood water. Species identified on the site
and expected to colonize naturally include:
Common Name Scientific Name
Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata
Blackberry Rubus cuneifolius
Arrow Arum Peltandra virginica
Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Soft Rush Juncus effuses
This strategy of natural colonization will insure even distribution of the more
successionally transient species, while at the same time, allowing the project focus to be
on the ultimate goal of a successful, stable, and natural, mature vegetative community.
In addition, wildlife benefits are of particular interest within the proposed community and
species providing good habitat and food resources have been chosen accordingly.
Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest - Zone A
The Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest community restoration will border the area
adjacent to Pott Creek and extend approximately 25 feet southward away from the
creek. This area has extreme wet and dry conditions caused by the coarse alluvial
deposits of the natural stream levee. The permeability of the alluvial deposits requires
more facultative species to handle the alternating flooding and drying that occurs with
the stream rise and fall. The presence of River Birch (Betula nigra), Sycamore (Platanus
occidentallis), and Box Elder (Acer negundo) is generally indicative of Piedmont-
Mountain Levee Forest.
Species proposed for planting in this zone include:
Common Name
River Birch
Box Elder
Sycamore
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Cherrybark Oak
Hackberry
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Acer negundo
Platanus occidentallis
Quercus michauxii
Quercus pagoda
Celtis laevigata
Piedmont-Mountain Bottomland Forest - Zone B
Moving inland along a gradient perpendicular to the creek, soil permeability is diminished
by a general decrease in sediment grain size and a decrease in the drainage influence
of Pott Creek. Therefore, with the increased distance, soils become saturated to the
surface. The vegetative community responds to the incremental increase in moisture
and grades from the Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest community to a Piedmont-
Mountain Bottomland Forest community. This zone is composed of both Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils. Species will be planted throughout all of Zone B, however, because
the Wehadkee soil is wetter and variety of wetland species are presently colonizing the
site, planting will be more widely dispersed within this area and planting will be
concentrated within Chewacla soils.
Species proposed for planting in this zone include:
Common Name
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Green Ash
Willow Oak
Water Oak
Cherrybark Oak
Hackberry
Scientific Name
Quercus michauxii
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Quercus phellos
Quercus nigra
Quercus pagoda
Celtis laevigata
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) - Zone C
As the slope gradually increases along the southern boundary of the site, changes in the
soil moisture regime are evident. The transition from Piedmont-Mountain Bottomland
Forest to Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) is characterized by the
presence of well-drained, acidic soils such as the Pacolet series, and upland species
less tolerant of flood conditions.
Species proposed for this planting zone include:
Common Name
American Beech
Northern Red Oak
Flowering Dogwood
Tulip Poplar
Scientific Name
Fagus grandifolia
Quercus rubra
Corpus florida
Liriodendron tulipifera
Riparian Fringe - Zone D
In addition to the three community types listed above, a variety of species will be planted
along the riparian fringe of the proposed channel. This zone will extend approximately
10 feet on either side of the channel and will be planted with species tolerant of regular
inundation to provide further stabilization in the channel design.
Plantings proposed for this zone include:
Common Name
Wetland seed mix with mats
Silky Dogwood
Buttonbush
Common Alder
Scientific Name
Corpus amomum
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Alnus serrulata
Vernal Pools - Zone E
Two vernal pools have been included in the design and will be planted with shrubby
species tolerant of flood conditions. Habitat structures such as rocks and snags will be
included within the vernal pools to attract and provide habitat for diverse aquatic species.
Plantings proposed for this zone include:
Common Name
Common Alder
Buttonbush
Pickerelweed
Scientific Name
Alnus serrulata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Pontederia cordata
Planting Criteria
Once construction on the site is underway, disturbed areas will be planted with an
annual grass, such as barley (Hordeum spp.) or rye (Secale cereale). This will be used
to increase soil stabilization during the fall and winter months while allowing wetland
species to colonize in the spring.
Species will be planted on 10 X 10 foot centers. Target species quantities will be
adapted from vegetation at local reference sites as well as the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration
Program Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001). A combination of
containerized and bare root seedlings will be planted on the site depending upon
availability and robustness of the species.
F:\WORD\DOCUMENT\300-039\Reports\Pott Creek Planting Plan.doc
r
,{
{

„.
QF wATFiQ Michael F. Easley
`O? OG Governor
Uj r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
,C Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
October 23, 2001 VS
Y TO
Nancy Daly
RKK Engineers
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609

SUBJECT: Pott Creek Mitigation Site
Lincoln County, NC
Dear Ms. Daly:
At your request I am sending you my July 5, 200 1 evaluation of State jurisdictional
streams within the Pott Creek Mitigation Site off Killian Road in Lincoln County. The site has
been modified considerably in the past for agricultural purposes. It was my determination that
the channel flowing along the base of the hill on the south side of the Pott Creek floodplain is a
jurisdictional stream. The channel flowing from the existing offsite pond is also jurisdictional.
The remaining channels on the project would be considered man-made conveyance meant to
facilitate drainage of the floodplain area.
Other comments on the project were coordinated through Jason Guidry with the NC
Wetland Restoration Program in Raleigh.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the Mooresville Regional Office, (704)
663-1699.
Sincerely,
Peter Colwell
Environmental Specialist
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands Unit
Jason Guidry, DWQ Wetland Restoration Program
Steve Lund, USACOE Asheville
Customer Service Division of Water Quality 919 North Main Street Mooresville NC 28115 704-663-1699
O?OF WAj?9QG Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0 C Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
December 18, 2001
DWQ# 01-1690
Lincoln County
Rich Mogensen
Marsh Resources, Inc.
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC, 28115
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to construct wetlands and streams at the Pott
Creek Mitigation Site in Lincoln County, as described in your revised application received by the Division of Water Quality
on November 15, 2001. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this work is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Number 3256, which can be viewed on our web site at htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands . This
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 27 when it is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will
expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sokL the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed. one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
cond?ions fisted in the attached certification as well as the additional condition described below:
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
C.hapfer 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
arry questions, please telephone Peter Colwell in our Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-1699 or Cyndi Karoly in
Raleigh at 919-733-9721.
Sincerely, -
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Attachments
cc. Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office
MooresvOe DWQ Regional Office ;
Central Fi?s
File Copy 4• ,r F
Tommy Peacock, 5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105, Raleigh, NC, 27609-3960
011690
North Carolina Division of Water Quardy, 401.Wetlands Certification Ural,
1650 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (MaOing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (t.ocation)
fill} 777 4 OC l..L.......? n1 M 71" Doe" /{....t •- pl.lf....... ........ .... .... R.........+?.....t../
C
Yle
7 / /
?T ?r?e e_

co/r,- i S s VX .
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Pete Colwell
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Bex Gleason
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Pott Creek Mitigation Site County Lincoln
Project Number 01 1690 County2
Recvd From APP
Received Date 11/15/01
Recvd By Region
Project Type wetland & stream restoration
Certificates
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream
Type Type Impact Score Index
Region Mooresville
Stream
Class Acres Feet
Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
Peren- nittent
nial 27 ? O Y -@N ?- 11-129-3 wSiv ? 30,835. F__ F_ F_-

Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N Recommendation: 0 Issue 0 Issue/fond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 353118 Longitude (ddmmss) 811757 ;
Comments:
This project was reveiwed earlier under DWQ # 01-0156 and the 401 WQC was issued. It ap eap m
that the applicant has revised some of the stream restoration plans. It has been the understanding of
this Office that much of the technical review of the restoration plans has been done through the
Wetland Restoration Program staff and the Mitigation Banking Review Team.
I
c: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
•
Rummel,
Klepper
&. Kahl, LLP
William IC. Hellmann
David W. Wallace
Stephen W. Kagay
Robert J. Halbert
Stephen G. Zentz
Charles M. Easter, Jr.
John G. Mintiens
Joseph A. Romanowski, Jr.
Michael L. Krupsaw
James A. Zito
Geoffrey V. Kolberg
Lars E. Hill
1. Tommy Peacock, Jr.
Michael W. Myers
Martin C. Rodgers
Kenneth A. Goon
Gregory J Lebo
Joseph T. Kavanagh
Richard J Adams, Jr.
John A. d'Epagnier
Barbara J Hoage
Christopher F. Wright
Owen L. Peery
Nancy R. Bergeron
Stuart A. Montgomery
David G. Vanscoy
J. Michael Potter
Henry J Bankard, Jr.
Peter C. D'Adamo
James F. Ridenour, Jr..
5800 Faringdon Place,
Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina
27609-3960
Ph: 919-878-9560
Fax: [phone]
www. rkk-engincers. com
011690
November 15, 2001
Mr. John R. Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Water Quality Certification Program
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Reference: Pott Creek Mitigation Site
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney:

In accordance with our phone conversation, we are submitting, herewith, the
following data forthe required modification to the 401 Water Quality Certification:
1. Seven (7) 401 Water Quality Certification Applications;
2. Seven (7) sets of Preliminary Construction Plans (shts. 1-12); and
3. One (1) check payable to NC Division of Water Quality for the amount
of $475.00.
We trust this data will be sufficient for the required modification of the current
401 certification. Please call if you have questions or need additional information.
Very Truly Yours,
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL, LLP
J, vr/-
J.T. Tommy Peacock, Jr., P.E.
Associate
JTP/HTW/mc
Enclosures
cc: H?0 039/JTP ?nlJ
?
KSL
KTN
NND?
Rich Mogensen (MRI)
F:\WP\DOCU MENT\300-039\Corr\Dorney-001.wpd
Baltimore, MD Raleigh, NC Virginia Beach, VA Richmond, VA
York, PA Norristown, PA Bangor, ME Keyser, WV Washington, DC
011690
?O?
0
OF
WATF?9
QG
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Perm app.htm.
The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm, or contact one of the field
offices listed at the end of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.
The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for some General Certifications is not required,
provided that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet
should contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is also required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on the last page of this application).
"E
Page 1 of 18 _ D
CAMA Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on
the last page of this application) the applicant should also contact the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) at [phone]. DCM will determine whether or not the project involves a
designated Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency.
In such cases, DCM will require a Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Permit and will coordinate
the 404/401 Permits.
USACE Permits - Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office (addresses are listed at the end of this
application). Upon receipt of an application, the USACE will determine if the application is complete as
soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant
to address information needs for all USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as
information required for State authorizations, certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the
information requested on this form will result in a complete application for any of the USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the minimum amount of information that must be
provided for a complete PCN for each USACE Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed.Reg. 12893
(March 9, 2000), available at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/nwpfinalFedReg.RdL
Processing times vary by permit and begin once the application has been determined to be complete.
Please contact the appropriate regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/fees.html. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.
Page 2 of 18
Office Use Only: 1 1bA 9 0 Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ? N/A
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ? N/A
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Marsh Resources Inc.
Mailing Address: Marsh Resources Inc
236 Transco Road
Mooresville. NC 28115
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: Rich.K.Mo:;[e-mail]
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Rich Mogensen
Company Affiliation: Marsh Resources Inc.
Mailing Address: Marsh Resources Inc
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC 28115
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 3 of 18
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Pott Creek Mitigation Bank
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3615-0043-2588
4. Location
County: Lincoln Nearest Town: Lincolnton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The 75 acre site is located where
Killian Road (S.R. 1008) crosses Pott Creek in Lincoln County, North Carolina. The site is
situated on the south side of Pott Creek, west of Killian Road. Pott Creek flows east through
the site into the South Fork of the Catawba River. The site is located north of Reepsville
Road (S.R. 1113), east of Wyant Road (S.R. 1216), and south of Hoover Road (S.R. 1217).
A vicinity map can be found in Appendix A.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°31'18.00571"N, 81°17'57.47740'W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: The site
is presently best classified as open meadow/pasture with wooded buffers . Previously, the
site was utilized for agricultural purposes. Cattle were removed from the site in May of
2000.
7. Property size (acres): 75 acres.
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Pott Creek.
9. River Basin: Catawba River Basin.
Page 4 of 18
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed bank is to
reestablish the wetlands historically associated with the floodplain of Pott Creek. It is
estimated in the next five to ten years, highway construction will impact 55 acres of riverine
and 20 acres of non-riverine wetlands within the Catawba River Basin. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) contracted Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP
(RK&K) in association with Marsh Resources Inc. (MRI) to provide mitigation credits
needed to compensate for projects occurring within the Catawba River Basin. The
Geographical Service Area (GSA) for this project includes those areas within the South Fork
Catawba River Basin, 8-digit _hydrologic unit 03050102.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Bull dozer, rubber tire
backhoe, track backhoe with hydraulic thumb, front end loader and dump trucks.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The site is located in rural Lincoln
County and is surrounded for several miles by agricultural and forested land use areas.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
The RK&K/MRI team previously submitted a Nationwide 27 permit application for the Pott
Creek Mitigation Bank on September 1, 2000 and received authorization, Permit Number
200130081, with attached general and special conditions on October 26, 2000. A copy of the
original USACE permit is included in Appendix B along with NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) comments to the proposed plan.
An MBRT meeting was held on March 28, 2001. The RKK/MRI team received comments from
MBRT members on June 11, 2001 and submitted responses to address agency comments and
concerns on July 23, 2001. Due to the changes made in proposed design plans for the Pott Creek
site, the RKK/MRI team is submitting a second application for NCDWQ 401 Water Quality
certification that reflects updates and revisions to the initial mitigation proposal.
A jurisdictional review of wetland boundaries on site was performed on July 5, 2001. A written
determination has not been issued.
Page 5 of 18
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No additional permit requests are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 1.12 acres.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres.
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (please secify)
Page 6 of 18
I Rip Rap
Stabilization 275 UT to Pott Creek 5 feet Perennial

2 Relocation
(before/after/net
loss or gain)
860/860/0
UT to Pott Creek
5 feet
Perennial

3 Relocation
(before/after/net
loss or gain) 1690/3496/
1806
UT to Pott Creek
5 feet
Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Stream impacts total
2,8251f. The net gain of restored stream reach is 1,8061f (See Appendix G).
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Page 7 of 18
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
No wetlands will be impacted during this project. Stream impacts listed under Section VI-2 are
necessary in order to complete the proposed stream restoration. Upon successful completion of
the project, there will be a net gain of 1,806 linear feet of stream restoration , thereby
outweighing any stream impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Page 8 of 18
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreagellinear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The 75-acre Pott Creek Site is located where Killian Road (S.R. 1008) crosses Pott Creek in
rural Lincoln County, North Carolina. The site is situated on the south side of Pott Creek,
west of Killian Road. Pott Creek flows east through the site into the South Fork of the
Catawba River. The site is located north of Reepsville Road (S.R. 1113), east of Wyant
Road (S.R. 1216), and south of Hoover Road (S.R. 1217) as shown in the vicinity Mqp
included in Appendix A. The Pott Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank is intended to provide
mitigation for those areas located within the 8-digit hydrologic unit 03050102, the South
Fork Catawba River Basin.
Wetlands
No National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands are mapped on the site, however, the
RKK/MRI team assessed wetlands located on the Pott Creek Site on June 26, 2001 and
identified one 0.76-acre Palustrine, Scrub, Shrub (PSS1) wetland located along the
southeastern boundary of the site. Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE reviewed the delineation on
July 5, 2001 and relocated two flags. Mr. Lund also requested additional wetlands along the
toe of slope on the southeastern property boundary be delineated. RK&K performed the
requested delineations and re-surveyed the wetland boundaries. The total area of
jurisdictional wetlands is 1.12 acres. Wetland delineation and evaluation forms and mapping
are included in Appendix C. A written jurisdictional determination is pending
Soils
Using the Soil Survey of Lincoln County as a guide, Gary Jellick, CPSS of Coastal
Resources and David T. Knight, Soil Survey Supervisor, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, NCDENR conducted field assessments of the site's soils. These field
investigations and studies further refined the exact extent of soil series units within the
mitigation area. Both report and letter are included in this submittal (See Appendix D).
Soils contained within the mitigation area were delineated and are primarily Chewacla (ChA)
(34.98 acres) with inclusions of Wehadkee poorly drained/hydric soils (6.57 acres). These
poorly drained/hydric soils are not referred to by name in the correspondence from David
Knight and the Wehadkee Soil Series is not contained in the Soil Survey of Lincoln County,
N.C. Subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Knight indicate that it is appropriate to
refer to this hydric inclusion as Wehadkee because in the Piedmont Physiographic region the
most common hydric unit in Chewacla soils is Wehadkee. Other soil types on the site, but
outside the work area are Gaston (GaD) and Pacolet (PaE). The Gaston and Pacolet soils are
on the upland steep slopes. Soil mapping is included in Appendix E.
Hydrology
The RK&K/MRI Team has completed an extensive search of historic documentation
including aerial photography and other mapping sources. The earliest data is from the mid-
Page 9 of 18
1930's and shows that the agricultural ditches currently present at the site were already
constructed. A review of the available soil mapping and on-site soil investigations shows
that hydric soils or poorly drained/hydric inclusions exist on the site. A field review of the
site clearly shows that a berm was constructed along Pott Creek and exists for a major
portion of the site. This information, as well as other anecdotal evidence, indicates that most
of the site was historically a natural flood plain associated with Pott Creek. Additionally, the
surface morphology at the site, specifically the steeply sloping ground surface north and
south of Pott Creek and the subsurface textural classifications (alluvial deposition which
becomes fines with distance from the stream) indicates that this channel is frequently
flooded.
RK&K installed nine monitoring gauges on the site in May of 2000. To supplement the
existing gauges, two gauges have been installed on the reference site located west of the Pott
Creek property and two transects with up to 5 gauges each will be installed in the mitigation
site. The reference gauges will establish target hydrology goals and the gauges along the two
transects will allow us to develop a detailed hydrograph of the mitigation site. A location
map of existing gauges is included in Appendix F.
The RKK/MRI Team is preparing a hydraulic model of Pott Creek to investigate both the
anecdotal historic and present day flooding characteristics of the Creek. In addition, the
Team is preparing hydrologic estimates and hydraulics models of the unnamed tributaries
that enter the site from the west and southwest. These studies will generate stream
restoration design elements and provide base flow and flood event data to assist in the design
of the wetland mitigation site. This modeling will be used to estimate groundwater
elevations when the agricultural ditches are filled.
Proposed Mitigation
Proposed mitigation for the Pott Creek Site is described below and a plan of proposed
mitigation areas is included in Appendix G. Detailed design plans are attached with this
application.
Wetland Mitigation
RK&K has identified a total of 1.12 acres of wetlands on the property. One 0.76 acre
wetland will be enhanced with woody tree species and 0.36 acres of wetlands located along
the toe of slope on the southeastern portion of the property will be preserved.
In addition, the RK&K/MRI Team proposes 5.45 acres of wetland restoration on the areas of
Wehadkee soil and 22.44 acres of wetland creation on Chewacla soils. An additional 8.88
acres of floodplain buffer/wetland creation is proposed immediately adjacent to Pott Creek.
Should these soils demonstrate wetland hydrology (hydrology within 12 inches of the surface
between 5 and 12.5 % of the rowing season), the RK&K/MRI team will suggest these soils
also be considered restoration.
The wetland miti at?plan specifies minimal surficial grading. The drainage ditches will be
plugged using on-site material generated from the stream restoration construction. The
seasonal high water table is affected by both surface and subsurface inputs. The ability for
Page 10 of 18
the groundwater to remain within the upper 12 inches of the soil matrix is dependant on
physical soil characteristics but also on the amount and availability of groundwater and
normal and storm condition stream flows. Specifically, at a minimum, the water available to
the wetland mitigation site will come from (1) existing unnamed stream channels flowing into
the site, (2) seepage and surface water inputs from the forested and unforested slopes to the
south, (3) plugging of the existing on-site agricultural drainage ditches with on-site materials
generated from the stream restoration component of the project and from (4) overbank storm
flow events within Pott Creek itself.
The species chosen for inclusion in the Pott Creek Planting Plan are based upon three
vegetative communities: 1)Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest, 2) Piedmont-Mountain
Bottomland Forest and 3) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype). The
characteristics of these communities are well documented on pages 44 through 45 and 165
through 171 of the Classi acation of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation, by Shafale and Weakley, published by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Division of Environment, Health, an
d
Natural Resources, in 1990. In addition to these references, a forested reference site will be
used to direct species chosen for planting at the Pott Creek Bank. Additional guidance used
in preparing the planting plan includes the Lincoln County Soil Survey published by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1995) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration
Program Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001). Mapping and a detailed
description of each Zone within the planting plan are included in Appendix H.
Monitoring data from the wetland mitigation reference site, located immediately west of the
proposed site will be used to document the hydrology and vegetation in an undisturbed
Chewacla soil area. The RK&K/MRI Team has permission from Jerry Thomas Wyant, who
owns the adjacent upstream property, to install groundwater monitoring gauges and use any
suitable area on his property for reference study and data collection. The Team has identified
two areas on his property for reference sites. These sites are on virtually identical
topographic positions as the mitigation site and support well-established hydrophytic
vegetation. Groundwater gauge data collected at the reference areas will be used to determine
the appropriate mitigation category (restoration or creation) for similar areas on the proposed
mitigation site.
Streams
In addition to wetlands, the RK&K/MRI team proposes 1,806 linear feet of stream
restoration. The channel will be designed as a Rosgen E5 as a riffle/pool sequence with
channel slopes less than 2% (sand dominated bed with smaller accumulations of gravel and
occasional silt/clay). Mr. Pete Colwell of NCDENR, DWO indicated on a visit to the site on
July 05, 2001 (see Appendix I ) that the existing channel located along the base of the
forested slope and the channel flowing by the offsite pond, located south of the property, are
jurisdictional streams.
Page 11 of 18
Final design will be based upon the findings at the selected reference reach. RK&K proposes
to use an unnamed tributary to Dutchman's Creek, located in Davie County, as a reference
reach for the proposed restoration. This tributary is an E5 stream type, similar to the Pott
Creek Site, with a bankfull cross-sectional area of 31.7 square feet. In addition, we intend to
compare our final calculations for this proposed restoration to the published Piedmont
Regional Curves developed by North Carolina State University for QA/QC purposes. Note
that one of the reaches utilized for development of the curves is located on North Pott Creek.
Upland and Floodplain Forest Preservation
Approximately 21.43 acres of mature forested upland slope area will be preserved and act as a
buffer for the restored bottomland floodplain wetlands. Numerous ephemeral channels and
seeps, as noted on the existing topographic map, conduct surface runoff from the adjacent
uplands currently being used for cattle razing. These intermittent channels direct flow and
provide primary water quality functions prior to reaching the mitigation site. The mitigation
site will provide secondary and tertiary water quality functions as well
In addition to the mature forested upland slope areas, a 3.66-acre mature forested bottomland,
non-wetland, floodplain area, will be preserved in the middle of the site. The floodplain area
will provide habitat, water storage during flood events, water quality functions and
groundwater recharge areas, as the soils are sandy and rather permeable.
Finally, an unforested slope area (approximately 7.91 acres), which is currently vegetated
with fescue, thistle and other undesirable herbaceous species, will be reforested and preserved
as an additional upland buffer. Ultimately, this area will provide similar functions to the
mature forested upland at the front of the site. It will act as a critical buffer between the
existing cattle operation and the restored wetlands. This area is also adjacent to a much larger
contiguous forest, and therefore, is an important link to a much larger forested preservation
corridor.
Mitigation Summary
Wetland: Wetland Restoration (Wehadkee soil): 5.45 Acres
Wetland Creation* : 22.44 Acres
Wetland Enhancement: 0.76 Acres
Wetland Preservation: 0.36 Acres
Floodplain Buffer/Wetland Creation: 8.88 Acres
Floodplain Buffer Preservation: 3.66 Acres
Upland Forest Preservation: 21.43 Acres
Upland Reforestation: 7.91 Acres
Stream: Stream Restoration/Buffer Area: 1,806 linear feet
*Hydrology will be monitored in creation areas to determine if jurisdictional hydrology exists
and can be considered for restoration
Page 12 of 18
Monitoring Plan
Hydrology
The RKK/MRI team will conduct hydrologic monitoring for five years following project
construction through the use of WL40 hydrologic monitoring gauges. RK&K installed nine
monitoring gauges in May of 2000. To supplement this, two gauges have been installed in the
adjacent reference site and two transects with up to 5 gauges each will be installed in the
mitigation site after construction. As noted in the USACE guidelines, the hydrology must be
within 12 inches of the surface between 5 and 12.5% of the rig season. We estimate this
to be 18 days in this region of North Carolina. If the hydrology does not achieve these
requirements, remedial actions will be proposed and implemented.
Vegetation
Restored vegetation will be monitored for a minimum of five years from the initial planting
To determine vegetative target densities, the forested reference site adjacent to the mitigation
site will be inventoried. Permanent, randomly located fixed-area plots 1/10 acre in size will be
established within the shrub and tree planting zones. All plots will be sampled to generate the
number of trees/acre, species composition and percentages. The resulting data, along with a
photographic log of the restoration area will be included in an annual report.
Macrobenthos
RK&K will monitor benthic macroinvertebrates within the stream restoration reach in
accordance with NCDWQ_guidance: Interim, Internal Technical Guide, Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols For Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects
(NCDWQ, 2000). Two monitoring locations within the proposed stream restoration reach
have been selected and sampled for pre-construction, baseline data. Sampling Point 1 is
located on the Unnamed Tributary (UT-1) flowing south by the existing pond and into Pott
Creek. Samples were collected approximately 400 feet upstream from the convergence with
Pott Creek. Sample Point 2 is located on the Unnamed Tributary (UT-2) along the base of
the southward slope, approximately 1,000 feet west of Killian Rd. (SR 1008).
In addition, macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from an approved reference reach.
RK&K proposes to use an Unnamed Tributary to Dutchman's Creek, located in Davie
County on state-owned lands as a reference reach. RK&K has contacted Mr. Pete Colwell
(NCDWQ) to review the proposed reference reach at an on-site meeting on November
16, 2001.
In addition to pre-construction monitoring samples will be collected from the restored reach
for three impost-construction and will be submitted to a certified laboratory
identification . Annual monitoring reports will be submitted detailing total taxa richness, EPT
taxa richness, EPT abundance, and biotic index values.
Preservation Mechanism
The site is presently owned by Marsh Resources Inc. (MRI), a subcontractor of RK&K. MRI
may eventually deed the land to the North Carolina Department of Transportation or to its
assigned land holding entity. This entity may be a nonprofit organization. MRI has
Page 13 of 18
contacted the Catawba Lands Conservancy (CLC) regarding the Pott Creek Mitigation Bank.
CLC has shown interest in providing longterm stewardship to the property. Financial
assurances will be established through performance and maintenance bonds.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 14 of 18
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The entire 75-acre site is covered with vegetation. No impervious acreage exists or is proposed
on the site. No stormwater control structures are proposed, however the peak discharge will be
reduced due to the onsite stream design.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 15 of 18
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Page 16 of 18
NOV-14-2001 15:54
XIV- Other Circumstances (Optional):
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicarifs control).
d? G 1 r`
Applicant/Agent's Signa a Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone; [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret' Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Ponder
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
P. 02/02
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 17 of 18
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 18 of 18
E
s
�
Y
��
i
i
,..
a
1
,.,�.
_,
F
�
i
i
1
i
;i
i
I
1
}
1
...
�.
�,
i
i
is
i
f
i
j
r
L
_
,.
}
+I
7
G
1
'1
��
� �, -
'`
1,
.,

?
Q
CD cu

U? G
O 4,

2
a>
D i a?
w

o m
CO O
z ?¢ -..
f

o
O
N

IV I

L
. !

i
'
?
- ?
f'
?
_ f
?
I s• ja
? ?.?
_ _
? ^
-
.
c
T

5 V'
-0
1
)-
`
i,

.- ? .? , >Z ??- ?
?-_,
??.
'
t? .;?- ? ;
„ •`"'??i A
l
??
? ?
?.
{
9 .,

f _

-
v
i

I

.
" "
,%? .?\ ?
e ? tip"; ? I _` ? ?e ?? ,?\' '?
_ ? - %
- ?j \` ? ?'
"

t.
f,
i
t
i
t
t
I
l
i
1
i
f
i
h
t
f
i't
t
i
f
I
i
f

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
October 26, 2000
I D 3@21W%V
R't I L'?
OCT 2 7 2000 10
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL.
RALEIG-9. MIr
Action ID No. 200130081 and Nationwide Permit No. 27 (Stream and Wetland Restoration
Activities)
Mr. Marc Seelinger..
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27609-3960 ,
Dear Mr. Seelinger:
Reference your application of September 1, 2000 for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to undertake wetland restoration activities on the 75-acre tract of land owned by
Marsh Resources, Inc. located off SR 1008 (Killian Road) adjacent to Pott Creek, approximately
3.5 n311es northwest of_-Linpolntou,- Lincoln Count , North Carolina.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, was provided for activities in waters of the United States associated with the
restoration of former waters, the enhancement of degraded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and
riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas and the restoration
and enhancementof iron-tidal sireams and non-tidal open water areas on private lands.
Your work is "authorized by Nationwide Permit # 27 provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the attached General Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
a. The Permittee shall fully implement the mitigation plan, entitled Pott Creek Mitigation
Plan, Lincoln County, North Carolina, dated August 30, 2000, except as conditioned below.
b. Authorization is provided for construction of the proposed mitigation site and in no way
obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), or any other Mitigation Bank Review Team
member or agency to recognize this project as a mitigation bank.
c. The Corps does not recognize as valid any references to mitigation "credits", service
area or any other issues associated with a mitigation bank contained within the mitigation plan
referenced in Special Condition (a.) above.
d. In order to function as a mitigation bank, all work performed on this site must be in
compliance with an approved mitigation banking instrument (MBI). Any work performed prior
to a final MBI must be brought into compliance with the MBI prior to any credits being released
from the bank.
e. Acceptance of hydrology success criteria of less than 12.5 percent of the growing season
is contingent on the permittee presenting sufficient comparative data from an acceptable
reference wetland site.
You should contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, telephone
[phone], regarding Section 401 Water Quality Certification. This nationwide permit does
not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval. This
verification will be valid for two years from the date of this letter unless the nationwide
authorization is modified, reissued or revoked.
If you have any questions please contact Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
1 0" ?a' 4,
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Marsh Resources, Incorporated
Post Office Box 1396
Houston, Texas 77056
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Ms. Becky Fox
Wetlands Section - Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
Ms. Marella Buncick
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Jeff Jurek
Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Permit Number: 200130081
Name of Permittee: Marsh Resources, Inc./Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Issuance: 10/26/2000
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by
the permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY COE/WILMINGTON DISTRICT
ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by an U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are
subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been
completed in accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required
mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
3
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 47/Thursday, March 9, 2000/Notices 12893
States adversely affected by the project; 6. Regional and Case-By-Case which is likely to jeopardize the
(2) A written statement to the District Conditions. The activity must comply continued existence of a threatened or
Engineer detailing compliance with with any regional conditions which may endangered species or a species
paragraph (b), above (Le., why the have been added by the division proposed for such designation, as
discharge must occur in waters of the engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with identified under the Federal Endangered
United States and why additional any case specific conditions added by Species Act, or which will destroy or
minimization cannot be achieved); (3) A the Corps or by the State or tribe in its adversely modify the critical habitat of
description of measures taken to ensure Section 401 water quality certification such species. Non-federal permittees
that the proposed work. complies with and Coastal Zone Management Act
(c) through o shall notify the District Engineer if any
paragraphs (f), above; and (4) consistency determination. listed species or designated critical
A reclamation plan (for aggregate 7. Wild d Scenic Rivers. No activity habitat might be affected or is in the
mining in isolated waters and non-tidal may occuranin a component of the
wetlands adjacent to headwaters and National Wild and Scenic River System; vicinity of the project, or i located the designated critical habitat and shall
hard rock/mineral mining only). or in a river officially designated by not begin work on tjie activity until
This NWP does not authorize hard Congress as a "study river" for possible notified by the District Engineer that the
rock/mineral mining, including placer inclusion in the system, while the river requirements of the Endangered Species
mining, in streams. No hard rock/ is in an official study status; unless the Act have been satisfied and that the
mineral mining can occur in waters of appropriate Federal agency, with direct activity is authorized. For activities that
the United States within 100 feet of the management responsibility for such may affect Federally-listed endangered
ordinary high water mark of headwater river, has determined in writing that the.. or threatened species or designated
streams. The terms "headwaters" and proposed activity will not adversely critical habitat, the notification must
"isolated waters" are defined at 33 CFR affect the Wild and Scenic River include the name(s) of the endanered
330.2(d) and (e), respectively. For the designation, or study status. Information or threatened species that may be'
purposes of this NWP, the term "lower on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be affected by the proposed work or that
perennial stream" is defined as follows: obtained from the appropriate Federal utilize the designated critical habitat
"A stream in which the gradient is low land management agency in the area that may be affected by the proposed
and water velocity is slow, there is no (e o•, National Park Service, U.S. Forest work. As a result of formal or informal
tidal influence, some water flows Service, Bureau of Land Management, consultation with the FWS or NMFS,
throughout the year, and the substrate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). the District Engineer may add species-
consists mainly of sand and mud." 8. Tribal Rights. No activity or its specific regional endangered species
(Sections 10 and 404) operation may impair reserved tribal conditions to the NWPs.
rights, including, but not limited to, (b) Authorization of an activity by a
C. Nationwide Permit General reserved water rights and treaty fishing
Conditions and hunting rights. g nationwide permit does not authcrize
the "take" of a threatened or endangered
The following general conditions 9. Water Quality. (a) In certain States species as defined under the Federal
must be followed in order for any and tribal lands an individual 401 water Endangered Species Act. In the absence
authorization by an NWP to be valid: wai quality ved (See 33 certification CFR must c obtained or of separate authorization (e.g:, an ESA
1. Navigation. No activity may cause 330.4((c)). Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion
more than a minimal adverse effect on (b) For NWPs 12, 14, 17, 18, 32, 39, with "incidental take" provisions, etc.)
navigation. 40, 42, 43, and 44, where the State or from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure o ibal 401 certification (either or the National Marine Fisheries
or fill authorized shall be properly generically or individually) does not Service, both lethal and non-lethal
maintained, including maintenance to require. or approve a water quality "takes" of protected species are in
ensure public safety. management plan, the permittee must violation of the Endangered Species Act.
3. Soil Erosion and Sediment include design criteria and techniques Information on the location of
Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and that will ensure that the authorized threatened and endangered'species and
sediment controls must be used and work does not result in more than their critical habitat can be obtained
maintained in effective operating minimal degradation of water quality. directly from the offices of the U.S. Fish
condition during construction, and all An important component of a water and Wildlife Service and National
exposed soil and other fills, n well as quality management plan includes Marine Fisheries Service or their world
any work below the ordinary high water stormwater manaement that minimizes wide web pagges at
mark or high tide line, must be degradation of the' downstream aquatic http://www.gs.gov/r9endspp/
permanently stabilized at the earliest system, including water quality. Refer to endspp.html and
practicable date. General Condition 21 for stormwater http://www.nfms.aov/prot_res/
management requirements. Another esahome.html, respectively.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No important component of a water quality 12. Historic Properties. No activity
activity may substantially disrupt the management plan is the establishment which may affect historic properties
movement of those species of aquatic and maintenance of vegetated buffers listed, or eligible for listing, in the
life indigenous to the waterbody, next to open waters, including streams. National Register of Historic Places is
including those species which normally Refer to General Condition 19 for authorized, until the DE has complied
migrate through the area, unless the vegetated buffer requirements for the with the provisions of 33 CFR part 325,
activity's primary purpose is to NWPs Appendix C. The prospective permittee
impound water. Culverts placed in 10. Coastal Zone Management. In must notify the District Engineer if the
streams must be installed to maintain certain states, an individual state coastal authorized activity may affect any
low flow conditions. zone management consistency historic properties listed, determined to
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment concurrence must be obtained or waived be eligible, or which the prospective
working in wetlands must be placed on (see Section 330.4(d)), permittee has reason to believe may be
mats, or other measures must be taken 11. Endangered Species. (a) No eligible for listing on the National
to minimize soil disturbance. activity is authorized under any NWP Register of Historic Places, and shall not
12894 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47 / Thursday, March 9, 2000/Notices
begin the activity until notified by the
District Engineer that the requirements be used to authorize any part of the
proposed project or any related activit sale agreement or other contract for sale

of the National Historic Preservation Act y;
and or urchase has been executed;
(10) For NVVP 31
Maint
f
have been satisfied and that the activity
is authorized
Information on the (4) For NVVPS 7, 12, 14, 18, 21, 34, 38, ,
enance o
Existing Flood (?bntrol Projects, the
.
location and existence of historic 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43, the PCN must .
also include a delineation of affected prospective permittee must either notify
the District En
ineer with
PCN
i

resources can be obtained from the State
Historic Preservation Office and the
special aquatic sites, including
wetlands
ve
etated
h
ll g
a
pr
or
to each maintenance activity or submit

National Register of Historic Places (see
33 CFR 330.4(g)). For activities that ma ,
g
s
a
ows (e.g.,
submerged aquatic vegetation, seagrass
b
d a five year (or less) maintenance plan.
In addition, the PCN must include all of
y
affect historic properties listed in, or
eligible for listing in
the National e
s), and riffle and pool complexes
(see paragraph 13(f)); the following:
(i) Sufficient baseline information so
,
Register of Historic Places, the
notification must state which historic (5) For NWP 7, Outfall Structures and
Maintenance, the PCN must include as to identify the approved. channel
depths and configurations and existing

property may be affected by the
proposed work or include a vicinity information regarding the original
design capacities and configurations of facilities. Minor deviations are
authorized, provided the approved flood

map indicating the location of the those areas of the facility where control protection or drainage is not

historic property. maintenance dredging or excavation is increased;

13. Notification. (a) Timing: Where.
required by the terms of the NWP
the proposed.
(6) For NWP 14, Linear (ii) A delineation of any affected
special aquatic sites, includin
g
,
prospective permittee must notify the
Engineer
District Engineer with a preconstruction Transportation Crossings, the PCi?I must
include a compensatory mitigation wetlands; and,
(iii) Location of the dredged material
notification
as early as possible.
The District Engineer must determine if Proposal to offset permanent losses of
waters of the United States and a? disposal site.
(11) For NWP 33, Temporary

the PCN is complete within 30 days of
the date of receipt and can request the statement describing how temporary
losses of waters of the United States will Construction, Access, and Dewatering,
the PCN must also include a restoration

additional information necessary to
k
h be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. plan of reasonable measures to avoid
and minimize adverse effects to a
uatic
ma
e t
e PCN complete only once.
However, if the prospective permittee
does not provide all of the requested (7) For NWP 21, Surface Coal Mining
activities, the PCN must include an q
resources.
(12) For MVPs 39, 43, and 44, the
P

information, then the District Engineer
ill Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or state-
approved mitigation
lan CN must also include a written
statement to the District Engineer

w
notify the prospective permittee
that the PCN is still incomplete and the p
.
(g) For NWP 27, Stream and Wetland
Restoration
the PCN mu
t i
l
d
- .
explaining how avoidance and
minimization of losses of waters of the
PCIN review process will not commence
until all of the requested information ,
s
nc
u
e
documentation of the prior condition of :..United States .were. achieved on the
r

has been received by the District
the site that will be reverted by the
i p
oject site.
(13) For NWP 39
Residential

Engineer. The prospective permittee
shall not begin the activit
:
perm
ttee.
(9) For NWP 29, Single-Family ,
,
Commercial, and Institutional
D
l
y
(1) Until notified in writing by the
District Engineer that the activity ma
Housing, the PCN must also include:
(?) Any past use of this NWP by the eve
opments, and NWP 42,
Recreational Facilities, the PCN must
i
l
d
y
proceed under the NWP with any
individual permittee and/or the
' nc
u
e a compensatory mitigation
proposal that offsets unavoidable t

special conditions imposed b the
Y
District or Division Engineer; or
permittee
s spouse;
(ii) A statement that the single-family osses

of waters of the United States or
(2) If notified in writing b the District
by
or Division Engineer that an individual housing activity is for a personal
residence of the
Permittee; justification explaining why
compensatory mitigation should not be

permit is required; or
(3) Unless 45 days have passed from
(iii) A description of the entire parcel,
including its size, and a delineation of re uired.
?14) For NWP 40, Agricultural
'

the District Engineer's receipt of the
wetlands. For the purpose of this NWP Activities, the PCN
must include a

complete notification and the ,
parcels of land measuring 1/4 acre or less compensatory mitigation proposal to
offset losses of waters of the U
it
d
prospective permittee has not received will not require a formal on-site n
e
States
.
written notice from the District or
Division Engineer. Subsequently, the
' delineation. However, the applicant
shall provide an indication of where the .
(15) For NWP 43, Stormwater
Management Facilities
the PCN must
permittee
s right to proceed under the
NWP may be modified, suspended
or wetlands are and the amount of
wetlands that exists on the property
For ,
include, for the construction of new
t
,
revoked only in accordance with the
procedure set forth in 33 CFR .
parcels greater than 1/4 acre in size, a
formal wetland delineation mu
t b s
ormwater management facilities, a
maintenance plan (in accordance with

330.5(d)(2). s
e
prepared in accordance with the current State and local requirements, if
applicable) and a com
ensator

(b) Contents of Notification: The
method required by the Corps. (See p
y
mitigation proposal to offset losses of
notification must be in writing and
include the following information: paragraph 13(f));
(iv) A written description of all land waters of the United States.
(16) For NWP 44
Minin
A
ti
iti

(1) Name, address, and telephone
numbers of the prospective permittee;
(including, if available, legal
descriptions) owned by the prospective ,
g
v
c
es,
the PCN must include a description of
all waters of the United.States adversel

(2) Location of the proposed project;
(3) Brief description of the pro
osed
permittee and/or the prospective
ermitt
' y
affected by the project, a description of
p
project; the project's purpose; direct and p
ee
s spouse, within a one mile
radius of the parcel, in any form of measures taken to minimize adverse
effects to waters of th
it
U
d St
t

indirect adverse environmental effects
the project would cause: any other
ownership (including any land owned
as
t e
n
e
a
es, a
description of measures taken to comply

MVP(s), regional general permit(s), or
individual permit(s) used or i
t
d
d a par
ner; corporation, joint tenant,
co-tenant, or as a tenant-by-the-entirety) with the criteria of the NVVP, and a
reclamation plan (for aggregate mining
n
en
e
to and any land on which a purchase and activities in isolated waters and non-
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47 / Thursday, March 9, 2000 /Notices 12895
tidal wetlands adjacent to headwaters
and any hard rock/mineral mining
activities).
(17) For activities that may adversely
affect Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species, the PCN must
include the name(s) of those endangered
or threatened species that may be
affected by the proposed work or utilize
the designated critical habitat that may
be affected by the proposed work.
(18) For activities that may affect
historic properties listed in, or eligible
for listing in, the National Register of
Historic Places, the PCN must state
which historic property may be affected
by the proposed work or include a
vicinity map indicating the location of
the historic property.
(19) For NWPs 12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42,
43, and 44, where the proposed work
involves discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States
resulting in permanent, above-grade fills
within 100-year floodplains (as
identified on FEiViA's Flood Insurance
Rate Maps or FEMA-approved local
floodplain maps), the notification must
include documentation demonstrating
that the proposed work complies with
the appropriate FEMA or FEMA
approved local floodplain construction
requirements.
(c) Form of Notification: The standard
individual permit application form
(Form ENG 4345) may be used as the
notification but must clearly indicate
that it is a PCN and must include all of
the information required in (b) (1)-(19)
of General Condition 13. A letter
containing the requisite information
may also be used.
(d) District Engineer's Decision: In
reviewing the PCN for the proposed
activity, the District Engineer will
determine whether the activity
authorized by the NWP will result in
more than minimal individual or
cumulative adverse environmental
effects or may be contrary to the public
interest. The prospective permittee may,
optionally, submit a proposed
mitigation plan with the PCN to
expedite the process and the District
Engineer will consider any proposed
compensatory mitigation the applicant
has included in the proposal in
determining whether the net adverse
environmental effects to the aquatic
environment of the proposed work are
minimal. If the District Engineer
determines that the activity complies
with the terms and conditions of the
NWP and that the adverse effects on the
aquatic environment are minimal, the
District Engineer will notify the
permittee and include any conditions
the District Engineer deems necessary.
Any compensatory mitigation
proposal must be approved by the
District Engineer prior to commencing
work. if the prospective permittee is
required to submit a compensatory
mitigation proposal with the PCN, the
proposal may be either conceptual or
detailed. If the prospective permittee
elects to submit a compensatory
mitigation plan with the PCN, the
District Engineer will expeditiously
review the proposed compensatory
mitigation plan. The District Engineer
must review the plan within 45 days of
receiving a complete PCN and
determine whether the conceptual or
specific proposed mitigation would
ensure no more than minimal adverse
effects on the aquatic environment. If
the net adverse effects of the project on
the aquatic environment (after
consideration of the compensatory
mitigation proposal) are determined by
the District Engineer to be minimal, the
District Engineer will provide a timely
written response to the applicant stating
that the project can proceed under the
terms and conditions of the nationwide
permit.
If the District Engineer determines
that the adverse effects of the proposed
work are more than minimal, then he
will notify the. applicant either: (1) That
the .project does not.qualify.for
authorization under the NWP acid
instruct the applicant on the procedures
to seek authorization under an
individual permit; (2) that the project is
authorized under the-NWP subject to
the applicant's submission of a
mitigation proposal that would reduce
the adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to the minimal level; or (3)
that the project is authorized under the
NWP with specific modifications or
conditions. Where the District Engineer
determines that mitigation is required in
-order to ensure no more than minimal
adverse effects on the aquatic
environment, the activity will be
authorized within the 45-day PCN
period, including the necessary
conceptual or specific mitigation or a
requirement that the applicant submit a
mitigation proposal that would reduce
the adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to the minimal level.
When conceptual mitigation is
included, or a mitigation plan is
required under item (2) above, no work
in waters of the United States will occur
until the District Engineer has approved
a specific mitigation plan.
(e) Agency Coordination: The District
Engineer will consider any comments
from Federal and State agencies
concerning -the proposed activity's
compliance with the terms and
conditions of the NWPs and the need for
mitigation to reduce the project's
adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to a minimal level.
For activities requiring notification co
the District Engineer that result in the
loss of greater than v, acre of waters of
the United States, the District Engineer
will, upon receipt of a notification,
provide immediately (e.g., via facsimile
transmission, overnight mail, or other
expeditious manner), a copy to the
appropriate offices of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, State natural resource
or water quality agency, EPA, State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
and, if appropriate, the National Marine
Fisheries Service. With the exception of
NWP 37, these agencies will then have
10 calendar days from the date the
material is transmitted to telephone or
fax the District Engineer notice that they
intend to provide substantive, site-
specific comments. If so contacted by an
agency, -the District Engineer will wait
an additional 15 calendar days before
making a decision on the notification.
The District Engineer will fully consider
agency comments received within the
specified time frame, but will provide
no response to the resource agency,
except as provided below. The District
Engineer will indicate in the
administrative record associated with
,each notification that the resource
agencies' concerns were considered. As
required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
District Engineer will provide a
response to National Marine Fisheries
Service within 30 days of receipt of any
Essential Fish Habitat conservation
recommendations. Applicants are
encouraged to provide the Corps
multiple copies of notifications to
expedite agency notification.
lf) Wetlands Delineations: Wetland
delineations must be prepared in
accordance with the current method
required by the Corps. For NWP 29 see
paragraph (b)(9)(iii) for parcels less than
'A acre in size. The permittee may ask
the Corps to delineate the special
aquatic site. There may be some delay
if the Corps does the delineation.
Furthermore, the 45-day period will not
start until the wetland delineation has
been completed and submitted to the
Corps, where appropriate.
14. Compliance Certification. Every
permittee who has received a
Nationwide permit verification from the
Corps will submit a signed certification
regarding the completed work and an
y
required mitigation. The certification
will be forwarded by the Corps with the
authorization letter. The certification
will include: (a) A statement that the
authorized work was done in
12896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 47/Thursday', March 9, 2000/Notices
accordance with the Corps
authorization, including any general or all wetland impacts requiring a PCN.
Consistent with National polic
the to submit a compensatory mitigation
l

specific conditions; (b) A statement that
any inquired mitigation was completed y,
District Engineer will establish a
preference for restoration of w
tl
d proposa
with the PCN, the proposal
may be either conceptual or detailed.
'
d

in accordance with the permit
conditions; and (c) The signature of the e
an
s to
meet the minimum compensatory
miti
ti (
) To the extent appropriate,
permittees should consider mitigation

permittee certifying the completion of ga
on ratio, with preservation used
only in exceptional circumstance i banking and other appropriate forms of

the work and mitigation.
15. Use of Multiple Nationwide s.
(b) To be practicable, the mitigation
must be available and capable of bein compensatory mitigation. If the District
Engineer determines that compensatory
iti
ti

Permits. The use of more than one NW
for a single and com
lete
roject is g
done considering costs, existing
t
h
l m
ga
on is necessary to offset losses of
waters of the United States and ensure
p
p
prohibited, except when the acreage loss
f
t
f
h ec
no
ogy, and logistics in light of the
overall project purposes. Examples of that the net adverse effects of the
authorized work on the a
uatic
o
wa
ers o
t
e United States
authorized by the NWPs does not mitigation that may be appropriate and
practicable include
but are not limited q
environment are minimal, consolidated
i
i

exceed the acreage limit of the NWP
with the highest specified acreage limit. ,
to: reducing the size of the project;
establishing and maintainin
wetl
d m
t
gation approaches, such as
mitigation banks, will be the preferred

For example, if a road crossing over
tidal waters is constructed under NWP g
an
or
upland vegetated buffers to protect open method of providing compensatory
mitigation, unless the District Engineer

14, with associated bank stabilization waters such as streams; and replacing
losses of aquatic resource functions and determines that activity-specific

authorized by NWP 13, the maximum
acreage loss of waters of the Unit
d
values by creating, restoring, enhancing, compensatory mitigation is more
appropriate, based on which is best for
e
States for the total project cannot exceed or preserving similar functions and
values, preferably in the same the aquatic environment. These types of
i
i

1/3 acre.
16. Water Supply Intakes. No activity,
watershed;
(c) The District Engineer will re
uire m
t
gation are preferred because they
involve larger blocks of protected

including structures and work in
navigable waters of the United St
t q
restoration, creation, enhancement, or aquatic environment, are more likely to
meet the mitigation goals, and are more
a
es or
discharges of dredged or fill material, preservation of other aquatic resources
in order to offset the authorized im
t easily checked for compliance. If a

may occur in the proximity of a public
water supply intake except where the pac
s
to the extent necessary to ensure that
the adverse effects on the a
uatic mitigation bank or other consolidated
mitigation approach is not available in
h

activity is for repair of the public water
supply intake structures or adjacent q
environment are minimal. An important
element of any compensatory miti
ation t
e watershed, the District Engineer will
consider other appropriate forms of

bank stabilization.
17. Shellfish Beds. No activity, g
plan for projects in or near streams or,
other open waters is the establish
t compensatory mitigation to offset the
losses of waters of the United States to

including structures and work in

navigable waters
of the
Unit
d State men
and maintenance, to the maximum ensure that the net adverse effects of the

authorized work-on the aquatic
,
,
e
s or
discharges of dredged or fill material, extent practicable, of vegetated buffers
next to. open waters on the project site. environment are minimal.
20. Spawning Areas
Activities

may occur in areas of concentrated
shellfish populations
unless the activit
The vegetated buffer should consist of .
,
including structures and work in
,
y
is directly related to a shellfish
harvesting activity authorized b
NWP native species. The District Engineer
will determine the appropriate width of
th navigable waters of the United States or
discharges of dredged or fill material, in
y
4. e vegetated buffer and in which cases
it will be required. Normally
the spawning areas during spawning
b

18. Suitable Material. No activity,
including structures and work in ,
vegetated buffer will be 25 to 50 feet
wide on each side of the
t
b
h seasons must
e avoided to the
maximum extent practicable. Activities
h

navigable waters of the United States or
discharges of dred
ed or fill mate
i
l s
ream,
ut t
e
District Engineer may require wider t
at result in the physical destruction
(e.g., excavate, fill, or smother
g
r
a
,
may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., vegetated buffers to address
documented water quality concerns
If downstream by substantial turbidity) of
a
i

trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.) .
there are open waters on the project site n
mportant spawning area are not
authorized

.and material used for construction or
discharged must be free from toxic
and the District Engineer requires .
21. Management of Water Flows. To

pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section compensatory mitigation for wetland
impacts to ensure that the net adverse the maximum extent practicable, the
activity must be designed to maintain
307 of the Clean Water Act).
19. Mitigation. The project must be
d
i effects on the aquatic environment are
minimal, any vegetated buffer will preconstruction downstream flow
conditions (e.g., location
ca
acit
and
es
gned and constructed to avoid and
minimize adverse effects to waters of comprise no more than 1/3 of the
i
i ,
p
y,
flow rates). Furthermore, the activity

the United States to the maximum
t rema
n
ng compensatory mitigation
acreage after the permanently filled must not permanently restrict or impede
the passage of normal or expected high
ex
ent practicable at the project site (i.e.,
on site). Mitigation will be required wetlands have been replaced on a one-
to-one acreage basis. In addition, flows (unless the primary purpose or the
fill is to impound waters) and the
when necessary to ensure that the
adverse effects to the aquatic
i compensatory mitigation must address
adverse effects on wetland functions structure or discharge of dredged or fill
material must withstand expected high
env
ronment are minimal. The.District
Engineer will consider the factor and values and cannot be used to offset
th
w flows. The activity must, to the
s
discussed below when determining the e acreage of
etland losses that would
occur in order to meet the acreage limits maximum extent practicable, provide
for retaining excess flows from the site

acceptability of appropriate and
practicable mitigation necessary to
of some of the NWPs (e.g., for NWP 39,
1/4 acre of wetlands cannot be created to ,
provide for maintaining surface flow
rates from the site similar to
offset adverse effects on the aquatic
environment that are more than change a Vz acre loss of wetlands to a
V. acre loss; however, Vz acre of created preconstruction conditions, and must
not increase water flows from th

minimal.
(a) Compensatory mitigation at a
mi
i
wetlands can be used to reduce the
impacts of a 1/3 acre loss of wetlands). e
project site, relocate water, or redirect
water flow beyond preconstruction
n
mum 1:1 ratio will be required for If the prospective permittee is required conditions. In addition, the activity
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 47/Thursday, March 9, 2000/Notices 12897

must, to the maximum extent
practicable, reduce adverse effects such
as flooding or erosion downstream and
upstream of the project site, unless the
activity is part of a larger system
designed to manage water flows.
22. Adverse Effects From
Impoundments. If the activity, including
structures and work in navigable waters
of the United States or discharge of
dredged or fill material, creates an
impoundment of water, adverse effects
on the aquatic system caused by the
accelerated passage of water and/or the
restriction of its flow shall be
minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
23. Waterfowl Breeding Areas.
Activities, including structures and
work in navigable waters of the United
States or discharges of dredged or fill
material, into breeding areas for
migratory waterfowl must be avoided to
the maximum extent practicable.
24. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any
temporary fills must be removed in their
entirety and the affected areas returned
to their preexisting elevation.
25. Designated Critical Resource
Waters. Critical resource waters include,
NOAA-designated marine sanctuaries,
National Estuarine Research Reserves,
National Wild and Scenic Rivers,
critical habitat for Federally Listed
threatened and endangered species,
coral reefs, State natural heritage sites,
and outstanding national resource
waters or other waters officially
designated by a State as having
particular environmental or ecological
significance and identified by the
District Engineer after notice and
opportunity for public comment. The
District Engineer may also designate
additional critical resource waters after
notice and opportunity for comment.
(a) Except as noted below, discharges
of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States are not authorized by
NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35,
39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 for any activity
within, or directly affecting, critical
resource waters, including wetlands
adjacent to such waters. Discharges of
dredged or fill materials into waters of
the United States may be authorized by
the above NWPs in National Wild and
Scenic Rivers if the activity complies
with General Condition 7. Further, such
discharges may be authorized in
designated critical habitat for Federally
listed threatened or endangered species
if the activity complies with General
Condition 11 and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service has concurred in a
determination of compliance with this
condition.
(b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19,
22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and
38, notification is required in
accordance with General Condition i3,
for any activity proposed in the
designated critical resource waters
including wetlands adjacent to those
waters. The District Engineer may
authorize activities under these NWPs
only after he determines that the
impacts to the critical resource waters
will be no more than minimal.
26. Fills Within 100- Year Floodplains.
For purposes of this general condition,
100-year floodplains will be identified
through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA-approved
local floodplain maps.
(a) Discharges Below Headwaters.
Discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States
resulting in permanent, above-grade fills
within the 100-year floodplain at or
below the point on a stream where the
average annual flow is five cubic feet
per second (i.e., below headwaters) are
not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40, 42,
43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the
prospective permittee must notify the
District Engineer in accordance with
General Condition 13 and the
notification must include
documentation that any permanent,
above--- ade fills in waters of the United
States within the 100-year floodplain
below headwaters comply with FEMA
or FEMA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
(b) Discharges in Headwaters (i.e.,
above the point on a stream where the
average annual flow is five cubic feet
per second).
(1) Flood Fringe. Discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States resulting in
permanent, above-grade fills within the
flood fringe of the 100-year floodplain of
headwaters are not authorized by NWPs
12, 14, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44, unless
the prospective permittee notifies the
District Engineer in accordance with
General Condition 13. The notification
must include documentation that such
discharges comply with FEN LA or
FEI'vfA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
(2) Floodwav. Discharges of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United
States resulting in permanent, above-
grade fills within the. floodway of the
100-year floodplain of headwaters are
not authorized by NWPs 29, 39, 40, 42,
43, and 44. For NWPs 12 and 14, the
permittee must notify the District
Engineer in accordance with General
Condition 13 and the notification must
include documentation that any
permanent, above grade fills proposed
in the floodway comply with FEMA or
FEMA-approved local floodplain
construction requirements.
D. Further Information
1. District engineers have authoritv to
determine if an activity complies with
the terms and conditions of an NWP.
2. NWPs do not obviate the need to
obtain other Federal, State, or local
permits, approvals, or authorizations
required by law.
3. NWPs do not grant any property
rights or exclusive privileges.
4. NWPs do not authorize any injury
to the property or rights of others.
5. NWPs do not authorize interference
with any existing or proposed Federal
project.
E. Definitions
Best management practices: Best
Management. Practices (BMPs) are
policies, practices, procedures, or
structures implemented to mitigate the
adverse environmental effects on
surface water quality resulting from
development. BMPs are categorized as
structural or non-structural. A BMP
policy may affect the limits on a
development.
Compensatory mitigation: For
purposes of Section 10/404,
compensatory mitigation is the
restoration, creation, enhancement, or in
exceptional circumstances, preservation
of wetlands and/or other aquatic
resources for the purpose of
compensating for unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable avoidance
and minimization has been achieved.
Creation: The establishment of a
wetland or other aquatic resource where
one did not formerly exist.
Enhancement: Activities conducted in
existing wetlands or other aquatic
resources which increase one or more
aquatic functions.
Ephemeral stream: An ephemeral
stream has flowing water only during,
and for a short duration after,
precipitation events in a typical year.
Ephemeral stream beds are located
above the water table year-round.
Groundwater is not a source of water for
the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the
primary source of water for stream flow.
Farm tract: A unit of contiguous land
under one ownership which is operated
as a farm. or part of a farm.
Flood Fringe: That portion of the 100-
year floodplain outside of the floodway
(often referred to as "floodway fringe."
Floodway: The area regulated by
Federal, state, or local requirements to
provide for the discharge of the base
flood so the cumulative increase in
water surface elevation is no more than

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director

ft/ 3oa-4079
cc; MS
KS4
r
NCDENR
1. s _
January 3,12.0 -
Mr. Marc Seelinger AN 2 2001
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609-3960 -----
Subject: Proposed Pott Creek Mitigation Plan, Lincoln County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Seelinger:
This letter is in reference to the Pott Creek Mitigation Site Plan listed above. The
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. We understand that the NC Department of Transportation wishes to use this
site mitigation for highway project impacts in the Catawba River Basin. The DWQ offers
the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
The plan appeared to be very conceptual. There was not enough evidence in the file
to determine that stream restoration would be achieved. Please refer to the DWQ
Guidance documents for detail. These can be downloaded from our website
[http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/NDbranch/wetland/strmgide.html].
2. The plan does not address whether cattle will be excluded from the creek. It was not
addressed in the design (Appendix. L) and noted generally in Section 7.2 Erosion
Control Measures.
3. Please provide explanation/clarification of the Functional Capacity Index (mentioned
in Section 3.2) and how it is used.
4. The design plans lack detail. The plan indicates that instream structures are not
planned for this project? How was that determination made?
5. The monitoring protocols are extremely vague. Please note that DWQ guidance is
also provided for monitoring benthic macroi n vertebrate community stricture on the
website. These surveys need to be conducted at appropriate monitoring locations
prior to and post construction. The monitoring plan should also the biological
laboratory conducting the surveys.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Thank you for requesting our input at this time- A formal request for a Nationwide
Permit 27 (DWQ Water Quality Certification No. 3257) requires three copies and the
application fee. We would request a visit to the mitigation bank site If you have any
questions; please contact either myself or Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
Sincerely;
tion Program
cc: Steve Lund, USACE
David Cox. NCWRC
Marella.Buncick, USFWS
Central Files
,.
.,.
'
i,
1.
i
��,
i
i
��
i'
I.
i
L
1
�:
��
i
j:
�'
`r
j
i
I
f
i�;
I
{
<�` t
i
,,
��:

Projemsite: t'Ott C:reeK
Applicant/Owner: Marsh Resources, RK&K
Investigators: MRI, RK&K
County: Lincoln
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 1
UO Normal circumstances exist on the Site! Yes No Community iu: 5cruo shrub wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? es (IT O-) ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side) Southeastern portion of site
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum
_
_ Indicator
-- Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
e an ra virginica 7e
r5 U97 oe mena cy m nca er +
rum,Arrow False- ett e, ma - pi e
uncus a usus er + ep a an us occi en a is er
Rus o utton us ommon
o ygonum sage a um Herb a anus occi en a is Tree -
eartum rrow-Lea ycamore, mencan
i c e a repens er + runus sero ina Tree
Partridge-Berry herry, lac
raxinus penny vanica ree t-AUVV u us e u i o ius ru
As reen Blackberry
a ix nigra ree OBL
i ow,Blac

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 9/11 =81.82% FAC Neutral: 8/10 =80.00%
Numeric Index: 23/11 = 2.09
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs YES Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data
- NO Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations YES Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: = 2 (in.) YES Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
NO Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project No: Pott Creek
Page 1 of 2 WeTormcm
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Aes No
Hydric Soils Present? No
Page 2 of 2 WetForm"
rroject No: Mott Greek Date: 27-Jun-2001
Appiicant/Owner: Marsh Resources, RK&K County: Lincoln
Investigators: MRI, RK&K State: North Carolina II
Plot ID: 1
SOILS

Wetland Rating Worksheet VA
Project Name ?" O J-+- &ee k Nearest Road _A At lco_1 VA ?S• ?$?
County ?-i nc.ot n Wetland Acreage Wetland-Width-(Feet_ _DD '(- '? .
1
Name of Evaluator V , c tai P S???ntl[ ? ? ? Date ?k{ 1Q Q ;L(50
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/i mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation { 0_%
• On intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburbanZO %
•' Within interstream divide • Impervious surface 1?J %
• Other '
Soil Series Dominant Vegetation
Q
l;k
s
(1) „
a
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
Peat
(2) ++ ,
O L J G (7 [#M -'>06 1 C.{.f
• Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
J l
C
C
?
• Predominantly sandy (3) 1
.
t
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
• Ditched or channelized • Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet • Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
adwater fore 11?
w?mn forest ( rmw.,T
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other '
Water storage oZ X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization X 4.00 = ' a
1 Pollutant removal X 5.00 =
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 =
Aquatic life value X 4.00 = a Q
Recreation/ Education o?2 X 1.00 =
COMMENTS:Mn_ car's :- ;ca six ? o"'

RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: To# Ctfede, Date: 74
Applicant/Owner, Mvvsk e-"5&t-y-tc k County: _Liv,ca
Investigator: e-V ivy 4'Jv VFW ey-a State:
-Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID:
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: 2c?? t
is the area a-potential Problem Area? - Yes No . Plot ID: we,
If needed, explain on reverse. ,.

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indi
t

1. #tr V'A w%
', Pk, ca
or
9.
.2. Li d
a>-
_
}
Vr
Ltfty iytt: ?
10.
?
?
k 11.
4, f 1?10t?M Tr1?(IJl -
5. 12.
13.
6. ?.Ubti [ KA 14.
7.
8. _ . is.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding. FAC- .. Ib? G?

I U

Remarks: ???.tx.nu4/? T'
Z'?1/' 1.G?•-'P?} ?"` ??L? ? -+-
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines

Field Observations: _
Sediment Deposits
V Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
B2 Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
SOILS
Map Unit Name C? 1 u _ c?
(Series and Phase): u
Drainage Class: )

Tax
S
b
?
F-I
f Field Observations.

t v
onomy (
u
group):
v
LtAlA
v Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
eli
M
(inches) Horizon (Munns
olss6
Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
fMunsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure. etc
?
?
j
2-11 _-_ 10 R3 °7<SYfZ'l?'a vi ?? . 07? tm

Hydrfc Soil Indicators:
_ FQstosol
_ Hfstfc Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking In,Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local,Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions
SL Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Listed on National Fiydrfc Soils List
_ Other (E)plain In Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? _ e,t No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? •? No
Hydric Soils Present? e:} No Is this Sam piing Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks: ?--
?tS
kit ( VC W ?L.
Approved by HQUSACE 3192
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms B3
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name P"o ? c u
Nearest Road 14, I t t ?t?? ?,?
County LI vt Wetland Acreage 02 Wetland Width (Feet)
Name of Evaluator relv t? V ?h tN - Date ? f Il I b
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/a mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
Q On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 0 %
• On'intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban O0 %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface 10 %
• Othe
Soil Series Che.wA J-4 Dominant Vegetation
(1) ko -w ru 6vl"-V\
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or <
1
?
Peat (2) 11tq vz,.,
?
• Predominantly mineral- non-sandy k
• Predominantly sandy.
(3)
mot- ?^^??yz' `?'
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
O Ditched or channelized • Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet • Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwoo forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Water storage 2 X 4.00 = Q
Z
?
Bank/Shoreline stabilization Z- X 4.00 = Q
U
Pollutant removal X 5.00 = 2.5
Wildlife habitat 4 X 2.00 = Q
Aquatic life value Z X 4.00 = U
Recreation/ Education 3 X 1.00 = 3
COMMENTS:
RATING VALUES:
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower

VPNv sw'cttt W4I"
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name O Nearest Road
County Ln f.0 1 V\ Wetland Acreage 0,13 Wetland Width (Feet) 5
Name of Evaluator ?-e'v l V\ v1 VA Q)y Date l0 d
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/z mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
O On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 50 %
• On'intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban 140 %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface JD-%
• Other
Soil Series ominant Vegetation

• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or -
?
Peat (2) ? bl??t v?
• Predominantly mineral - non-sandy rr

A
AM ?? t t iV
Lk
• Predominantly sandy. (3)
S
\J
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
• Ditched or channelized • Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet • Intermittently flooded or inundated
• - No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest.
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage Z X 4.00 = g
Bank/Shoreline stabilization X 4.00 = p
Pollutant removal ?. X 5.00 = 2_5
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 =
Aquatic life value L X 4.00 = 1?
Recreation/ Education 3 X 1.00 = 3
RATING VALUES: _
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower

COMMENTS:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner: tiN1w
Investigator: GI?An N121A InDA" Date: 77/ A ,
County:
State:
•fla Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No
'Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is the area a•potential Problem Area? Yes No
If needed, explain on reverse. Community ID:
Transec ID: IL(?YG
Plot ID: u• ,
. w q -NctU5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species S

2. k1A tratum Indicator
lo
_ .
4.
- 12.
6."
EMOALA01 1l? 13.
_ 14.
7-
15

8. .
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG . W
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
-Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in tipper 12 Inches
- W titer Marks
Drift Lines

Field Observations: _
Sediment Deposls
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
I
D
th
f
f Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
ep
o
Sur
ace Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
t -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
82 Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series
d Ph
UfmAAA A t
,
?
an
ase): Drainage
Ciass: ?tsrunlzil
? t?aa.?

` Field Observations.
..
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?V7,. Id?A h tM7 C.?nr K, . Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Golor
(i
n .h
s) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Size/Coritrast Structure, etc
n
e

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Hsto.sof _ Concretions
Hstic Epipedon - Hgh Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulffdic Odor - Organic Streaking In.Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime
C -.- Listed on Local.Hydric Soils List
Reducing
onditions
:ZGi
d
L
Ch
l - Listed on Natidnal Hydrfc Sdiis List
eye
or
m*
roma Co
ors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?. a No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? a No Is this Sampling Point Within a Weiland? (5) No 71
Remarks:
rti )',,-aa 1N!?? - " C?vu Z 5
J
Approved by HOUSACE 3192
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms B3
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name Nearest Road 4 `{
CountyLlV?C;OkA Wetland Acreage DA Wetland Width.(Feet)7_
Name of Evaluator ke_VA ? ! V U lk "V\ Date
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1A mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
Q On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 5 0 %
• On'intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban q O _%
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface h %
• Other
Soil Series U?"2,dv_ Vegetation
(1) LkI? V 'glvti??
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
2
0
12u h C
5tA S S
J K Jh
Peat )
( '
in
-
• Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
L
?
9?Y7 1

Predominantly sandy. (3)
n c
e r
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography • Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
Q Ditched or channelized O Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood'forest
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage Z X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization .3 X 4.00 = Z
Pollutant removal Z X 5.00 = 0
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 = t?
Aquatic life value X 4.00 = z
Recreation/ Education X 1.00 = 3
RATING VALUES: .
- 53
High=60 or higher
Medium/High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Low=39 or lower
COMMENTS:
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name Tj D Nearest Road 1 ? P')
County 6wn t Y1 Wetland Acreage Wetland Width (Feet)4_
Name of Evaluator Ke-VILA, V1x PA,U'r` Date -_11 Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/a'mile upstream, upslope or

• On pond or lake radius)
• On perennial stream • Forested/natural vegetation 5 0 %
• On'intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban 4f) %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface JO?_%
• Other
Soil Series Dominant Vegetation
S
'
(1) 1
i( V\\&J A.
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
2
e?tn?i 'fin ?i1
?
Peat (
) j
Predominantly mineral - non-sandy
• Predominantly sandy. (3)
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography Semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated
Q Ditched or channelized Seasonally flooded or inundated
• Total wetland width > 100 feet • Intermittently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
$ottomland hardwnn?i fnrect
Headwater forest
Swamp forest
Wet flat
Pocosin
Bog forest
RATING:
Pine savanna
Freshwater marsh
Bog/fen
Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Bay
Other
Water storage 2 X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 X 4.00 =
Z
Pollutant removal Z X 5.00 =
to
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 = Q
Aquatic life value -_ X 4.00 =
lZ
Recreation/ Education 3 X 1.00 = z
RATING VALUES: .
53
COMMENTS:
v
High=60 or higher
Medium(High=50 to 59
Medium=40 to 49
Law=39 or lower
Appendix D
mom

BURKE COUNTY In Cooperation whh Human Resource Centor
SOIL SURVEY BQtka SoA & Water 700 E. Parker Road
Conservation District Room W .
NO Dept of Envlronrnanr Morganton, NO 26056
and Nstural Resources, and Phone [phone]
USDA, Natural Resources Consetvation Service FAX 829-43MI32
April 11, 2001
Richard K. Mogensen
Marsh Resources, Inc.
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
This letter reports the findings from my evaluation of the soils mapping for the Pott
Creek Wetland project in Lincoln County.
At the request of Tim Baumgartner, Environmental Scientist with Rummel, Klepper &
Kahl, I met.with you, Tim, and Gary Jellick to examine the property along Pott Creek looking to
validate previous soil mapping .forthe area.
The Soil Survey of Lincoln County, North Carolina shows the flood plain along Pott
Creek on this property to be in the Chewacla loam, D to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded map
unit. The description of the map unit in the report says these soils are somewhat poorly drained,
on flood plains, and are frequently flooded (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any
year) for brief periods (2 to 7 days).
The site project's consulting soil scientist identified an area of inclusion of poorly
drained/hydric soils in the Chewacla map unit. This delineation begins adjacent to the road (SR
1008) and extends west along the base of the upland slope approximately 1100 feet as shown on
the project map. From my examination, I agree that there are poorly drained/hydric soils within
this delineation.
Soil evaluations of other random spots ri h iii the pe- area that rMppe?red to have
wetland hydrology and vegetation (outside of the "hydric" delineation) supported the non-hydric
Chewacla map unit.
If I can be of further assistance please let me know. I am a certified by the US Army
COE in wetland identification and delineation and a licensed soil scientist by the State of NC.
Sl rely,
David T. Knight
Mooresville Regional Soil Scientist
NC Division of Soil & Water Conservation
,
COASTAL
RESOURCES
INC.
2988 solomons Island Road
Edgewater, MD 21037
410-956-9.000
410-956-0566 (Fax)'
August 28, 2000
Mr. Richard Mogensen
Marsh Resources, Inc.
236 Transco Road
Mooresville, NC- 28115
Re: Potts Creek `Wetland Mitigation Site
Soils Mapping, Lincoln County, NC
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
Coastal Resources, Inc. (CP-I) has completed a soils evaluation and field mapping of soil types on the
proposed wetland mitigation site, a 50± acre parcel located in the floodplain of Potts Creek in
northceutral Lincoln County, North Carolina. The purpose of this investigation was to verify and refine
the accuracy of soil map units as shown in the Soil Survey of Lincoln County.
Summary
The entire floodplain of the site is mapped as Chewacla loam 0-2 percent slope; frequently flooded
(ChA) in the Soil Survey of Lincoln County. Chewacla soils formed in recent alluvium derived from
metamorphic and igneous rocks, and are somewhat poorly drained. The Chewacla series is classified as
hydric, in North Carolina by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (INIRCS) based on the
frequency and duration of flooding.
Soil profiles from twelve, hand-auger borings were examined and described to assess soil characteristics
throuallout the site. The soil borings were typically advanced to a depth of 60 inches or until
ground"'ater was encountered. We found that the majority of soils on the site closely resemble the
official series description (OSD) prepared by the NRCS for Chewacla soils. Approximately 28 acres of
the site contain Chewacla soils. Inclusions of dissimilar soils were also identified on the site, including
approximate 8 acres of poorly drained soils (Wehadkee series), and, approximately 15 acres of well
drained soils (Riverview series).
We also observed a.number of drainage ditches throughout the site, and a man-made levee along the
banks of Potts Creek. The ditches and flood control measures appear to have altered drainage to
promote 1gricultural use of the site.- It is our opinion that elimination of the drainage ditches and
breeching the levee would re-establish frequent flooding for long duration on the site, and therefore
restore the hydrology to drained, hydric soils under criterion 4 of the Criteria for Hydric Soils,
established by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (2000).
fulls .'reek
Copies of the soil profile descriptions, boring location plan, and official series description.for the
Chewacla, Wehadkee, and Riverview soils are enclosed. The boundary of Chewacla soils on the site
has been delineated in the field using pink, wire pin flags. We understand that your engineer will survey
the location of these flags for accurate representation on the site plan.
If you have any questions concerning our findings, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Coastal Resources, Inc.
Gary.Jellick
Certified Professional Soil Scientist
ARCPACS No. 1717
encl.
cc: Mark Seelinger (RKK-Raleigh)
i
i
i
1
i
1
?tc ('reek
Jun-25-O1 01:04P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
l
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P.02

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-2
DATE: 8/14/01
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
50
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG: A rostis, few Pas alum

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
I 7.5YR414' Mica
6-20 I 5YR414 Mica
20-28 cl 5Y416 Fl F Mn soft
28-32 sicl 5YR411 C3P
32-40 cl 2.5Y2.511
40 fscl 2.5Y2.512

TEXTURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
I - loam sicl - silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sil - silt loam scl - sandy clay foam
sl - sandy loam sc - sandy day f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
cl - clay loam s - sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f - fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
un-25-O1 01:04P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P-03

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-3
DATE: 8114101
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: I DEPTH TO
WATERTABLE:
32
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG: A rostis, few flatsed e

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-4 1 12 7.5YR4/3
6-12 cl 27 7.5YR414
12-20 U 30 5YR4/6 7.5YR513 C2D 10% Mn soft
20-30 scl 20 5YR4/6 7:5YR5/3 M3P 25 Mn
30+ fscl 25 2.5Y4/2

TEXTURAL CLASS:
1 - loam
sil -slit loam
sl - sandy loam
sic - silty clay
cl - clay loam
c - clay
Modifiers:
REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:.
sicl - silty clay foam Abundance Size: Contrast
scl - sandy clay loam
sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
s -sand m - many (>20%) 3 -coarse (>15) p- prominent
f -fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
un-25-O1 01_05P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION I
P_04

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: 8-4
DATE: 8/14!01
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
42
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG: as alum, bottlebrush

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %,
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-5 1 15 7.5YR414
5-18 cl' 25 5YR4/4
18-36 sic/ 30 5YR414
2C 36-48 sic] 35 7.5YR4/6 10YR512

I J
_

TEXTURAL CLASS:
I - loam
sit -silt loam
sl - sandy loam
sic - silty clay
cl - clay loam
c - clay
Modifiers:
REOOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
sic] -silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
scl - sandy clay loam
sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
Is - ioamy sand c- common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
s -sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
f - fine gv- gravelly
c • coarse vg-very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
Jun-25-01 01:05P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P.05

PROJECT: Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-5
DATE: 8/14/01
LANDSCAPE
POSITION: Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT;
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS; DEPTHTO
WATER TABLE:
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG:

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE % MATRIX
CLAY COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-4 1 10 7.5Y
4-16 I 15
18-24 sl 10 30% man soft Mn
24-34 SI 15 10YR5/3 10 Mn
34-48 siclivfscl 30

"URAL CLASS:
I - loam sic] - silty clay loam
sit - silt loam scl - sandy clay loam
sl - sandy loam sc - sandy clay
sic - silty clay Is -loamy sand
cl - clay loam s -sand
.c -clay
Modifiers: f - Fine gv- gravelly
REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
Abundance Size: Contrast
f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
c - common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
CoastaI Resources, Inc.
un-25-O1 01:05P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
i
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P-06

PROJECT:
Potts Creek COUNTY/
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-6
DATE: 8/14/01
LANDSCAPE
POSITION:
Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG:
water hemp, ironweed, soft rush, of ovum h dro i eroides, carex s p., flatsed e

REMARKS:

HORIZON DEPTH
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-6 1 15 7.5Y3/1 C2P Mn and redish brown along ores
6-18 cl 25 7.5YR4/4 7.5YR5/2 C2D
18-30 cl 25 7.5YR4/6 C2D Mn masses
30-48

' REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
URAL CLASS:
I - loam sici - silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sit -silt loam sci - sandy clay loam
sl - sandy loam so - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c - common (2-20%) 2 .-medium (5-15) d- distinct
ct - clay loam s - sand m - many (>20%) 3 -.coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f -fine gv- gravelly
c • coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
Jun-25-01 01:06P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566
1-
SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
P.07

PROJECT:
Potts Creek COUNTY(
STATE: Lincoln, NC
PROFILE: B-7
DATE: 8114101
LANDSCAPE
POSITION:
Flood lain SLOPE/
ASPECT:
EROSION:
BY: G. Jellick
DRAINAGE
CLASS: DEPTH TO
WATER TABLE:
CLASSIFICATION:
DOMINANT
VEG:
soft rush, ironweed

REMARKS: same as B-6 except sl throughout A/B
9-8 - no redox within 36"

HORIZON DEPTH.
(INCHES) TEXTURE %
CLAY MATRIX
COLOR RMF
COLOR RMF
DESCR. CONSIST. STRUCT. OTHER FEATURES
0-6 sl 10
6-20 sl 10
20-34 sl 10
2C 34 sicl 28 same as C
I A
_ _

TURAL CLASS: REDOXIMORPHIC FEATURE (RMF) DESCRIPTION:
I -loam sicl - silty clay loam Abundance Size: Contrast
sil -silt loam scl - sandy clay loam
sl -sandy loam sc - sandy clay f - few (<2% area) 1 - fine (< 5 mm) f- faint
sic - silty clay Is - loamy sand c- common (2-20%) 2 - medium (5-15) d- distinct
cl -clay loam s - sand m - many (>20%) 3 - coarse (>15) p- prominent
c - clay
Modifiers: f - fine gv- gravelly
c - coarse vg- very gravelly
Coastal Resources, Inc.
un-25-O1 01:06P Coastal Resources, Inc.
I at Series Description - CHEWACLA Series
LOCATION CHEWACLA NC+AL FL GA MS SC TN VA
Established Series
Rev. AG
07/1999
CHEWACLA SERIES
4109560566
P-08
http://www.staUab.iastate.edu/sobs/osd/datIG/CHEWACLA.htmi
The Chewacla series consists of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on flood plains.
They formed in recent alluvium washed largely from soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite,
and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about Q
inches, and mean annual temperature is about 59 degrees near the type location.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Chewacla loam--cultivated. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 8 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; few fine flakes of mica; few
small pebbles; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 10 inches thick)
Bwl--8 to 14 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 414) silt loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable; few fine
flakes of mica; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary.
Bw2--14 to 24 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
common fine flakes of mica; few fine prominent light brownish gray (10YR 612) iron depletions and few fine distinct
strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation,; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bw3--24 to 34 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 614) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few
fine flakes of mica; common fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation and light
brownish gray (10YR 612) iron depletions which increase in amount with depth; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
(Combined thickness of the Bw horizons is 6 to 60 inches)
Bg--34 to 58 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) silty clay loam; massive; friable; few fine flakes of mica; few fine
black and dark brown concretions; many fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 516) soft masses of iron accumulation;
strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 50 inches thick)
Cg--58 to 70 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) stratified sand and extremely gravelly sand; common flakes of
mica; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Burke County, North Carolina; 5 miles northwest of Morganton, North Carolina; along North
Carolina Highway 126; approximately 450 feet east and 70 feet north of Canoe Creek bridge.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 15 to 70 inches. Depth to bedrock is 5 feet to more
than 10 feet. Few to many mica flakes are throughout the soil. Content of coarse fragments is less than 5 percent by
volume in the A and upper B horizons. In some pedons, gravel content ranges to 15 percent by volume in the lower B
horizons. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid to slightly acid to a depth of 40 inches except for soils that have
been limed. Below 40 inches reaction ranges from very strongly acid to mildly alkaline. Concretions are few to
common in some pedons.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 1 to 6. Al or Ap horizons with value less
than 4 are less than 7 inches thick. The A horizon is fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or clay loam.
The Ab horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to 5, and chroma of l or 2. Texture is fine sandy
loam, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand.
The AB or BA horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 3 to 8. It is loam, silt
loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam.
The Bw horizon has hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and dominant chroma of 3 to 8. Iron depletions of chroma 2
8125100 12:32 PM
1 "f 3
Jun-25-01 01:07P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P_09
?I Series Description - CHEWACLA Series http://www.stattab.iastate.edu/soilstosdldat/C/CHEWACLA.html
or less are within 24 inches of the surface. Masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown, yellow or red are also
common in the Bw horizon. Some subhorizons are without dominant matrix hue and have iron depletions and
masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown, red and gray. Texture is typically sandy clay loam, sandy loam, fine
sandy loam, loam, or clay loam, silt loam or silty clay loam. Weighted average clay content of the particle size control
section is 18 to 35 percent and sand coarser than very fine is more than 15 percent.
The Bg horizon, where present, is neutral, or has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to-2. Many
pedons contain soft masses of iron accumulation in shades of yellow, brown or red. The texture range is the same as
the Bw horizon.
The BC or BCg horizons, where present, are similar in color and texture to the Bw and Bg horizons respectively.
The C or Cg horizons have colors similar to the Bw and Bg horizons respectively, and are loamy if they are within a
depth of 40 inches. Below 40 inches, texture is variable, ranging from extremely gravelly sand to clay.
COMPETING SERIES: Oakboro is the only other series in this family. These soils have bedrock at depths of 40 to 60
inches.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Chewacla soils formed in recent alluvium on nearly level flood plains along streams that
drain from the mountains and piedmont. Slopes are less than 2 percent. The loamy sediments washed largely from
soils formed in residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Mean
annual precipitation is about 48 inches and the average annual temperature is more than 59 degrees F. near the type
location.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Oakboro series, these include the
Buncombe, Cartecay, Chastain, Chenneby, Congaree, Enoree, Riverview, Tawcaw, and Wehadkee series on flood
plains, and the Altavista, Augusta, Roanoke, and Wickham series on stream terraces. Altavista, Augusta, Roanoke,
and Wickham soils have argillic horizons. Buncombe soils are sand or loamy sand and are excessively drained.
Cartecay and Enoree soils are coarse-loamy. Chastain and Tawcaw soils are clayey. Chenneby soils are fine-silty.
Congaree soils do not have a cambic horizon. Riverview soils are well drained; and Wehadkee soils are poorly
drained.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Somewhat poorly drained; slow runoff; moderate permeability. Most areas flood
frequently, but flooding frequency ranges from rare to frequent.
USE AND VEGETATION: Much of the soil is cleared and is in pasture or cropland. The remainder is in forest. Corn
is the principal crop, and small grains and hay account for most of the remainder. Common trees in forested areas
include yellow poplar, sweetgum, water oak, eastern cottonwood, green ash, blackgu,m, red maple, willow oak, and
American sycamore. Loblolly pines are in some areas that are not subject to frequent flooding. Common understory
plants include river birch, winged elm, hackberry, greenbrier, American holly, black willow, sourwood, eastern and
hophornbeam.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia. The series is of large extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Hall County, Georgia; 1937.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the surface of the soil to a depth of 8 inches (the Ap horizon).
Cambic horizon - the zone between depths of 8 and 34 inches (the Bw1, Bw2 and Bw3 horizons).
Aquic conditions - periodic endosaturation and redox depletions within a 24 inch depth (Bw2 horizon)
MLRAs: 136,133A, 153A, 1536
REVISED: 9!5!97, RLV
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
8/25100 12:32 PM
2 of 3
un-25-O1 01:07P Coastal Resources, Inc.
I Series Description - CHEWACLA Series
4109560566 P.10
http:/twww.statiab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/C/CHEWACLA.htmi
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NCO055 CHEWACLA 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 10- 700
NC0296 CHEWACLA 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 10- 700
SOI-5 -F1oodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
N00055 RARE FREQ 0.5-2.0 APPARENT NOV-APR 60-60
NC0296 COMMON - APPARENT - 60-60
SOI-5 Depth
NCO055 0- 8
N00055 0- 8
NCO055 8-24
N00055 24-34
NC0055 34-58
N00055 58-70
NC0296 0- 8
NCO296 0- 8
NC0296 8-24
NC0296 24-34
NCO296 34-58
NCO296 58-70

SOI-5 Depth
N00055 0- 8
N00055 0- 8
N00055 8-24
N00055 24-34
N00055 34-58
N00055 58-70
NC0296 0- 8
NC0296 0- 8
NCO296 8-24
NC0296 24-34
NCO296 34-58
NC0296 58-70
Texture
FSL SL
SIL L CL
SIL SICL CL
SCL L SL
SIL CL SICL
VAR
FSL SL
SIL L CL
SIL SICL CL
SCL L SL
SIL CL SICL
VAR'
-pH-
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 6.'5
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 7.8
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 6.5
4.5- 7.B
0. M.
1.-4.
1.-4.
.5-2.
.5-2.
.5-2.
1. -4.
1.-4.
.5-2.
.5-2.
.5-2.
National Cooperative Soil Surrey
U.S.A.
3-Inch No-10 ClayW
0- 0 95-100 5-20
0- 0 95-100 10-35
0- 0 95-100 18-35
0-• 0 95-100 18-35
0- 0 75-100 18-35
0- 0 95-100 5-20
0- 0 95-100 10-35
0- 0 95-100 18-35
0- 0 95-100 18-35
0- 0 75-100 18-35
Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
-CEC-
4- 20
5- 30
10- 25
10- 25
10- 25
2- 8
2- 11
4- 9
4- 9
4- 9
I
8/25100 12:32 PM
dof3
un-25-01 01:08P Coastal Resources, Inc.
lal Series Description - RIVERVIEW Series
LOCATION RIVERVIEW AL+BL GA NC SC VA
Established Series
Rev. MGM:PGM
05/2000
RIVERVIEW SERIES
4109560566
P.11
http://www.statlab.lastate.edulsoilslosd/dat/R/RIVERVIEW.html
The Riverview series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in loamy alluvium
on flood plains. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Near the type location, the average annual temperature is about 66
degrees F. and the average annual precipitation is about 58 inches.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluventic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Riverview silt loam--forested. (Colors are for moist soil.)
A:-0 to 6 inches; very dark grayish brown. (10YR 3/2) silt loam; weak medium granular structure; friable; many fine
roots; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (3 to 12 inches thick)
Bwl--6 to 12 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
many fine roots; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bw2--12 to 23 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
faces of peds are brown (7.5YR 5/4); few flakes of mica; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bw3--23 to 31 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; faces of
peds are brown (7.5YR 5/4); common flakes of mica; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of
the Bw horizon is 14 to 50 inches.)
BC--31 to 39 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
few spots of uncoated sand grains; common flakes of mica; few fine distinct yellowish red (5YR 5/6) masses of iron
accumulations; very strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick)
C--39 to 70 inches; brownish yellow (10YR 616) loamy fine sand; single grained; loose; few thin strata of darker, finer
textured material; common flakes of mica; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Escambia County, Alabama; 4 miles east of junction of U. S. Highway 29 and Alabama Highway
41 south of Brewton and 1.35 miles east and south on woods road. Site is 10 feet east of road and 0.2 mile north of
Conecuh River in the NW1/4SE1A sec. 5, T. 1 N., R. 11 E.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 24 to 60 inches. Depth to bedrock is more than 60
inches. Reaction ranges from very strongly acid to slightly acid in the A horizon and from very strongly acid to
moderately acid in the Bw, BC, and C horizons. Buried A and/or B horizons, present in some pedons below a depth
of 25 inches, have the same range in color and texture as the A or B horizons, Content of mica flakes ranges from
none to common throughout the solum.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 7.5YR of IVR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 to 6. Horizons with value of 3 and
chroma of 2 are less than 7 inches thick: Texture is very fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam, fine sandy loam, sandy
loam, loamy fine sand, or.loamy sand.
The Bw horizon has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 3 to 6 and chroma of 3 to 8. Some pedons have a subhorizon of
the Bw with hue of 5YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 3 or 4. Iron_ concentrations in shades of yellow, brown, or red
range from none to common. At depth's of 24 inches or more, iron depletions of chroma 2 or less range from hone to
common. Texture is clay loam, sandy clay loam, loam, fine sandy loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam.
The BC horizon, present in most pedons, has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 to 6. Iron
concentrations in shades of yellow, brown, or red range from none to common. At depths of 24 inches or more, iron
depletions of chroma 2 or less range from none to common. Texture is sandy clay loam, loam, sandy loam, or fine
sandy loam.
01 `3 8/25/00 12:34 PM
un-25-01 01:08P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P.12
lal Series Description . RIVERVIEW Series http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/R/RIVERVIEW.htmi
a
The C horizon has hue of 7.5YR or 10YR, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 4 to 8. Iron concentrations in shades of
yellow, brown, or red range from none to common. Iron depletions in shades of gray, brown, or yellow range from
none to common. Texture is loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loamy fine sand, loamy sand, or sand. Strata of finer
or coarser textured material are present in most pedons. Flakes of mica range from few to common.
COMPETING SERIES: Starr is the only known series in the same family. Other competing series in related families
include the Alarnuchee, Congaree, Ennis, Pruitton, and Shellbluff series. Starr soils typically have Bw horizons with
hue of 7.5YR or redder throughout. Alamuchee, Ennis, and Pruitton soils have siliceous mineralogy. Congaree soils
do not have a cambic horizon, Shellbluff soils have a fine-silty particle size control section.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Riverview soils are on high parts of flood plains of rivers and streams draining the Coastal
Plain and Southern Piedmont. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. They formed in loamy alluvium. The average annual
air temperature ranges from 61 to 68 degrees F. and average annual precipitation ranges from 50 to 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Bruno, Buncombe, Cahaba, Chewacla, Kalmia,
Ochlockonee, State, Wehadkee, Wickham series. Bruno soils, on slightly higher positions,'have a sandy particle-size
class. Buncombe and Ochlockonee soils are on slightly higher parts of natural levees and are coarse-loamy.
Cahaba, Kalmia, State, and Wickham soils are on adjacent low terraces and have argillic horizons. The somewhat
poorly drained Chewacla soils and poorly drained Wehadkee soils are in slightly lower positions.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained. Runoff is slow. Permeability is moderate. These soils flood for
short periods mostly in winter or early spring months.
USE AND VEGETATION: Chiefly in woodland. Native vegetation is forests of sweetgum, oak, beech, yellow poplar
and loblolly pine.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Coastal Plain and Southern Piedmont of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Virginia. The series is moderately extensive.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Escambia County, Alabama; 1969.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon -- the zone from the surface to a depth of 6 inches (A horizon)
Cambic horizon -- the zone from 6 to 31 inches (Bw1, Bw2, and Bw3 horizons)
Dystric feature -- base saturation less than 60 percent in subh orizo is bct~rJeeiii depths of 25 and 75 cm below the soil
surface
Fluventic feature -- irregular decrease in organic matter content with depth .
ADDITIONAL DATA:
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope Airtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
AL0022 RIVERVIEW 0- 5 61- 68 200-230 50- 60 100- 500
S0I-5 F1oodL.FloodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
AL0022 COMMON 3.0-5.0 APPARENT DEC-MAR 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 Clays -CEC-
AL0022 0- 6 SIL L VFSL 0- 0 100-100 10-27 3- 12
AL0022 0- 6 LS LFS 0- 0 90-100 3-10 2- 6
AL0022 0- 6 SL FSL 0- 0 90-100 4-18 .3- 12
AL0022 6-39 SCL SICL L 0- 0 100-100.18-35 4- 10
AL0022 39-70 LFS SL S 0- 0 100-100 4-16 2- 6
SOI-5 Depth -pH- O.M. Salin Permeab Shnk-Swll
AL0022 0- 6 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
AL0022 0- 6 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 2.0- 6.0 LOW
1
20f3 8/25/00 12:34 PM
-25-O1 01:09P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P.13
?iaulsoeries Description - RIVERVIEW Series http://www.statiab.iastate.edu/soils/osd/daURIRIVERVIEW.html
AL0022 0- 6 4.5- 6.5 .5-2. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
AL0022 6-39 4.5- 6.0 .5-1. 0- 0 0.6- 2.0 LOW
AL0022 39-70 4.5- 6.0 .5-1. 0- 0 2.0- 6.0 LOW
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
of 3 6/25100 12:34 PM
n-25-O1 01:09P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P.14
lialu Series Description - WEHADKEE Series http://www.statlab.lastate.edu/soils/osd/dat/WfWEHADKEE.htmi
} LOCATION WEHADKEE NC+AL AR FL GA MS SC TN VA
Established Series
Rev. RM:AG
0711999
WEHADKEE SER{ES
The Wehadkee'series consists of very deep, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils on flood plains along
streams that drain from the mountains and piedmont. They are formed in loamy sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2
percent. Near the type location, mean annual precipitation is about 48 inches, and mean annual temperature is about
60 degrees F.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Wehadkee fine sandy loam -- cultivated (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 8 inches; grayish brown (10YR 512) fine sandy loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable; few
flakes of mica; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 14 inches thick)
Bg1--8 to 17 inches; dark gray (10YR 411) loam; common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 516) soft-masses
of iron accumulation; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few flakes of mica; moderately acid;
clear smooth boundary. (8 to 20 inches thick)
Bg2--17 to 40 inches; gray (IOYR 611) sandy clay loam;-common medium prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft
masses of iron accumulation; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common flakes of mica; moderately
acid; clear smooth boundary. ( 0 to 30 inches thick)
Cg--40 to 50 inches; gray (10YR 611) sandy loam; common medium faint grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2) iron depletions
and prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) soft masses of iron accumulation; massive; friable; common flakes of mica;
moderately acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Catawba County, North Carolina; 112 mile south of Witherspoon Crossroads on SR 1801, 314
mile east on SR 1807, and 650 feet north of bridge on Hogan Creek.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum a llic'K Bess ranges from about 20 to more than 60 inches. The content of
mica flakes ranges from few to many. The soil ranges from very strongly acid through neutral, but some part of the
10 to 40 inch control section is moderately acid through neutral.
The Ap or A horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y or is neutral, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 4. Some pedons have
soft masses of iron accumulation in shades of brown or red. Texture is fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam,
silty clay loam, sandy loam, or silt loam. Some pedons have recent layers of overwash as much as 20 inches thick
that are loamy and variable in color. Many pedons have an Ab horizon that has the same color and texture range as
the A horizon.
The Bg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 0 to 2. Soft masses of iron
accumulation are in shades of red, yellow, and brown. Texture is sandy clay loam, silt loam, loam, clay loam, or silty
clay loam.
The Cg horizon has hue of I OYR to 5Y or is neutral, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 0 to 2. Soft masses of iron
accumulation are in shades of brown, red, and yellow. Texture is commonly sandy loam, loam, or silt loam, but in
some pedons the Cg horizon contains stratified layers of sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, loamy sand,
sand, and gravel. Sandy textures are restricted to depths below 40 inches.
COMPETING SERIES: There are no other knowh* §ehes in this family. Series in closely related families are Bibb,
Chastain, Chewacla, Chowan, Englehard, Hatboro, Kinston, Lee, Mantachie, Mhoon, Muckalee, Roseblo6m, and
Una series. Bibb and Muckalee soils are coarse-loamy with siliceous mineralogy. Bibb soils have reaction of strongly
acid or more acid throughout the control section. Chastain and. Una soils are clayey and reaction is strongly acid or
more acid throughout the control section. Chewacla soils have dominant chroma of more than 2 in the upper 20
8125100 12:24 PM
Iof3
Jun-25-01 01: 10P Coastal Resources, Inc. 4109560566 P-15
lal Series Description - WEHADKEE Series http://www.sta0ab.lastate.edu/soils/osd/datfW/WEHADKEE.html
inches of the soil. Chewacla soils are Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts. Chowan, Mhoon, and Rosebloom soils are
fine-silty. The subgroup for Chowan is Thapto-Histic. Englehard soils are coarse-silty and their subgroup is
Humaqueptic. Hatboro soils are mesic. Kinston and Lee soils have siliceous mineralogy and reaction is strongly acid
or more acid throughout the control section. Mantachie soils have siliceous mineralogy and reaction is strongly acid
or more acid throughout the control section.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Wehadkee soils occur on flood plains, along streams that drain from the mountains and
piedmont. Slopes are generally less than 2 percent. Wehadkee soils formed in loamy sediments washed from soils
that formed from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and igneous rocks. Mean annual..
precipitation is about 48 inches near the type location and mean annual temperature is about 60 degrees F. Mean
annual precipitation ranges from 37 to 69 inches, and mean annual air temperature ranges from 58 to 68 degrees F.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the competing Chewacla series and Altavista, Augusta,
Buncombe, Congaree, Riverview, Roanoke, State, and Wickham series. Altavista, Augusta, Roanoke, State, and
Wickham soils are on terraces and have argillic horizons. Buncombe soils are on flood plains typically beside stream
channels and. are sandy and excessively drained. Chewacla soils are on flood plain positions that are higher or
nearer to stream channels and are somewhat poorly drained. Congaree and Riverview soils are on flood plains
adjacent or near stream channels and are better drained.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly drained and very poorly drained. Runoff is very slow and internal
drainage is very slow. Permeability is moderate. Most areas are frequently flooded.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most of the area is in forest; chiefly water tolerant hardwoods such as sweetgum,
blackgum, water oak, willow, oak, poplar, hickories, beech, and elm. Drained areas are used for pasture, corn, and
hay.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia. The soil is of moderate extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Raleigh, North Carolina
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Johnston County, North Carolina; 1911.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - The zone from 0 to 8 inches (Ap horizon)
Irregular ucurcaSe in :,rya ic carbon with depth
Aquic conditions - redoximorphic features associated with wetness in the zone from 8 to 50 inches (Bg1, Bg2, and Cg
horizons)
MLRA = 133A, 133B, 136, 153A, 1538
TABULAR SERIES DATA:
SOI-5 Soil Name Slope A.irtemp FrFr/Seas Precip Elevation
NCO052 WEHADKEE 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 5- 700
NC0233 WEHADKEE 0- 2 58- 68 185-250 37- 69 5- 700
SOI-5 F1oodL F1oodH Watertable Kind Months Bedrock Hardness
N00052 COMMON 0-1.0 APPARENT NOV-MAY 60-60
NC0233 COMMON - APPARENT - 60-60
SOI-5 Depth Texture 3-Inch No-10 C1aylk -CEC-
N00052 0- 8 FSL L SL 0- 0 95-100 5-20 5- 20
N00052 0- 8 SIL SICL 0- 0 98-100 6-40 5- 35
N00052 8-40 SICL L SCL 0.- 0 99-100 18-35 5- 25
N00052 40-50 VAR - - - -
NC0233 0- 8 FSL L SL 0- 0 95-100 5-20 3- 9
NC0233 0- 8 SIL SICL 0- 0 95-100 6-40 3- 12
. of 3 8/25100 12:24 PM
;:.
�,
a.:
�`
,;
}5,
;;:
};
��
;,
,.

Y
9
= < cSD CCDD p?
CF) S.
N
rn? QQ?
°acr?'CD
O
CD Cn - 3
'Cr
< ? () v
;a CD C/)
X C)_ , m -°
CD =3 CD
N = CL
0?
Qv
C1
0
0
O
-06
0
O
-1
CD
CD
0
0

r
CD
cQ
CD
- Q
CD
- - -
0
0

0 N
a CD
a N
o
m
CD
(n
o CD
x a
(n
c v
V)
CD
CD
.
o
Cn
O

(Q 0

o' C7

CD
CD VJ C
r" f
CD
Q
U)

1 +=
U) O LL
N

O (/3 d O O o
cfl T
U 0 0
L-
4-4 J ? O
- ?'
J
C
G O
O
c'7

it co

(!i ° r

4J4°.Y

y? to '
'i b *s ? ? • jk i'
44,
Y n_ r M x};5
Y Y
tit
4
y _
f ?
sa. y. O R' e n.?

? .
`
ter:.

4Wt
Yak
Iv-

u3? C•3 '??•?. rya. 'y •+•.? ON
ass .N. }F+ J•A k ? , _ (\ /
? ? ` - rrNn?T'i'^?f1.? •ti?'?•'rh•%? x' ? m
` .

j -. _ r ?'Tom` _ ?I ? •c- ,r
r
?
t °?
Y
r
.1 .
. L .
a` y ? T „lrc
. t
'C R 1i ? y 1 . M .
y .?
z` M ?? s :milt' a4jy
t scF.
?`-.
-'l9 ??'?• to.?C. #i CSC `. ?.. =.a ',y
?'
?
n
'
y
a ,g

?. ?:?
,?
, ?
k
j
?.
k
t
I, `
}
',,"
'i
'.t. ._
'`
Pott Creek Planting Plan
This wetland mitigation site will involve the establishment of a Piedmont-Mountain Levee
Forest (adjacent to Pott Creek ) natural community that grades into a Piedmont-
Mountain Bottomland Forest community progressing inland perpendicular to the main
stream and eventually transitioning to a Mesic, Mixed hardwood forest located along the
toe-of-slope of the Pott Creek site. Transitional species will be planted between zones to
allow for an ecotone effect. Because of the susceptibility of communities in this
geomorphic position to long-term flooding and /or long-term ponding, the natural
communities are populated with species adapted to survival under these conditions.
The characteristics of these communities are well documented on pages 44 through 45
and 165 through 171 of the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation, by Schafale and Weakley, published by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC Division of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, in 1990 (herein afterwards referred to as Schafale and
Weakley). Evidence indicates such communities existed onsite and predate the
historical agricultural activities on the project site. The soils in this location are mapped
by the NRCS, as Chewacla (Fluvaquentic Dystrocrepts) adjacent to Pott Creek, and
these grade into Wehadkee (Typic Fluvaquent) moving outwards towards the toe of
slope. This is consistent with the community descriptions outlined in Schafale and
Weakley. Additional guidance used in preparing the planting plan includes the Lincoln
County Soil Survey (NRCS, 1995) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program Guidelines for
Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001).
The intent of this restoration planting is to guide vegetative succession to a mature
(trees) stand representative of these communities. Success will be gauged by survival
rates of the tree plantings. With this in mind, the broad diversity of herbaceous and
shrub species in the early successional stages of the project will be dependent on the
seed stock transported to the site by wind and flood water. Species identified on the site
and expected to colonize naturally include:
Common Name
Swamp Milkweed
Blackberry
Arrow Arum
Poison Ivy
Soft Rush
Scientific Name
Asclepias incarnata
Rubus cuneifolius
Peltandra virginica
Toxicodendron radicans
Juncus effuses
This strategy of natural colonization will insure even distribution of the more
successionally transient species, while at the same time, allowing the project focus to be
on the ultimate goal of a successful, stable, and natural, mature vegetative community.
In addition, wildlife benefits are of particular interest within the proposed community and
species providing good habitat and food resources have been chosen accordingly.
Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest - Zone A
The Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest community restoration will border the area
adjacent to Pott Creek and extend approximately 25 feet southward away from the
creek. This area has extreme wet and dry conditions caused by the coarse alluvial
deposits of the natural stream levee. The permeability of the alluvial deposits requires
more facultative species to handle the alternating flooding and drying that occurs with
the stream rise and fall. The presence of River Birch (Betula nigra), Sycamore (Platanus
occidentallis), and Box Elder (Acer negundo) is generally indicative of Piedmont-
Mountain Levee Forest.
Species proposed for planting in this zone include:
Common Name
River Birch
Box Elder
Sycamore
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Cherrybark Oak
Hackberry
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Acer negundo
Platanus occidentallis
Quercus michauxii
Quercus pagoda
Celtis laevigata
Piedmont-Mountain Bottomland Forest - Zone B
Moving inland along a gradient perpendicular to the creek, soil permeability is diminished
by a general decrease in sediment grain size and a decrease in the drainage influence
of Pott Creek. Therefore, with the increased distance, soils become saturated to the
surface. The vegetative community responds to the incremental increase in moisture
and grades from the Piedmont-Mountain Levee Forest community to a Piedmont-
Mountain Bottomland Forest community. This zone is composed of both Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils. Species will be planted throughout all of Zone B, however, because
the Wehadkee soil is wetter and variety of wetland species are presently colonizing the
site, planting will be more widely dispersed within this area and planting will be
concentrated within Chewacla soils.
Species proposed for planting in this zone include:
Common Name
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Green Ash
Willow Oak
Water Oak
Cherrybark Oak
Hackberry
Scientific Name
Quercus michauxii
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Quercus phellos
Quercus nigra
Quercus pagoda
Celtis laevigata
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) - Zone C
As the slope gradually increases along the southern boundary of the site, changes in the
soil moisture regime are evident. The transition from Piedmont-Mountain Bottomland
Forest to Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) is characterized by the
presence of well-drained, acidic soils such as the Pacolet series, and upland species
less tolerant of flood conditions.
Species proposed for this planting zone include:
Common Name
American Beech
Northern Red Oak
Flowering Dogwood
Tulip Poplar
Scientific Name
Fagus grandifolia
Quercus rubra
Corpus florida
Liriodendron tulipifera
Riparian Fringe - Zone D
In addition to the three community types listed above, a variety of species will be planted
along the riparian fringe of the proposed channel. This zone will extend approximately
10 feet on either side of the channel and will be planted with species tolerant of regular
inundation to provide further stabilization in the channel design.
Plantings proposed for this zone include:
Common Name
Wetland seed mix with mats
Silky Dogwood
Buttonbush
Common Alder
Scientific Name
Comus amomum
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Alnus serrulata
Vernal Pools - Zone E
Two vernal pools have been included in the design and will be planted with shrubby
species tolerant of flood conditions. Habitat structures such as rocks and snags will be
included within the vernal pools to attract and provide habitat for diverse aquatic species.
Plantings proposed for this zone include:
Common Name
Common Alder
Buttonbush
Pickerelweed
Scientific Name
Alnus serrulata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Pontederia cordata
Planting Criteria
Once construction on the site is underway, disturbed areas will be planted with an
annual grass, such as barley (Hordeum spp.) or rye (Secale cereale). This will be used
to increase soil stabilization during the fall and winter months while allowing wetland
species to colonize in the spring.
Species will be planted on 10 X 10 foot centers. Target species quantities will be
adapted from vegetation at local reference sites as well as the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration
Program Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (2001). A combination of
containerized and bare root seedlings will be planted on the site depending upon
availability and robustness of the species.
F:\WORD\DOCUMEN-8300-039\Reports\Pott Creek Planting Plan.doc
J

F WAIF
O 9 Michael F. Easley
?O? QG Governor
Cq r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Nancy Daly
RKK Engineers
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
October 23, 2001 7
r's
p3
SUBJECT:. Pott Creek Mitigation Site
Lincoln County, NC
Dear Ms. Daly:
At your request I am sending you my July 5, 200levaluation of State jurisdictional
streams within the Pott Creek Mitigation Site off Killian Road in Lincoln County. The site has
been modified considerably in the past for agricultural purposes. It was my determination that
the channel flowing along the base of the hill on the south side of the Pott Creek floodplain is a
jurisdictional stream. The channel flowing from the existing offsite pond is also jurisdictional.
The remaining channels on the project would be considered man-made conveyance meant to
facilitate drainage of the floodplain area.
Other comments on the project were coordinated through Jason Guidry with the NC
Wetland Restoration Program in Raleigh.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the Mooresville Regional Office, (704)
663-1699.
Sincerely,
( ``fl
?c-o
P"-6--
Peter Colwell
Environmental Specialist
952
Customer Service
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands Unit
Jason Guidry, DWQ Wetland Restoration Program
Steve Lund, USACOE Asheville
Division of Water Quality 919 North Main Street Mooresville NC 28115 704-663-1699