Shoreline Erosion and Preliminary Drainage Study-2000

•
Town of Washington Park
E
Shoreline Erosion
and
Preliminary Drainage Assessment
•

0 Town of Washington Park
Shoreline Erosion and Preliminary Drainage Study
Prepared
For
Mayor Tom Richter
and
Town Board members
Horace Cowell Jeff Peacock
Sam Fulcher Don Wilkerson
and
Town Clerk
Walter `Bo" Bowen
0 by
Coastal Consortium, Consulting Planners, Inc.
Washington, North Carolina
March, 2000
The preparation of this document was financed in part through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC
Forward
I. Project Overview
A. Project Description
B. Project Objectives
C. Expected Products
II. Erosion Component
A.
Shoreline Erosion
B.
Soil Types/Characteristics
C.
Recent Shoreline Erosion Experiences
D.
Recent Shoreline Erosion Observations
E.
Shoreline Erosion Control Alternatives
F.
Summary, Findings
III. Drainage Component
• A. Preliminary Drainage Assessment
B. Major Drainage Features
C. Drainage System Components
D. Summary, Findings
APPENDIX
• USGS Topo Map for the Washington Park Area
• N.C. Forest Service Urban and Community Forest Program
• Water Quality Analysis and Map of Sites Tested
• Photos of Typical Erosion and Drainage Situations
• Useful Terms .
• US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
Web Site Address
DOCUMENT FRONT COVER AND REAR COVER ENVELOPES
PAGE
i
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
6
8
10
13
15
15
16
18
19
21
FRONT
• USDA Soil Map
• Washington Daily News, January 23, 2000 edition on erosion in the Pamlico River
area.
REAR
. • Drainage Map Showing Systems and Important Features
• Drainage Map Direction Flow and Shoreline Erosion Features
i

• Forward
Affective July 1, 1999 the Town of Washington Park received notice of a
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Coastal Planning and
Management Grant to review two issues the Town has been concerned about for some
time: shoreline erosion and drainage.
This grant, administered through the state's Division of Coastal Management
(I)CM), is part of an annual planning grant program to assist local governments in the
region in dealing with coastal land use and planning issues. This is the first grant the
Town has applied for and received. The Town hired Coastal Consortium, Consulting
Planners, Inc. to assist in the planning work.
The scope of services, objectives, and expected products which are part of this
• grant award are explained next, but it is essential for the Town and public to note the
limitations to this award. The results will not be an engineering or survey document.
It will map public shoreline areas experiencing erosion, offer alternatives to mitigate
erosion including costs and give observations on cause -effect relationships. It will map
significant drainage features (ditches, culverts, catch basins, swales, water now
direction, etc.). It will offer observations on problem areas for drainage and pose
information that can be helpful to the Town if engineered solutions are decided upon
later by Town leaders. Information used herein came from a variety of sources:
elevation data from the U.S. Geologic Survey Topographic maps, soil information and
characteristics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Beaufort County, drainage
features from county water system data, personal interviews with Town officials and
•
ii

•
others knowledgeable on drainage and erosion in Town. Field investigation also
provided much information as did previous documents produced for the Town.
iii

• I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
A. Project Descriptions
The first concern is increasing erosion from the Pamlico River along the Town's
public waterfront. At the time of the Town's grant application (April 30, 1999), the
Town, like many communities in coastal North Carolina, had experienced several
hurricanes and other tropical storms in the preceding years. These storms caused
serious erosion along the Town's 1,619 ft. public shoreline (approximately 1/3 of a
mile). The undeveloped waterfront is used extensively by Townsfolk and is an
important part of the Town's character. No other undeveloped shoreline of this scale
exists on the north side of the Pamlico River except at Goose Creek State Park, some
10 miles east of Washington Park.
• Since the Town's application submittal, the Town has experienced tropical
depression Dennis on September 4th, Hurricane Floyd on September 15th and
Hurricane Irene on October 17th. All the hurricanes were in 1999. These combined
events, unprecedented in the Town and adjoining areas in recent years, underlie the
need for shoreline erosion control knowledge.
The second issue is surface water drainage. The interest here is generated by
several forces. First, it is fundamental information the Town should have. Secondly,
drainage is a vital part of the Town's infrastructure and greatly affects both quality of
life and the local environment. (Town residents are on septic tanks, and drainage, or
the lack thereof, has public health implications.) During the recent hurricanes and
other periods of heavy precipitation, the Town's drainage system(s) is simply
• overwhelmed by the volume and duration of rainfall. Marvin Daughtry, meteorologist

• with TV Station WITN in Washington noted on September 16, 1999, that in the two
weeks following tropical storm Dennis and Hurricane Floyd, the Washington area had
received 20.5" of rainfall. This is approximately one-half of what is normal for any
given year as average precipitation in the area is 52.8". The 20.5" figure did not
include what Hurricane Irene dropped on October 17, 1999. Obviously, these
extraordinary events caused drainage problems. The Town has never had its drainage
system(s) mapped; thus it is impossible to direct comprehensive corrective or custodial
action.
Again, due to the nature of drainage problems brought on by recent storms,
drainage issues need to be addressed in some comprehensive way, and this project
may provide some guidance to Town leaders.
• B. Project Objectives
The first objective is to identify and map areas along the Town's waterfront
where erosion is occurring. Alternative erosion control and prevention devices will be
identified for specific areas of the shoreline and cost estimates developed. This task
may lead to future more detailed engineering design work by the Town.
The second objective is to conduct field investigations and map the surface
drainage system(s) in Town. This task will not involve engineers at this point; as the
Town's goal is to simply identify the scale and magnitude of what the Town will be
dealing with. Based on this information, future Town action can at least be
coordinated to relieve and hopefully correct critical problems.
C. Expected Products
• • A map showing erosion -prone areas of the Town's public waterfront with alternative erosion
control devices and cost estimates.
2

• • A drainage map showing features such as ditches, culverts, catch basins, French drains,
swales, direction of flow, problem areas and points of discharge.
• A document explaining all of the above.
IL EROSION COMPONENT
A. Shoreline Erosion
Washington Park has approximately 1,619' of public shoreline on Runyan Creek and the
Pamlico River. This properly begins at the River Road bridge over Runyan Creek, runs south
along Edgewater Street, then east along Riverside Drive for 824' where private property begins.
Private property starts approximately at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Pine Street,
extends eastward for 450' where Town property starts again. The eastward section of town
property extends for about 795' until it intersects at Riverside Drive and Walnut Street. Total
Town property is 5.59 acres, 2.39 in the western area, 3.20 in the eastern area. The Town
• waterfront area varies in width from around 60' to over 200'. Elevation also varies from sea level
to over five feet.
U.S. Geologic Survey data shows one benchmark on Town property at an elevation of
5.6'. This is located about 60' from the Pamlico River roughly in an alignment with the
intersection of Riverside Drive and Pine Street.
B. Soil Types/Characteristics
Soil types, their characteristics, etc. are important in erosion studies. (They also have
much to do with drainage.) For these reasons soils are considered here.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Beaufort County reveals the vast majority
of the Town's waterfront is the Se soil group. Smaller units of the Me group are noted along the
northern area adjacent to Runyan Creek -River Road area. Characteristics of these soil groups are
• as follows as described in the Soil Survey:
K

Se —Seabrook-Urban land comple.- This map unit occurs as areas of a nearly level,
moderately well drained Seabrook soil and areas of Urban land. It is about 40 percent Seabrook
soil and 30 to 40 percent Urban land. The Seabrook soil and Urban land occur as areas too small
or too intricately mixed to be mapped separately at the scale used. This unit is on broad, smooth
terraces along the Pamlico River in the city of Washington and the Town of Washington Park.
Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent. Individual areas are irregular in shape and range from 3 to
more than 100 acres in size.
Typically, the surface layer of the Seabrook soil is grayish brown loamy sand 8 inches
thick. The underlying material extends to a depth of 80 inches. In the upper part, it is light olive
brown loamy sand that has olive yellow and light gray mottles. In the next part, it is pale yellow
loamy sand that has yellowish brown and light gray mottles. In the lower part, it is light gray
• sand.
Permeability is rapid in the Seabrook soil. Available water capacity is low. The shrink -
swell potential also is low. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 2 to 4 feet during
winter and early spring.
Urban land consists of areas where the original soil has been cut, filled, graded, paved, or
otherwise modified. Most soil properties have been so altered that a soil series is not
recognizable. These areas are used as sites for parking lots, roads and streets, sidewalks,
apartment complexes, or other closely spaced buildings. The extent of site modification varies
greatly. Many areas have been subject to little disturbance, whereas others have been
extensively graded or filled.
Included in this unit in mapping are small areas of Altavista soils, the well -drained State
soils, and the very poorly drained Torhunta soils. Altavista soils are intermingled with areas of
is
W

• the Seabrook soil and Urban land. State soils are on the higher ridges. Torhunta soils make up
about 10 to 20 percent of most mapped areas.
Most of the acreage of the Seabrook soil and Urban land is used for urban development.
This unit is not used as cropland or woodland.
Wetness is the main limitation affecting urban development in areas of the Seabrook soil.
It can be reduced by a drainage system consisting of perforated drain tile, ditches, or both. Rare
flooding is a hazard in a few low areas. On -site investigation is generally necessary before the
use and management of these areas can be planned.
The land capability subclass of the Seabrook soil is IIIs and that of the Urban land is
VIIIs. This map unit has not been assigned a woodland ordination symbol.
Me-Muckalee loam, frequently flooded. This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on
• flood plains along small streams that flow into the Pamlico River. Slope is 0 to 1 percent.
Individual areas are oblong and range from 5 to 50 acres in size.
Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown loam 12 inches thick. The underlying
material extends to a depth of 60 inches. In the upper part, it is gray sand loam that has
yellowish brown mottles and thin lenses of loamy sand and sandy clay loam. In the lower part, it
is gray sandy loam that has very dark gray mottles and thin lenses of sandy clay loam and sand.
Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity also is moderate. The shrink -swell
potential is low. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet during winter and
early spring. The soil is frequently flooded for brief periods.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Dorovan soils. These soils have
organic layers. Also included are soils that are sandy below the surface layer. Included soils
make up about 10 percent of most mapped areas.
5

• All areas of the Muckalee soil are used as woodland.
This soil is not used as cropland. Flooding and wetness are the main limitations affecting
cultivation. A lack of suitable outlets limits the effectiveness of drainage systems.
Forested areas support mixed hardwoods and pine. Common species include bald
cypress, green ash, sweetgum, water oak, and loblolly pine. Under story species are greenbrier,
ironwood, and inkberry. Wetness and flooding are the main limitations affecting woodland
management. The seedling mortality rate can be very high. The use of planting and harvesting
equipment is very limited because of the wetness and the instability of the soil material.
Flooding and wetness are the main limitations affecting most urban and recreational uses.
A better -suited site should be chosen.
The land capability subclass is Vw. Based on sweetgum as the indicator species, the
• woodland ordination symbol is 7W.
In summary, much of the Town is located in areas where soil conditions are such that
drainage is moderate at best, poor at worst and the shoreline area is subject to erosion. These
conditions, combined with the relative low elevation of much of the Town, result in areas where
drainage and erosion are problems. A discussion of these situations follows.
C. Recent Shoreline Erosion Expenses
The Town's waterfront has and is currently experiencing erosion. Following Hurricane
Fran in 1996, the Town received a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) development permit
to construct a terraced bulkhead along the Pamlico River near the intersection of Riverside Drive
and Pine Street where Fran caused much erosion damage. Instead the Town placed sand fill
material in this eroded area. Subsequently, this material itself eroded and little protection was
Safforded the area. Sand, being composed of small grains, is generally not a suitable erosion fill

• material as it becomes mobile with the application of water. Sod and natural vegetation with a
root mat is the best natural material to impede erosion.
In August 1999 the Town had groundcover vegetation and subcanopy material "bush
hogged" along the Runyan Creek area and selected areas along the Pamlico River. Vegetation
was literally cut down to ground level. While site vistas may have been enhanced, the root mat
of this vegetation may not recover to its normal state. This situation certainly has the potential to
affect erosion, particularly along Runyan Creek. Selective vegetation cutting (vines, specific
bushes, other woody plants, etc.) can achieve enhanced vistas without threatening the vegetation
community's vitality as one of the best shoreline erosion deterrents. Any future vegetation
removal should occur in deep winter or early spring (January, February, March) in order for
plants to have the full summer growing season to recover. The vegetation itself deflects wave
• energy, acts as a barrier to prevent water -born floating debris from becoming ballistic, and the
root mat provides the soil a material upon which it becomes stationary.
•
In mid -October 1999 after tropical storm Dennis, Hurricane Floyd, and before Hurricane
Irene, the Town applied a considerable amount of sand along the shoreline from the intersection
of Riverside Drive and Pine Street and easterwardly to the intersection of Riverside Drive and
Walnut Street. The intent apparently was to prevent continued tree root erosion. Much of this
sand material simply was transported, through erosion, into the Pamlico River. Again, sand
material has not proven to be a useful long-term solution to shoreline erosion due to its mobility
when water is applied. If this or other material is applied in the future, at a minimum it should be
seeded to start a vegetation community. The Town should contact the DCM (946-6481) for any
proposed activity along the Town's waterfront as permits may be required for certain activities.
7

A recent article in the Sunday, January 23, 2000, edition of the Washington Daily News
covers erosion matters in the Pamlico River area. A copy is included in the front cover envelope
for readers to use as it contains some information that may be useful.
D. Recent Shoreline Erosion Observations
Field investigations on the waterfront with personnel from the States DCM in November
1999 and late January 2000 revealed the following observations:
1. The overall low elevation of Town shoreline property in specific places can be viewed as an
advantage in erosion control: stated differently, low elevation allows river surge to flow
inland in an unobstructed manner with the potential for reducing shoreline erosion. (It may
and generally does, however cause flooding.) At areas where more serious erosion occurs,
the elevation is relatively higher, creating a scarp where wave energy is maximized.
• 2. The Town has a number of low profile bulkheads, riprap, groins, jetties, etc. along the public
shoreline apparently placed there many years ago by property owners north of Riverside
Drive. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Website address
is included in the Appendix contains more information on shoreline erosion techniques and
an evaluation of effectiveness.
3. State and Federal shoreline protection regulators note that for the most part, groins and jetties
are ineffective in erosion control because in a riverine system little material and reduced
water flow limit material that can be trapped. Those existing on Town property may appear
to work, but it is important to note they were apparently originally placed where existing
sandy shorelines provided material to be transported and trapped.
4. Bulkheads have prevented erosion on property behind, yet water depth waterward of these
• devices has deepened. This is typical of bulkhead installation.
N.

• 5. Low profile riprap has proven to be an effective shoreline erosion device, particularly where
vegetation has propagated landward. (Note these areas on private property and select areas
on Town property identified in the 1997 Shoreline Inventory.)
6. Riprap at the Point (intersection of Edgewater and Riverside Drives) has proven effective, yet
material of a smaller size used elsewhere in coastal North Carolina has proven more
effective. In the future, the Park might consider material in the 20-25 lb. size vs. "slabs" of
100 lb+. The relatively high elevation of the shoreline here has caused an accelerated
erosion, thus requiring the riprap placement in the past. (Large slabs can be capped with
smaller material for cost reduction and visual reasons.)
7. Sand fill material deposited on the east end of Town shoreline property is basically
ineffective as a long term erosion deterrent. Its value may increase if vegetated.
• 8. The Town might investigate a re -vegetation effort along the public shoreline as a long-term
aid to erosion control as was suggested in the 1997 shoreline study. NC State Forest Service
may be able to offer suggestions.
9. Any erosion control construction activity including placement of sand fill material, etc.
within the Estuarine Shoreline Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (75' landward along
the Pamlico River and Runyan Creek area) may require a CAMA development permit and
the local CAMA office should be contacted prior to these activities. A major permit
application fee is between $400-$470 depending on size of the proposal. (This does not
include developing the application necessary for the permit.) A major permit is valid for
three years and if progress is being made, the permit can be renewed for two more years for a
$50.00 fee. CAMA minor permit fees are $50.00 for filing; the permit is valid for three years
• and can be reissued at that time for an additional $50.00. CAMA general permit fees are
0

• $50.00 and the permit is good for 90 days at which time it can be reissued once for an
additional 90 days. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "404" wetland permits may also be
is
•
required, but typically are covered or included with CAMA permits where required.
E. Shoreline Erosion Control Alternatives
Field investigations have resulted in several erosion control alternatives available to the
Park. They are not listed in order of priority:
Action
1. Do nothing
2. Bulkhead the Town's shoreline or
parts thereof.
Consequence
Continued event related erosion that at some
point will require corrective action if the public
waterfront is to be maintained as an asset to the
Town.
COST — nothing short-term.
This type of engineered solution is an effective
erosion deterrent, yet water depths will
increase waterward and unless the whole
shoreline is done at the same time, erosion
typically occurs around the edges of these
devices. These devices typically provide
immediate pedestrian access to the water, yet it
is similar to approaching a vertical "wall".
COST - These devices are costly and need
periodic maintenance. While costs will vary
depending on material used (wood, vinyl, etc.)
and method of construction (wash down, pile
driven, etc.), a working figure of $60.00-
$80.00 per linear foot is in the "ballpark".
Final exact costs will be a function of exact
location, CAMA permit requirements, and
10

3. Build offshore breakwaters.
•
4. Rip Rap the shoreline.
•
other variables. It will be important for the
Town to further explore cost figures in greater
detail if bulkheads are to be used.
These devices divert wave energy horizontally
and vertically in relatively deep water, thus
lessening shoreline erosion. They are costly
and expensive to maintain as they are typically
constructed in several feet of water some
distance from the shoreline. A local example
is the breakwater in Belhaven.
COST - Without specific site locations and an
evaluation of bottom conditions, no cost
estimates can be obtained. Marine contractors
note, however, that these devices are more
expensive than bulkhead as all construction
typically takes place from barges which
involves water borne work crews, powered
vessels, etc.
This type of activity has proven to be an
excellent erosion deterrent if material size and
application is done in a way to be effective. In
the Park, this material should be applied on the
outer edge of vegetation (consistent with
CAMA and Corps requirements). The
shoreline contour should be followed as much
as practical (certain cypress trees may be
beyond the practical boundaries of riprap
alignment). RipRap creates numerous facets
where wave energy is dissipated, thus
lessening erosion. This material must be
concrete, marl, or granite (often preferred). It
11

•
cannot be asphalt from street demolition. Cost
can be high if new material is purchased, yet
used concrete street demolition material can be
used. The Town may install this material for
the full shoreline at the same time for effective
results if this alternative is chosen. This type
of device typically limits pedestrian access to
the water as it is similar to approaching a very
rocky shore.
COSTS — RipRap material called anchor
material drop rock is in the 3001bs. size. At a
three to one ratio (three feet slope for every
one foot horizontal). The Town should expect
to use one ton per foot. This large material can
be capped with size class #2 (about football
•
size) for appearance. Rock price delivered to
the site is $45.00 per ton. Twelve feet filter
cloth is about $3.50/foot installed. A working
figure of $50.00/foot for three to one slope was
given by Mr. Jerol Selby, a local contractor,
(964-4171). A greater slope (which may be
necessary where shoreline scarp is high) could
result in needing 1%z tons per foot. Site
preparation needs may also increase costs.
One possible way to lower cost for riprap
would be to utilize "wash down" concrete
material from concrete companies cleaning up
trucks at the end of the day. This material is
generally free from businesses such as Redi-
•
Mix. Costs for this application (assuming
enough could be obtained and stored prior to
12

• use) would be in the $25.00/foot range.
Conversations in October 1999 with a local
sand and gravel company, B.E. Singleton and
Sons, Inc. (946-3287), revealed the following:
due to scarp heights it is difficult to determine
how much material will be needed along the
Town's shoreline. A CAMA development
permit which would show proper alignment
would be very helpful in final costs. However
a working figure of $120,000 was given. If the
Town chose to use this alternative for the full
1,619; the per foot cost would be
approximately $74. This does not include site
preparation cost that can approach or equal
installation cost, nor CAMA pennit application
• fees that can be many thousands of dollars,
depending on specific actions.
Specific groins and jetties along the shoreline may trap some material in transport, but
results from placement is unpredictable. However, the Town may find it advantageous to
maintain those that presently exist.
If the Town chooses to place jetties and groins adjacent to town property, they should be
located very carefully in order to take advantage of both existing small sandy beaches and trees
and tree root knees that are basically serving a jetty function. Those tree/root systems need
protection. The Town should also have realistic expectations as to their utility.
F. Summary, Findings
Shoreline erosion of the Town's waterfront property has been and continues to be of
concern to citizens and Town leaders. Most erosion control activities in the recent past seem to
• have been reactionary or crisis spawned resulting in limited site by site solutions. Continued
erosion may at some future point seriously affect citizens' ability to use and enjoy Town
13

• property safely. (Scarps, tree root material, stumps, old pilings, etc. can be public safety
hazards.)
Hopefully this project will provide information to enable Town leaders to be more
proactive on shoreline erosion matters.
• A revegetation program along the shoreline will likely prove to be useful as a deterrent to
future erosion. (The Appendix contains information concerning the State's Urban Forestry
program that may prove useful.)
• Town maintenance personnel or contractors hired to cut shoreline vegetation should have
specific instructions, and supervision, to reduce the likely hood of serious damage to
vegetation root mat. (Root mat is the single most effective natural deterrent to erosion.)
Stated differently, if all the ground cover shrubs and sub -canopy vegetation is removed, root
mat may not recover sufficiently to provide shoreline protection.
• Past placement of low profile bulkheads and riprap material on Town property has aided in
erosion protection. Groins, jetties and offshore breakwaters are of questionable positive use.
• Low profile bulkheads on Town property has had a positive effect on shoreline erosion; yet,
• as is typical with these devices, water depth waterward has deepened thus affecting
accessibility.
• Sand material used as erosion fill has proven only marginally effective in the short term.
Much of this placed material has subsequently eroded. Any fill material use should at a
minimum be seeded with grasses and other vegetation to at least start root development
process.
• Throughout the NC coastal estuarine and riverine system, riprap has proven to be an effective
long-term erosion control device. While costly, it works. However, unless placed in a low
profile manner, pedestrian access to the water is affected as people are somewhat cut off by
highly placed material. Passageways could be left where several small natural sand beaches
presently exist.
• Shoreline erosion is inevitable along the Town's shoreline. It has been occurring long before
the Town's existence. Proper action now may lessen erosion events in the future so Town
property is protected and future citizen use of the waterfront is ensured.
• • The Town needs to acknowledge the extent of shoreline erosion. Is it catastrophic? No. Is it
ongoing? Yes. Is it preventable? To a certain extent with intervention. Another important
14

• question is: Does the Town want to stop it at the present shoreline or try to reclaim recently
lost areas? While these questions are rhetoric to an extent, the Town should make decisions
based on some pondering as to Town goals.
• The shoreline erosion map includes a numbered system for specific erosion control devices at
specific areas along the shoreline. They are discussed below:
1. From the Walnut Street/Riverside Drive intersection beginning at Town property line and
running westerly, a bulkhead or riprap should extend along this area approximately 250
ft. to the westerly extent of the existing bulkhead basically in front of 316 Riverside
Drive. If riprap is used, it should be placed in front of the existing bulkhead.
2. Beginning immediately west of the existing remnant pier (roughly in front of 310
Riverside Drive) bulkhead or riprap material needs to be placed in order to prevent
further erosion of this higher elevation area where erosion has created a scarp. This
device should stop before intruding into the lower area roughly in front of the intersection
of Pine Street and Riverside Drive. The lower area from this point running westwardly
past the four private out parcels of land does not seem to be experiencing much erosion.
isNo action, except perhaps maintaining existing remnant jetties, is necessary.
3. The area west of private property in the Beach Street/Riverside Drive intersection has
several low elevations, sandy beaches which have been part of the shoreline landscape for
at least 25 years. The only action in this area is to perhaps maintain the existing jetties
and reduce marsh grass mowing to once a year in early spring.
4. Where elevation begins rising, approximately in front of 108 Riverside Drive, riprap
material could be applied proceeding westward around the point and the northward on
Runyan Creek for approximately 400-500 feet ending before the wetland plant
community begins (roughly at the Edgewater Avenue/Isabella Avenue intersection).
III. DRAINAGE COMPONENT
A. Preliminary Drainage Assessment
Typically engineering drainage studies include a lot of technical data. Calculations of
expected runoff from a range of anticipated rainfall events, based in part on the amount of
• impervious surface material (roads, roofs on buildings, etc.) are commonly developed. Data on
elevations within the study area are also commonly required, as are data on gradient, relief, etc.
15

• This information is expensive to generate. For example, in September, 1999, the City of
Washington reviewed such a study conducted for the Jack's Creek area. This report, with
several engineered solution suggestions cost about $80,000. The actual bricks and mortar
solutions are expected to be in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In many areas of
coastal North Carolina, drainage solutions are not cheap.
Obviously, the items listed above are beyond the scope of this project. The goal here is
to utilize as much existing information as possible, combine that with simple field investigations
and produce a map (and document) showing the existing drainage system. Observations on
culvert diameter, sediments in culverts, water flow direction, and ditch maintenance and
vegetation growth will also be noted. Hopefully this information will aid Town officials in
deciding if more detailed engineering solutions are needed.
B. Major Drainage Features
The Town of Washington Park has approximately 400 acres within the corporate limits.
Investigations conducted as part of this study show, however, areas outside of the Town impact
the Town's drainage system. The eastern boundary of the Park is the rear of the lots that front on
• Spruce Street. There is a major north -south drainage ditch at the rear of these lots that drain
these eastern areas. Drainage from North Shores, (an unincorporated area to the east of the
Park,) and perhaps even further to the east, adds to the drainage load in this ditch. A 24" plastic
pipe from the North Shores area emptied into this ditch approximately where the (extended)
intersection of College Avenue and Spruce intersect. During the writing of this report the culvert
was removed, yet the remaining ditch still drains the same region. Additionally, a 15" plastic
culvert located east of 116 Spruce Street further north on this ditch also adds considerably to the
drainage load. It is estimated these two drainage contributors are draining an area perhaps half
the size of the Park. It is important to understand these situations, particularly in times of high
rainfall, tropical storms, hurricanes, etc. since the Spruce Street ditch is simply overwhelmed
during these events. Drainage from outside the Park is a major factor in the Spruce Street ditch's
ability to adequately handle drainage generated inside corporate boundaries. During times of
storm surge from tropical storms and hurricanes, water pushed from the river actually intrudes up
the Spruce Street ditch adding even more drainage problems and causing flooding. The attached
• drainage system map will make this clear.
16

• Property in the Park north of River Road basically drains into Maple Branch (the northern
Town limits and an east -west tributary to Runyan Creek). As most of this property is at fairly
high elevation'. (except several lots near Runyan Creek to the west) drainage in this area is not a
particular problem except during times of severe rainfall. Maple Branch does however suffer
from much trash, limbs, trees, etc. in the watercourse which does reduce flow. "Snagging" and
removing this material would be helpful. In the recent past, beavers have built dams in the creek
which have also restricted water flow.
River Road is the only street within the Park with curb and gutters. There are
approximately 23 catch basins with grates on River Road (some grates are double size and
counted as two, yet cover one basin.) Field investigations on River Road were purposely
conducted in October and November, 1999, in order to observe leaf fall conditions. At
practically every catch basin, leaf accumulation was noted on grates designed to protect the
basins. Therefore, because most basins were only partially open or blocked, storm water runoff
would be affected. (Fortunately the Park had little rainfall during these months, as typically they
are dry months.) Leaf accumulation inside the catch basins was also noted with culverts therein
• also being partially blocked. Material accumulation in some basins was so severe that even with
probes it was very difficult to locate culverts to measure diameters. In a similar manner,
discharge points could not be located on many of the catch basins due to vegetation, debris, etc.
"Road dirt" was also noted on River Road along curbs and accumulated at catch basins.
These materials certainly prevent catch basins and culverts from working as efficiently as
intended. One catch basin on the western end of Town and the north side of River Road was
completely filled in. This material is a combination of both organic and inorganic material.
(Over time the organic material deteriorates and further adds to clearance problems.)
Maintenance of River Road drainage is the responsibility of the N.C. Department of
Transportation (DOT), provided some clearance activities in January and February, 2000 during
the development of this report.
Numerous driveway culverts exist in the Park. They affect drainage in significant ways
to be discussed in more detail later.
Ditches with visible water are another major feature in the Park. More discussion on
• these later also.
17

• Grassed ditches, intermediate ditches, and swales exist throughout the Park and also add
to the Town's drainage capacity or lack thereof.
French'Drains and associated culverts are located primarily at the western end of Isabella
Avenue (approximately 18) and a few others are scattered in the central and western part of
Town.
C. Drainage System Components
The Town's storm water drainage system consists of five basic components:
1. Ditches and canals with visible water in them
2. Grassed ditch, intermediate ditches, and swales that carry surface water during
rainfall events
3. Culverts under driveways and streets connected to items number one and two above
4. Catch basins and culverts on River Road
5. French Drains with culverts primarily on Isabella Avenue, but also occasionally
elsewhere in Town.
As the attached map shows, there are many driveway culverts in the eastern and central
• portions of Town. These are constructed primarily of concrete, but metal, terra cotta, and
plastic also occur. Pipe diameter varies but most are 16", a commonly used size for driveway
cuts. Also noted on the map are the condition of these culverts: open, partially open, closed,
etc. Clearly one of the major impediments to an adequate drainage system is open passageways
through which water can flow. Note on the drainage map many culverts are partially open or
closed, thus restricting an effective drainage system.
Aquatic and shoreline vegetation in and on the banks of ditches with visible water and
grasses ditches also impedes water flow. These conditions were noted during field
investigations; however, since vegetation growth is more vigorous during the warmer months,
more restriction problems occur then.
Many of the French Drains in Town suffer from the same conditions as the catch basins
on River Road, leaf and inorganic material stoppage. During field investigations leaf build
up/sand/dirt accumulation was sever enough in many places that investigators had difficulty
determining diameter and direction of pipe placement.
0

• D. Summary, Findings
Town efforts to maintain adequate drainage in the last several years has been noted and
well received by those Town citizens directly affected by these actions. Clearing specific ditches
of vegetation and in fill, "flushing out" driveway culverts and culverts under roads with water
and installing new culverts has had positive affects. These actions, however, appear to have been
in response to a particular problem at a particular site at a particular time.
Hopefully the information presented in this project will allow the Town to become more
pro -active and provide some level of preventive activities on a system -wide basis, rather than
respond reactively on a site by site basis.
• Virtually all of the Town's drainage system and components are in need of some level of
custodial care.
• After studying this document and maps, Town officials might list by priority areas that need
immediate, intermediate, and long-term action.
• Officials could have an annual investigation of the condition of the Town's system resulting
in identifying specific areas needing specific attention yearly. This should be on -going over
• the years.
• Labor force for drainage maintenance could be accomplished with honor level prisoners,
with adequate supervision, to reduce direct Town maintenance costs.
• Leaf placement (for removal by Town staff) during the leaf season has a significant impact
on the Town's drainage system. Uncontained leaves placed at roadside for removal often
results in debris deposits in ditches, swales and at culverts. This organic material, if not
removed, eventually deteriorates into a dirt debris substance (organic soils) that restricts
drainage ways thus impeding water flow.
• Residents in the Park are on individual septic systems. Water table depth is a factor in proper
operation of these systems. Water table depth is a function of many factors (rainfall, soil
types, etc.) and drainage is one that is very important. For years, Park residents and town
officials have been concerned that septic effluent may be impacting public health vis-a-vis
leaching into the Town's drainage systems. During this project State officials were asked to
sample and evaluate water in Town ditches. The attached letter and map in the Appendix
• may provide useful information on this matter.
19

• • Drainage in Washington Park has been and likely will continue to be a significant agenda
item for Town leaders. Simply put, the geography and soil conditions pose limitations. The
low elevation and lack of significant relief throughout much of the Park also are natural
•
•
impediments to drainage problem solutions. The Park's system does not have the advantage
of gravity as areas to the west have. It is probably unrealistic, both from a cost standpoint
and an engineering standpoint, to expect massive changes to the Town's system to mitigate
the Town's drainage problems. Yet a consistent, annual evaluation and maintenance plan
can do much to enhance the Town's drainage woes.
• Much interest in drainage (and flooding) has been the result of recent hurricanes and tropical
storms. It is unrealistic to try to prepare a drainage plan for these natural uncontrollable
events. As a practical matter the Town will simply have to take action for more normal and
routine drainage matters and hope for the best during those extreme weather conditions.
20

r �
•
APPENDIX
21

N C. ■
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
WASHINGTON QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
SE/4 CHOCOWINITY 15' QUADRANGLE
SCALE 1:24 OOQ
1 t
s o
-� 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET -DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO DATUMS IS VARIABLE
• SHORELINE SHOWN REPRESENTS THE APPROXIMATE LINE OF MEAN HIGH WATER
THE PERIODIC TIDES IN THIS AREA ARE NEGLIGIBLE
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DENVER, COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
4LANE �6LANE
Heavy-duty........ _Llght•duty_....................
Medium -duty
4 LANE, 6 LANE: E Unimproved dirt
C3 U. S. Route O State Route
1951
PHOTOREVISED 1983
DMA 5555 II SE -SERIES V842
is

37
11 /i i Count
u 0A.
Ir •'•
eil
0 SOO \� lr
-
Ity ♦ � �
'lin
tie U
C) °Piling ' .` RFOLK S — 1302
Foul
ing \ \\ �., , �.,••• r
Area
\ \\ Grove (C) \ ` •, •� .
Soft (C) \\� \ . S/ /� • _
01
\� �\ Dolph' s •� ,f _ - r Park
Greek Plling Rodrrlap Pfi� �z ..''�i \ a -
-�. b Ll nt (C) `� ,
1-, Bright (CY-.. \ �\ _ • .
stlfl Rt
p 'Piling \h\ He • . . _ • .� _.
\ \ •;
__ _
M
} •• t \ \ _
n ±
A --
Press (C)
.-
s
\ ••
Rain (C) _` ^- _.± - \\\\
• 31
6
�� % , _ \ • \\ \\ Lion
( I� s Engin (C?\ \? Light
f�y Lone (C)jz-
.a \ \
2
m
each
B _ \\ Ry \ \A A\
11 :r \ \• n „Piling �- \\\\ e
Silas (C) �•f• \\ \ � ed.,(C)

WHAT SH D COMMUNITIES DO?
Rize the need for urban
community forestry
► Establish a legal board, commission or
committee (called a Tree Board) charged
by ordinance with responsibility for
development and administration of a
comprehensive tree program
Amend or implement needed ordinances
to properly regulate tree planting,
maintenance and removal
Develop and prepare a long-range
management plan with the assistance
of the Division of Forest Resources°
Develop and implement annual work
plans based on the long-range plan
GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP
As much as $10,000 may be available to your city, town
or community through the U.S. Forest Service's Urban
and Community Forestry Grants Program which is ,
administered by the N.C. Division of Forest Resources.
Recipients include state, county and local government
agencies, as well as non-profit groups that will use the
money for a variety of community forestry projects,
including tree management plans and inventories,
education, publicity, and volunteer programs.
Grant -winning projects have included: seminars and
publications on urban forestry; completion of tree
inventories and master plans for tree maintenance;
and development of partnerships with volunteer, groups.
An Urban & Community Forestry Program
can make a significant' difference in your'
community's environment. For assistance in
creating your own program, contact:
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
Urban and Community Forestry Program
PO Box 29581
Raleigh, NC 27626-0581
[phone] ext. 253, 249 or 251
http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/EHNR/DFR
OTHER SERVICES AVAILABLE
FROM THE
DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES
Forest Protection:
Forest fire control
Forest insect and disease diagnosis
and control
Nursery:
• Sale of a wide variety of forest tree seedlings --
both pines and hardwoods
Forest Management:
• Examination and prescription of plans to
manage woodlands
• Site preparation and tree planting
• Timber disaster assistance
• Financial assistance to woodland owners
• Marketing advice
,State Forests:
• Demonstrations
• Forestry education
• Recreation
FOREST
SERVICE
N*,
FOREST
SERVICE
10,000 copies of this brochure were printed at a cost of $1100.00, or $.01 each.

DOES Y OWN HAVE THESE
COMMO ZEE PROBLEMS?
yam! Tall trees planted under utility lines requiring
severe pruning
40' Trees planted too close to sidewalks and
street corners
yr Trees planted too close together
Trees with spreading crowns next to
roadways causing obstruction
Trees that break easily in snow, wind
and ice storms
'' Areas void of trees
10�, No long-range tree planting program
46 No planned program for removal of
dead and dying trees
grC> No planned tree maintenance and
care program
46 No vegetative plan for parks and
public buildings
¢i;> An aging urban forest with no plan for
tree replacement
These scenarios are common in many North
Carolina communities. Awareness, concern
and action can eliminate many tree problems
and will prevent future ones. Development
and use of an urban forestry program is one
way to address these situations.
SolL4 Your Community's Tree Prob%m*
,Starts With Urban & Community Forestry
WHAT IS AN URBAN & COMMUNITY
FORESTRY PROGRAM?
Urban Forestry is a planned and supervised
program for the long-range management of
street, park and other public trees. With
thoughtful management, the urban environment
can be enhanced for businesses and residents.
Trees can benefit your community by:
,o blocking wind and reducing erosion
reducing noise levels by absorbing sound
0 improving air quality by filtering out impurities
and adding oxygen to the atmosphere
4> providing relief from hot weather by cooling
surrounding air
A0 increasing property values
0 malting towns physically attractive
The North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources' Urban & Community Forestry
program will assist towns, cities and
communities that want to manage their
urban forest resources. Urban & Community
Forestry does not cost much, but it does
require a realization of problems and a
desire and commitment to solving them.
WHAT CAN THE N.C. DIVISION
OF FOREST RESOURCES DO FOR
YOUR COMMUNITY?
The Division of Forest Resources will provide
technical assistance and services to communities
willing to manage their tree resources.
The Division will:
'!C5, visit the community, maize a presentation
on urban & community forestry and answer
questions
'S assist the local town council in creating a
program and appointing'a Tree Board
provide a sample tree ordinance
help the tree board conduct a detailed
tree inventory and present a written report
to the Town Council
' assist the Tree Board in developing a
long-range comprehensive Urban &
Community Forestry Plan
d> print, free of charge, the master plan and
provide copies to the Town Council and
Tree Board
11> assist the Tree Board in developing an annual
work plan
provide advice to the Tree Board on solving
specific problems as they arise
+. provide training in proper tree planting and
maintenance techniques
v, offer guidance on applying for grants and other
program funding alternatives
assist the community in meeting the criteria
to become a "Tree City USA"

•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Washington Park Town Hall
Honorable Mayor Tom Richter
P.O. Box 632
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mayor Richter;
VIVA
4 e
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 17, 1999
The Division of Water Quality received a call from Mr. John Crew concerning the ditches in the
Washington Park area. He along with several other residents noticed some gelatinous material collecting
in the ditches. He requested an investigation to determine if there was a public health threat.
On October 19, I met with Mr. Crew and discussed the areas that were of greatest concern. Water quality
samples for fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and phytoplankton were taken at three locations and
40 analyzed. Fecal coliform results showed counts well above the Water Quality standards for full body
contact as set forth in administrative code 15A NCAC 213.0100. The phytoplankton results showed
mostly fungus present, and some microorganisms often associated with waster water treatment plants.
Results from the nutrient samples were received this week, and were high as is expected with elevated
fecal coliform bacteria.
A second set of sampling was done on October 28 testing only for fecal coliform bacteria. The original
locations were retested along with three new locations. All results showed a significant decrease in fecal
coliform counts. Enclosed is a map indicating these sample locations.
The heavy rains associated with Dennis, Floyd, and Irene have caused the extended elevation or area
water tables. It appears logical to associate the elevated fecal coliform levels with improperly functioning
septic tanks. Fecal coliform bacteria are only found in the intestinal systems of warm-blooded animals.
The microorganisms found in wastewater treatment plants would point to septic tank problems as well.
If I can be of any further assistance I can be reached at 252.946.6481 ext. 230.
Sincerely,
Maria Tripp
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

•
Typical curb, gutters and catch
basin conditions on River Rd.. Note
leaf and road dirt accumulation.
0
Recent improvements on College Ave. near Hickory St.
intersection. Note spoil material placed adjacent to ditch is
already eroding. Removal of spoil and vegetation seeding
would enhance drainage.
Recent sand fill material
applied along River
shoreline south of Walnut
St./Riverside Dr.
intersection. Yardstick
shows erosion since mid
Oct. 1999 application.
Grass seeding and other
vegetation can help
stabilize erosion on newly
placed material.

•
•
stir: ��'��•
e•r 0'1_ - -� �t
.11
wl
A�
IS
l .
5 tiI wl`
�7 ��f.,w�,�'�',"hv.i �i..,!t3a'�- ..�/ii.�. •���� 'r'f�i n'�': � ab� rr_ . � � _ . -���rti
Very typical driveway
culvert conditions in
Town. Closed culverts in
the top two photos and
partially opened culvert
in the bottom photo are
repeated throughout
Washington Park.
It is estimated over half
of all driveway culverts
are in these conditions.

i
_
a :d �
yam•
Recent ditch improvements on River Rd. near Bank St. intersection. While soil removal
will help water flow, spoil placement immediately adjacent to the ditch will eventually
erode back into the ditch. Removal of spoil off site will reduce maintenance.
-:Vic..rY=�-"p_rs;,..�..:.._�...a......
b
.....-, A
Recent Town installed plastic culvert under Oak St. near Collage Ave. Note sod
installation along bank cut and funnel to direct water flow. An excellent example of
drainage improvements.

Washington Park
block clusters denote samples on 10/19/99 and 10/28/99; flags just on 10/28.
I
66
Streets98
Copyright Q IM 1997. Microsoft Corporal— and/or its suppliers All •fights reserved Plaase v'sit our web Site at htlp'.//maps. expedra oom
page 1

• French Drains Similar to catch basins but not necessarily associated with roadways.
These devices have masonry boxes and culverts to direct water to a
specific place.
•
0
Ditches With A long narrow excavation dug into the ground for the purpose of drainage.
Visible Water For this study, "with visible water" means that more commonly
than not water cari be observed by the human eye. Vegetation is
often seen on the banks and aquatic plants in the water.
Grassed Ditches Similar to above, but with notable vegetation. Different from above in
that water is not commonly visible, only during times of water runoff,
typically during heavy rain or storm events.
Intermediate Ditches Similar to grassed ditches but not necessarily continuous and well defined
from beginning to end. Generally are well vegetated but some are not.
Swales Typically a vegetated depression not excavated as are ditches, but rather
graded so that slopes are not acute angles. These are often located at the
upper ends of ditches described above.
Open Culvert A pipe that is basically free of debris in such a manner that allows the
unobstructed flow of water to a desired discharge area.
Partially Closed A culvert that is more open than not, but water flow is still
Culvert impeded.
Partially Opened A culvert that is most frequently closed thus restricting water
Culvert flow.
Closed Culvert A pipe that is so obstructed it is not functioning as a useful part of a
drainage system.

• USEFUL TERMS
For purposes of this report definitions of the following terms apply.
Bulkhead A constructed device built at and parallel to the shoreline of a water
course, typically of wood, but also of metal, concrete, or, increasingly,
vinyl. These devices prevent erosion of lands behind them by redirecting
water energy. Where waves occur, they deflect wave energy vertically
thus increasing water depth waterward of the device through scour.
RipRap Inorganic material placed parallel to and at the shoreline of a water course
to impede erosion. In coastal North Carolina materials commonly used
are marl, granite, concrete debris, etc. Material size varies considerably
depending on specific location and can range from boulder to football size.
This material creates many facets which deflect wave energy in ways that
generally do not cause waterward scour of the bottom of the watercourse
as do bulkheads.
Groins/Jetties Devices originating on the land shore (or very close) that are constructed
perpendicular to the shoreline. Construction material varies but wood and
inorganic rocks, marl, bricks, etc. are all used. These devices are designed
to build up land areas by capturing sand and other material suspended in
or moved by the water course. In riverine water courses in coastal North
Carolina they have not proven particularly effective in many locations
because water flow energy is typically so low that little material is
transported under normal conditions.
Offshore Breakwater A constructed device generally parallel to but distant from the shoreline
designated for protection. The principal with these devices is that wave
energy is depleted upon contact, thus protecting in shore lands behind.
Construction material is most commonly wood but other products are also
used. Since they are constructed offshore, installation and maintenance
costs are high.
Catch Basin As the name implies a "basin designed to catch". Typically associated
with roadways that have curbs and gutters, these devices are masonry
boxes, below road level with culverts to divert water in a desired direction.
Metal grates covering the basins are designed to prevent debris from
fouling the culvert.
Culvert A transverse drain, typically a pipe, of varying diameters, constructed of
cast concrete, but also of terra cotta, metal, plastic and other material,
• through which water is diverted to a desired discharge location.

Waterways Experiment Station
http://www.wes.army.mil/
•
•
•
1� N!
® I0
Welcome to the US Army Corps of Engineers
L24' C: L'LLtiC:
The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) is the principal Research,
Testing, and Development facility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Part of the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) Laboratoa System its mission is to conceive, plan, study,
and execute engineering investigations and research and development studies in support of
the civil and military missions of the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies.
Information
Organization
• Welcome
• Mission • Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
• Management Team a Environmental Laboratory
• Library and Publications . Geotechnical Laboratory
• Services to the Corps and DoD . Information Technology Laboratory
• Patriot's Grove • Structures Laboratory
News • Support Staff
Y.- ERDC
• Public Affairs Info
Other Resources Warning Peedback FMaS Users'
Privacy and Security Notice
The POC for this page:
Jennifer King, CEERD-PA-Z
USACE Home
601-634-2505 r iv 'tst Car yt ' a F `oA
Vicksburg, MS i I: ;Iri ` You
webmaster '" Are
Page last updated: Feb 2000 Hera
1 of 1 3/12/00 10:50 AM

685
FE
L
a
..3Q'
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SHEET NUMBER 6
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ttoor
4 ..
5 000 4 000 3 000 2000 1 000 0 5 000 10 000 Feet
This map was compiled by U.S. Department of Agriculture, '—' '� '—' `—' o i z 3 Kilometers
Soil Conservation Service and cooperating agencies on 1974 Scale - 1:24000
photography obtained from U.S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey.
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA NO. 6
T
SHEET NO. 6 OF 20

C
"THE POINT"
tiF�N PO/9 0
REE
G •
0� RAILROAD
UNDRF , .� OLK SOUTHER�Y �� ,. �
LEGEND
—•—•—•—
DITCHED WITH WATER VISIBLE
— — — — — —
GRASSED DITCHES (NO WATER)
SWALE (INTERMEDIATE DITCH)
o
CULVERT
CB ❑
CATCH BASIN
FRD ❑
FRENCH DRAIN
O
MANHOLE COVER (METAL)
CONC
CONCRETE
M
METAL
PL
PLASTIC
TC
TERRA—COTTA
P
PARTIALLY
NNW010}
OPEN WATERWAYS
—�
DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW
®
EROSION AREAS
SEE TEXT FOR EXPLANATION
108, 310 & 316
HOUSE NUMBERS FOR REFERENCE — SEE TEXT
O
0
J� � '\•`
r 400,
�►`bq�Fti '� �1 �►0 r , � �
�M,
r
..........3,,\'♦
��� 'y
w p0
OR
�S�
11� �
The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the
North Carolina Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND MAP CORRECTIONS THROUGH JANUARY 11, 2000.
SCALE: 1 " = 200'
DATE: 1-11-00
[EM87MR ORLUMME CLOY INMERH2
�WaSaoaQo
4a papa
t
DRAFTING
MARC K. EDWARDS
604 TARBORO STREET
WASHINGTON, N.C.
27889 252-946-7437

Ur- Div vvM, i mart vvr7 i D
The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by the
North Carolina Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND MAP CORRECTIONS THROUGH JANUARY 11, 2000.
SCALE: 1 " = 200'
DATE: 1-11-00
F�Ir �lC D6%CL
DRAFTING
MARC K. EDWARDS
604 TARBORO STREET
WASHINGTON, N.C.
27889 252— 946— 7437