20061277 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20060809

BROCK STREAM RESTORATION
FINAL RESTORATION PLAN
Jones County, North Carolina
SCO Project Number 050650601
•

s~' t~ . ;;
bs ~~
t~„`?~
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
osstem
1'ROG RAM
Status of Plan: Final
Submission Date: July 28, 2006
~~Q
V~~ ~
o~ a g ~o~
V'1P'~~~'t~'
~ ~ ~~, ,
v~,~y~~,-
v1~~"
•

•
Prepared by:
•
cl
Stantec
Stantec Consulting Services Inc
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Brock Restoration Site was discovered during the Lower and Middle Neuse Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Site Search conducted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in
2001. The northern Jones County site is located approximately 12 miles southeast of Kinston, North
Carolina. The Restoration Plan presented here includes the restoration of an unnamed tributary to Big
Chinquapin Branch and its riparian buffer, as well as buffer restoration adjacent to Big Chinquapin
Branch, and the preservation of a portion of the relic Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
along an old oxbow of Big Chinquapin Branch.
Restoration of a degraded stream system to a stable condition leads to improvements in the aquatic
and terrestrial communities that depend on it. Big Chinquapin Branch is a major tributary to the Trent
River and both systems are nutrient sensitive waters (NCDWQ, 1998). The proposed plan will provide
important benefits by improving the biological integrity of the stream system, reducing impacts from
surrounding nutrient runoff, reducing downstream sedimentation, increasing dissolved oxygen,
moderating pH levels, and moderating water temperatures of the stream through shading by the
surrounding buffer.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE and NCDWQ, 2005) recently released a new
draft mitigation guidance document related to stream restoration in the outer Coastal Plain of North
Carolina. The new guidance, developed in cooperation with the North Carolina Division of Water
• Quality (NCDWQ), addresses mitigation credits for headwater streams. Many natural headwater
streams and wetlands in the Coastal Plain were historically channelized for agricultural purposes. A
number of these channels, including the channel on the Brock Restoration Site, are eroding and lack
functionality and habitat. While many of these areas would benefit from restoration, traditional natural
channel design with pattern and profile has been determined to be inappropriate for all coastal
headwater streams. The driving factor behind the new guidance is that it is difficult to discern the
original condition of these first order channels: whether they were historically intermittent streams or
headwater wetlands. Emphasis is now being placed on restoring habitat and floodplain functionality to
these types of channels. The Brock Restoration Site is one of the first Ecosystem Enhancement
Program projects to fall under the new guidelines.
Using Rosgen classification (Rosgen, 1996), the existing channel is classified as a G5, which is
narrow and deep. The stream system will be restored using Priority 3 restoration, which involves
excavation of a new bankfull bench near the existing channel elevation. The bankfull bench will be
constructed entirely on the east side of the channel to minimize construction costs and avoid
disturbing a cemetery located onsite. The restored stream channel will classify as an ES channel with a
sinuosity less than 1.05. Wetlands are expected to form within portions of the newly created bankfull
bench, especially in the more downstream section of the project where backwater from Big
Chinquapin Branch will affect the stream.
The Brock Restoration Site is located in an area of intense agricultural land use. The proposed
restoration plan will reforest riparian buffer along the restored floodplain. An upland riparian buffer
• will also be reforested along a portion of Big Chinquapin Branch. The buffer restoration will
reconnect existing forested buffers along Big Chinquapin Branch and provide a wooded corridor for
Brock Stream Restoration Page i
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

wildlife. By reforesting a mosaic of vegetative communities, local biological diversity will be
increased. The buffer will also intercept overland flow from a Swale draining the agricultural fields on
the Brock property. Buffer reforestation at this site will reduce the input of nutrients from the fields to
the waters downstream of the unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin Branch, designated as nutrient
sensitive waters by NCDWQ. The Brock Restoration Site offers the potential to:
• Restore 1,8501inear feet of stream
• Restore 6.88 acres of riparian buffer
• Preserve 0.52 acres of riparian buffer

•
Brock Stream Restoration Page ii
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

•

•
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................i
1.0 Project Site Location .........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Directions To Project Site .........................................................................................................1
1.2 USGS HUC and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ............................................................... l
1.3 Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Characterization .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Drainage Area ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Surface Water Classification /Water Quality ........................................................................... 2
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 2
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends .......................................................................... 2
2.5 Protected Species ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.5.1 Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) .................................................................... 3
2.5.2 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) ................................................................... 3
2.5.3 Federal Species of Concern ................................................................................................... 4
2.6 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 4
2.7 Potential Constraints .................................................................................................................. 4
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ....................................................................................... 4
2.7.2 Site Access ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.7.3 Utilities .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.7.4 Cemetery ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.7.5 Drain Tiles ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.7.6 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass ................................................................................................ 5
3.0 Project Site Streams ...........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Channel Classification ...............................................................................................................6
3.2 Discharge ...................................................................................................................................7
3.3 Channel Morphology .................................................................................................................8
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................................... 8
3.5 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................8
4.0 Reference Streams .............................................................................................................................9
5.0 Project Site Wetlands ........................................................................................................................9
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .............................................................................................................9
5.2 Hydrological Characterization ..................................................................................................9
5.3 Soil Characterization .................................................................................................................9
5.4 Plant Community Characterization .........................................................................................10
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ........................................................................
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ............................................
6.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ......................................................
6.1.2 Target Buffer Communities ..............................................................
6.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ...............................................................
6.2.1 Methodology ....................................................................................
6.2.2 Discussion ........................................................................................
6.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ..............................................................................
6.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR ...............................................................
Brock Stream Restoration
Jones County, North Carolina
..................................11
..................................11
..................................12
..................................13
..................................13
..................................13
..................................13
..................................14
..................................14
Page iii
July 2006

6.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................................15 •
6.4 Soil Restoration .......................................................................................................................15
6.5 Natural Plant Community Restoration ....................................................................................15
6.5.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration .........................................................................15
6.5.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ................................................................................16
7.0 Performance Criteria .......................................................................................................................16
7.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................16
7.2 Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................16
7.3 Schedule & Reporting .............................................................................................................17
8.0 References .......................................................................................................................................19
9.0 Tables ..............................................................................................................................................21
Table 9.1 Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 9.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Areas and Discharge
Table 9.3 Land Use of Watershed
Table 9.4 Morphological Table
Table 9.5 Shear Stress and Stream Power Analysis
Table 9.6 Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone
10.0 Figures .............................................................................................................................................27
Figure 10.1 Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 10.2 Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 10.3 Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map •
Figure 10.4 Project Site Hydrological Features Map
Figure 10.5 Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
11.0 Design Sheets ..................................................................................................................................35
Sheet 11.1. Existing Conditions
Sheet 11.2. Plan View
Sheet 11.3. Planting Plan
Sheet 11.4. HEC-RAS Analysis
Sheet 11.5. Typical Section
12.0 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................41
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site Notification of Jurisdictional Determination and USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Project Site Biological Reconnaissance Form
Appendix 5. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix 6. Correspondence
•
Brock Stream Restoration Page iv
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

1.0 Project Site Location
•
s
11 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE
The Brock Restoration Site is located approximately 12 miles southeast of Kinston, North Carolina
(Figure 10.1) and lies in northern Jones County. From US 70 East in Kinston turn right on NC 58 and
travel approximately 12 miles. The site is located on the left approximately three miles past the beginning
of the Pine Street loop (SR 1301).
1.2 USGS HUC AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATIONS
The Brock Restoration Site is located within the Neuse River Basin (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-04-11) and
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020204010060. The
unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin Branch is a perennial stream. The restoration reach begins at a 54-
inch corrugated metal pipe under a farm path crossing. The channel flows in a northerly direction along
the east side of a small cemetery, terminating at its confluence with Big Chinquapin Branch (Figure 10.2).
1.3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP
`~ Kin ston
a ~~(
~~ ircn Sao"' .~ l 1
~-
:~ -
over
,1'
'
~
i.~+~~""
~ c
/p rd (u,.
Cove
~
„'«t pv~
n ~
i ~
00 ~;,.
~'i~,
~~~ T
~ S ~ n
O
_
Q
a y
2j
aaie R
d ~

Brock Vicinity Map ~
Pine Sf ~
~ G
v
(see also Figure 10.7) ~ ~ r
~ ~
/~/ Local Roads
~~ Major Roads ~ ~y
pQ
~ ~,~ ~
c nrq° ! ~+FS~„
, Rd
~ ~
` ~
J~~ Railroads / Brock Project Site
Q~ ~
County Boundary ~ ~
'~- V ~
%~ er
I 6
Streams c
'~ ~ ,
~ z~
Municipality %.~
J
_ Site Boundary / M' e .;~ Trenton
Brock Stream Restoration Page 1
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

2.0 Watershed Characterization •
2.1 DRAINAGE AREA
The Brock Site is located on an unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin Branch with a watershed of
approximately 315 acres in size (Figure 10.2). A field verification of the watershed area delineated from
the USGS topographic map was conducted on March 6, 2002.
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION /WATER QUALITY
The unnamed stream is a tributary of Big Chinquapin Branch, which is classified as C Sw NSW from its
source to the Trent River. The "Use Support Rating" has not been determined for this section of Big
Chinquapin Branch.
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project watershed is located in the eastern portion of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of
North Carolina. Broad, flat interstream areas are the dominant topographic features of this province.
Slopes are generally less than four percent. Elevations on the Brock Site range from approximately 39 to
52 feet above mean sea level. The soil survey for Jones County (Barnhill, 1981) indicates that the area is
underlain by Goldsboro loamy sand, Griffon fine sandy loam, Lynchburg fine sandy loam, Muckalee
loam, and Norfolk loamy sand. The watershed geology contains Tertiary Period material including the
Comfort Member and New Hanover Member of the Castle Hayne Formation. The Comfort Member is
Bryozoan-echinoid skeletal limestone with common solution cavities. The New Hanover Member is a
thin, micritic phosphate-pebble conglomerate.
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The watershed is a mixture of forested lands, agricultural row crops, two-lane roadways, farm roads,
cemeteries, minor culverts, and a few single-family homes (Table 9.3). Agricultural drainage features,
including ditches and drain tile, have been constructed and maintained on the Brock and neighboring
properties. The Brock Site and adjacent properties are utilized primarily for agricultural purposes. No
zoning exists in this part of Jones County and little development is expected in the future.
2.5 PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of flora and fauna are in decline due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with
human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject to
review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Brock Stream Restoration Page 2
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

• Letters were sent to the USFWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on
November 18, 2005 requesting comments on the project study area. A response letter dated November 29,
2005 was received from the NCNHP stating "The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species,
significant natural communities, or priority natural areas at the site or within a mile of the project area"
(Appendix 6).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of `endangered,' `threatened,' `proposed endangered,' and
`proposed threatened' are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists two federally protected species for Jones County, the
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis).
2.5.1 Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The federal and state status for the red cockaded woodpecker is `endangered.' An endangered species is
one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) are mostly black and white birds with barred backs and wings and a
large white cheek patch. Its habitat preference is wet pine flatwoods and pine savannas. The project
watershed does not have trees of suitable age and size to support RCW cavities. The upper half of the
watershed is forested, although according to North Carolina Gap Analysis Project (NCGAP) data, this
area is predominantly pocosin woodlands and shrublands. These areas are not suitable for nesting due to
the small size of the pine trees and/or the presence of hardwood species in the canopy or understory.
Foraging is unlikely as there is a lack of open pine stands for suitable nesting habitat within half a mile of
. the watershed. This adjacent area contains regenerating pine stands, pine plantations, and Coastal Plain
nonriverine wet flat forests which are unsuitable due to the small size of pine trees and/or the presence of
hardwood species. NCNHP does not indicate any occurrences of RCWs within the project watershed or
its vicinity and no individuals were observed during field surveys. Therefore, the Brock restoration will
have no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
2.5.2 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
The American alligator has a federal status of T(S/A), which denotes a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. The American
alligator is listed as "threatened due to similar appearance" to provide protection to the American
crocodile, a species which it closely resembles. The state status for the American alligator is `threatened.'
A threatened species is one that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The American alligator is 6 to 17 feet long with a
broadly rounded snout, distinguishing it from the American crocodile (Crocodylus aeutus). The American
crocodile is a tropical species and is not found this far north of Florida. The American alligator inhabits
fresh water swamps, marshes, abandoned rice fields, ponds, lakes, and backwaters of large rivers.
Although its range once extended north in the coastal plain to the Dismal Swamp, the American alligator
is now absent in the area north of the Albemarle Sound and in much of the upper coastal plain. Big
Chinquapin Branch does not provide suitable habitat for the American alligator because it is typically
found in larger streams and waterbodies further south. None have been observed in Big Chinquapin
Branch during field visits. Therefore, the Brock restoration will have no effect on the American alligator.
Brock Stream Restoration Page 3
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

2.5.3 Federal Species of Concern
`Federal species of concern' are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally listed or proposed as
`threatened' or `endangered.' However, the status of these species is subject to change, and therefore
should be included for consideration. A `federal species of concern' is defined as a species that is under
consideration for listing, but for which there is insufficient information to support its listing. In addition,
organisms that are listed `endangered,' `threatened,' or of `special concern' by the NCNHP list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and
the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
As of November 2005, there are thirteen `federal species of concern' listed by the USFWS for Jones
County. There are three vertebrates, the Southern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon simus), the Carolina
gopher frog (Rana capito capito), and the "Neuse" madtom (Notorus furiosus), and one invertebrate, the
Croatan crayfish (Procambarus plumimanus). The other nine species are vascular plants including
quillwort (Isoetes microvela), Carolina bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana), Carolina goldenrod (Solidago
pulchra), Carolina spleenwort (Asplenium heteroresiliens), Chapman's sedge (Carex chapmanii),
Godfrey's sandwort (Minuartia godfreyi), Savanna cowbane (Oxypolis ternate), Spring-flowering
goldenrod (Solidago verna), and Venus flytrap (Dionea muscipula). None of these species were observed
during site visits.
The Brock Restoration Site has potential to provide future habitat for some `federal species of concern'
such as the Southern hog-nosed snake, Croatan crayfish, and Carolina bogmint. •
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Brock Site consists of agricultural fields with no apparent historical or cultural significance. There is
small cemetery on the west side of the project stream and is overgrown with vegetation. A letter of
inquiry has been sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the site and specifically
the cemetery. A response was received on January 4, 2006 requesting an investigation of the Brock site
because of its proximity to the Civil War Battle of Kinston. SHPO also recommended that the cemetery
be evaluated by a professional architectural historian (Appendix 6). Subsequent discussions between the
Federal Highway Administration and the Office of State Archeology resulted in the decision that an
archeological survey would not be necessary for this project (Appendix 6).
2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
The landowner and the tenant farmer at the Brock Site were consulted on land use, proposed channel
alignments, proposed vegetated buffers and the ability to incorporate restored stream system within the
current and future land use constraints. A discussion of the various constraints is provided below.
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The State has acquired a conservation easement from Ms. Clare Brock on the sections of her property •
selected for restoration. The conservation easement places mutually agreed upon restrictions on the
Brock Stream Restoration Page 4
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

property deeds that will guide the use and management of the stream and its buffer areas, including the
preservation of a portion of the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest and the buffer reforestation
areas. After signing the easement, the property owners retain ownership, but agree to manage the property
according to the restrictions. The easement remains with the property if it is sold or transferred and the
new owner(s) will be required to honor the provisions of the conservation easement. NCEEP has been
working with the primary landowner, Ms. Clare Brock, and the tenant farmer such that they are aware of
the type of work and extent of the project's area.
2.7.2 Site Access
Currently, the site is easily accessible from NC 58 via a dirt road on the adjacent property to the west. An
agreement with Jean and Robert Tillett must be reached to use this access point for construction. An
undeveloped 15' ingress and egress easement is also present on the southeast portion of Clare Brock's
property. However, road access for construction equipment will need to be greatly improved.
2.7.3 Utilities
No utilities are known to exist within the project area.
2.7.4 Cemetery
® A small cemetery with at least five gravesites is located on the west side of the stream channel. The
cemetery is identified on an antique property map as "negro" cemetery. A site investigation found the
cemetery overgrown with vegetation. Five headstones, dated between 1920 and 1955, were found in the
southern portion of the 50 by 200 foot area marked as a cemetery. Photos of the headstones, as well as a
map of the cemetery location, can be found in Appendix 6. The proposed bankfull bench is to be
excavated on the east side of the channel away from the cemetery, therefore negative impacts by this
restoration project are not expected.
2.7.5 Drain Tiles
At least two drain tiles are known to exist along the unnamed tributary. These drains were found during
the jurisdictional wetland delineation on December 1, 2005. One of the drains is located on the adjacent
property to the south and the other is located within the project reach downstream from the cemetery
(Figure 10.4). Both drains were discharging water at the time of inspection. Additional drain tiles are
likely located throughout the site. As the floodplain is widened during construction, these drains will be
exposed and will require installation of floodplain interceptors to prevent future erosion.
2.7.6 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass
A HEC-RAS analysis indicated that the proposed channel geometry would not increase the 100-year
flood elevations within the project area. In fact, the analysis predicts reductions in the water surface
elevation by 2.89 feet at the downstream end (HEC-RAS Section 37) of the project (Appendix 5). The
• HEC-RAS analysis is discussed further in section 6.3.
Brock Stream Restoration Page 5
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

3.0 Project Site Streams
A field survey of the existing channel was completed on October 9, 2001. A detailed topographic survey
of the Site was completed on November 15, 2001. Field survey measurements were gathered using the US
Forest Service Technical Report RM-245 (Harrelson et al., 1994). Elevation measurements taken for the
longitudinal profile and two cross-sections (one riffle and one pool) include, but were not limited to:
thalweg, water surface, bankfull, low bank, and terrace. Measurements were also taken to calculate the
bank slope, width of flood prone area, belt width, valley length, straight length, pool-to-pool spacing, and
channel materials. The survey and data collection provided detailed existing conditions and identified
design constraints (such as cemetery location) (Sheet 11.1).
The fluvial processes occurring have been causing instability and eroding banks. These trends may
continue if the stream is not restored to a stable condition. The channel is also a pathway for nutrients
from the surrounding agricultural areas to the nutrient sensitive waters of the Trent River. Impacts
resulting from sediment and nutrient depositions will decrease once the channel and buffer are restored.
Photographs of the channel are located in Appendix 1.
3.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION
•
The restoration reach is shown on both the USGS Phillips Crossroads topographic quadrangle and the
Soil Survey of Jones County (Barnhill, 1981). The channel is a first order stream. Regular maintenance
(vegetation removal, channel bed material removal, and grade alteration) has created the current
dimension, pattern, and profile. See Appendix 1 for photos of existing conditions.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stream classification method for determining
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial channels was utilized to evaluate the unnamed tributary to Big
Chinquapin Branch. The jurisdictional determination was conducted on October 10, 2001 during an
extended dry period. A score of 12.5 was recorded for the upstream portion of the channel between NC 58
and the Brock property, indicating that portions of the stream near NC 58 are potentially ephemeral. The
existing channel at a point just downstream from NC 58 received a numerical score of 22.5, indicating it
was at least an intermittent stream (Appendix 3).
Dave Penrose (NCDWQ), Leilani Paugh (NCDOT), and Lia Myott (Stantec) conducted a further
evaluation on February 21, 2002, to determine if the existing channel was perennial or intermittent. Based
on the aquatic fauna identified and the drainage basin size, the reach from the southern boundary of the
Brock property to Big Chinquapin Branch was determined to be perennial. See Appendix 1 for photos of
existing conditions and Appendix 4 for the Biological Reconnaissance Form.
It should be noted that coastal streams score lower on the NCDWQ stream classification evaluation than
their mountain and piedmont counterparts. The form depends heavily on geomorphologic features (e.g.
riffle and pool sequence) that are not always exhibited as strongly in smaller perennial and intermittent
coastal plain streams when compared to non-coastal plain streams. The project site stream scored in the
intermittent range, although after analyzing the aquatic fauna it was determined to be perennial.
i
Brock Stream Restoration Page 6
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

Stream channels are classified using five criteria: width-to-depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, slope,
sinuosity, and channel materials (Rosgen, 1996). Width-to-depth ratio is the ratio of the bankfull surface
width to the mean depth of the bankfull channel. The ratio is an indication of the channel's ability to
dissipate energy and transport sediment. Entrenchment ratio is the vertical containment of the stream and
the degree to which the channel is incised in the valley floor. Entrenchment ratio indicates the stream's
ability to access its floodplain. Flood-prone width divided by bankfull width yields the entrenchment
ratio. The slope is the change in water surface elevation per unit of stream length. Slope can be analyzed
over the entire reach to determine if the slope is stable within the existing channel material, or over
sections to determine the condition of pools and riffles. Sinuosity is the ratio of stream length to valley
length. Channels with low sinuosity in eastern North Carolina typically indicate a straightened channel.
Channel bed and bank materials indicate the channel's resistance to hydraulic stress and ability to
transport sediment. All five of the criteria were used to determine the current condition of the channel.
Using Rosgen classification, the restoration reach is classified as a G5. The `G' classification indicates
that the channel is entrenched, and has a low width-to-depth ratio and sinuosity. The existing channel is
approximately 20 feet wide at the top, 8 feet deep and 4 feet across at the bottom. The `5' classification
designates it as a predominantly sand bed channel. Areas of firm marine clay are apparent from the
downcutting process. The existing channel data is presented in Table 9.4.
Stream flow fluctuates dramatically, from fast flowing and relatively deep water to no flow with water
pooled only in scattered locations during drought conditions. Aquatic fauna observed in the channel
during the field investigation included various minnow species, dragonfly and damselfly nymphs, and
crayfish. In-stream habitat quality is poor due to agricultural maintenance practices, the lack of woody
streambank vegetation, algal growth, lack of riffle-pool sequence, and temperature fluctuations. Only the
most pollutant-tolerant species were present, further indicating poor water quality and/or habitat.
Bank height ratios describe the difference between the bankfull elevation and the lowest stream bank.
Commonly, stable channels exhibit bank height ratios between 1.0 and 1.3; however, these numbers may
increase based on stream classification and overall entrenchment. The existing bank height ratio at the
Brock Site is 3.5 indicating that the stream is deeply incised. Additional information including pattern
data for the existing channels can be found in Table 9.4.
3.2 DISCHARGE
Bankfull discharge is defined as the dominant channel forming flow that moves the most sediment over
time (Rosgen, 1994). This generally equates to a 1.2 to 1.5 year storm event in North Carolina. Bankfull
discharge is estimated using various methods. Coastal Plain Regional Curves developed by the Stream
Restoration Institute at North Carolina State University were reviewed (NCSRI, 2004). These curves
provide a graphical representation of bankfull discharge to drainage area. USGS regional regression
methods for determining peak discharge were also examined (Pope et al., 2001). This method employs
long-term gage data to develop equations based on hydro-physiographic region. Coastal plain regression
equations were used to calculate various peak discharges for 2, 5, 10, 50 and 100-year events. Alog-log
plot of these discharges can then be extrapolated to determine the bankfull discharge. A third method to
estimate bankfull discharge is based on channel morphology. Once bankfull areas and bed roughness
were determined from field surveys, Manning's equation is applied to calculate the mean velocity in the
channel. This velocity is then multiplied by the channel area to determine the discharge. The existing
Brock Stream Restoration Page 7
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

bankfull velocity is approximately 2.1 ft/s equating to a bankfull discharge of 20.8 fl3/s (Table 9.2). The .
calculated discharge compares well to the NCSU regional curves and the USGS regression method.
3.3 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
Bankfull width of the existing stream channel at the Brock Site is approximately 6.9 feet and bankfull
depth is approximately 1.4 feet. The stream has a sinuosity of 1.06; however, due to past channel
straightening, there are no radii to measure for radius of curvature ratios or meander length ratios. The
width-to-depth ratio of 5.0 is moderate and the entrenchment ratio of 1.9 is moderately entrenched as
expected for a GS type stream. The Brock restoration site's streambed material is sand dominated.
Photographs of the existing stream channel are presented in Appendix 1. A complete morphological table
for the existing stream channel is presented in Table 9.4.
The composition of the streambed and banks is an important facet of stream character, influencing
channel form and hydraulics, erosion rates and sediment supply. The streambeds on the Brock Site were
characterized using the modified Wolman Pebble Count (Rosgen, 1994). Pebble counts were taken at
representative locations along each reach. The locations included both riffle and pool cross sections. The
average dso (50% of the sampled population is equal to or finer than the representative particle diameter)
is less than 2.0 mm for the stream, which falls into the sand size category.
3.4 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
The existing channel on the Brock Site was analyzed for overall stability. This analysis included the
morphological assessment as mentioned above, and calculations of shear stress and stream power. The
existing channels exhibited average shear stresses of approximately 0.25 lb/ftz, which equates to a stream
power of 0.41 lb/ft2/s. In a relatively flat, sand bed system such as the Brock Site, the stream power is
slightly excessive. Shield's curve indicates shear of this magnitude can move particles 45 mm in
diameter. The largest particles found at the Brock Site are 30 mm. Field observations indicated bank
erosion and attempted lateral migration of the channel. These indicators include sloughing banks,
especially in locations of drain tiles, center bar formation and lateral bar formation. The proposed channel
is designed to reduce the shear and stream power to an acceptable level capable of moving the largest
particles but without degrading the channel.
3.5 VEGETATION
Vegetative communities present on the Brock Site include agricultural row crops, Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and a Mesic Hardwood Forest. The majority of the Brock and surrounding
properties are used for agricultural crop production. On the Brock Site, this land use covers approximately
87 acres. Cotton was the dominant crop noted during Fa112001 and 2005. The natural communities on the
site were identified based on the classification system established by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Restoration of the stream channel and riparian buffer will provide additional wildlife habitat for terrestrial
and aquatic species where very little habitat existed before.
The historic forested riparian buffer has been replaced with a narrow grassy border and row crops that
provide only limited thermal and chemical moderating effects. The channel banks are sparsely vegetated .
Brock Stream Restoration Page 8
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

by a variety of herbaceous species, while black willow (Salix nigra), Juncus spp. and Carex spp. grow in
the wetter areas.
4.0 Reference Streams
Priority 3 stream restoration will be carried out on the unnamed tributary on the Brock Site. This will
involve excavating a new bankfull bench but will not include restoring pattern to the stream. Reference
reaches are not required for this methodology. Additional information is provided in section 6.0 of this
report.
5.0 Project Site Wetlands
5.1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
The methods outlined in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) were used to delineate the jurisdictional wetlands on the Brock
property (Appendix 2). Approximately 0.11 acres of existing wetlands are located in the former channel
of Big Chinquapin Branch (Figure 10.5). The property line runs down the center of the old channel
splitting the wetland area.
5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Hydrology for the existing wetland comes primarily from large overbank flows from Big Chinquapin
Branch, which still enter the old channel. Some surface runoff also contributes to the hydrology.
5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
The soil survey for Jones County (Barnhill, 1981) indicates Goldsboro loamy sand, Griffon fine sandy
loam, Lynchburg fine sandy loam, Muckalee loam, and Norfolk loamy sand underlie the Restoration Site
(Figure 10.3). According to the soil survey, the unnamed tributary and buffer area are underlain by
Goldsboro, Muckalee and Norfolk soils. The only hydric soils found within the project vicinity during the
field visits were located in the small Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest in the northwest portion
of the project area.
Goldsboro loamy sand is a moderately well drained soil found near drainageways in uplands. The soils
formed in moderately fine textured sediment. Infiltration is moderate and runoff is slow. Slopes range
from 0 to 2 percent. The seasonal high water table is below 2 or 3 feet. Goldsboro soils typically contain
inclusions of hydric Muckalee soils. Goldsboro soils are fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Aquic Paleudults.
Goldsboro soils are mapped on the southern end of the property, primarily in the agricultural fields.
Brock Stream Restoration Page 9
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

The Griffon series consists of very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands, stream
terraces, and floodplains in the Coastal Plain. The soils formed in loamy marine sediments and are
underlain by alluvial marly sands and clays. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The water table is at a
depth of 0.5 to 1 foot below the ground surface from December to May. Griffon soils are fine-loamy,
siliceous, thermic Typic Ochraqualfs and are classified as a hydric soil by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). Grifton fine sandy loam is mapped along Big Chinquapin Branch where
the riparian buffer will be planted connecting the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest to the Mesic
Hardwood Forest. Wetland restoration is not feasible in this area because the water table has been
lowered as a result of the channelization of Big Chinquapin Branch.
Lynchburg fine sandy loam is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that forms in loamy marine
sediments. Lynchburg soils are on low Coastal Plain areas, generally in shallow depressions or on broad
interstream divides. Runoff is slow and permeability is moderately slow to moderate. The water table is
typically at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet from November to April. Lynchburg soils typically contain
inclusions of hydric Rains soils. Lynchburg soils are fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Aeric Paleaquults.
Lynchburg soils are mapped on the Brock property outside of the project area.
Muckalee loam is a poorly drained soil found in level areas or drainageways. Infiltration is moderate and
surface runoff is very slow. These wide flat areas are frequently flooded for brief periods and ponded in
winter. The water table is at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. The NRCS classifies Muckalee loam as a hydric
soil. Muckalee soils are coarse-loamy, siliceous, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents. Muckalee loam is
mapped in the area of the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest on the northwest corner of the
property.
Norfolk loamy sand is awell-drained soil found near major drainageways. Infiltration is moderate and
surface runoff is medium. The seasonal high water table remains below 4 feet. Norfolk soils are fine-
loamy, siliceous, thermic Typic Paleudults. Norfolk loamy sand is mapped along most of the stream
channel on the property. Norfolk soils typically contain inclusions of hydric Muckalee soils.
5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION
The entire Brock property encompasses approximately 99 acres located between NC 58 and Big
Chinquapin Branch. Vegetative communities present on the property include agricultural row crops,
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and a Mesic Hardwood Forest. The conservation easement
primarily contains agricultural row crops.
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest community lies at the confluence of the unnamed
tributary with Big Chinquapin Branch. This vegetative community encompasses nearly two acres.
Historically, Big Chinquapin Branch followed a meandering path through this area. When Big
Chinquapin Branch was channelized, one of the stream's meanders was cut-off from the straightened
mainstem. This area still supports a Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest, which rarely floods
because of the channelization of Big Chinquapin Branch. The dominant canopy tree species include
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), red maple (Ater rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). The understory is dominated by canopy species such as red maple and sweetgum. The
shrub layer is dominated by box elder (Ater negundo) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). The herbaceous
Brock Stream Restoration Page 10
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

layer is dominated by jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), and
panic grass (Panicum spp.). Standing water was noted in the old meander channel, which discharges into
the unnamed tributary during periods of overbank flows from Big Chinquapin Branch.
This Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest community is underlain by Muckalee loam. Based on
the hydric soils listing of Muckalee, presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology this portion of the
old channel is a wetland (Appendix 2). However, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
has not verified it as a wetland at this time. The existing wetland area encompasses a total of 0.11 acres,
while less than half of that area is within the conservation easement. Photographs of the Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest are located in Appendix 1.
The Mesic Hardwood Forest is located in the northeast portion of the Brock property outside the
conservation easement. The canopy contains primarily red maple with tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), hackberry (Celtis laevigatal), American sycamore, and white oak (Quercus alba) interspersed
among the maples. The understory contains saplings of the canopy species as well as American holly (Ilex
opaca) and flowering dogwood (Corpus florida). Shrubs and vines include horsesugar (Symplocos
tinctoria), giant cane, greenbrier (Smilax spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans) and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). The sparse herbaceous layer includes Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), and Carex spp. This community encompasses
approximately ten acres.
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE and NCDWQ, 2005) recently released a new draft
mitigation guidance document related to stream restoration in the outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
The new guidance, developed in cooperation with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), addresses mitigation credits for headwater streams. Many natural headwater streams and
wetlands in the Coastal Plain were historically channelized for agricultural purposes. A number of these
channels, including the channel on the Brock Restoration Site, are eroding and lack functionality and
habitat. While many of these areas would benefit from restoration, traditional natural channel design with
pattern and profile has been determined to be inappropriate for all coastal headwater streams. The driving
factor behind the new guidance is that it is difficult to discern the original condition of these first order
channels: whether they were historically intermittent streams or headwater wetlands. Emphasis is now
being placed on restoring habitat and floodplain functionality to these types of channels. The Brock
Restoration Site is one of the first Ecosystem Enhancement Program projects to fall under the new
guidelines.
6.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The health of a watershed is dependent on the quality of the headwater system(s), individual tributaries,
and major channels. High quality tributaries with vegetated buffers filter contaminants, maintain moderate
water temperatures, provide high quality aquatic and terrestrial habitat and regulate flows downstream.
Brock Stream Restoration Page 11
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

Big Chinquapin Branch is a major tributary to the Trent River, and both water bodies are nutrient
sensitive (NCDWQ, 1998). Agricultural land use practices have narrowed or removed many natural,
vegetated buffers along streams within the Trent River watershed as well as draining and converting
nonriverine wet hardwood forests to cropland. This restoration will enhance functional elements of the
unnamed tributary.
The Brock Restoration Plan calls for the restoration of the unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin Branch,
reforestation of the associated riparian buffer, reforestation of the buffer along Big Chinquapin Branch,
and preservation of the existing wetlands and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest within the
conservation easement. This involves the creation of a stable channel, riverine floodplain, and associated
riparian buffer.
Priority 3 stream restoration will be carried out on the unnamed tributary on the Brock Site (Table 9.1).
This will involve reconnecting the stream channel to its floodplain, which will allow overbank flooding.
To reduce construction costs and avoid disturbing the cemetery, a bankfull bench will be cut entirely on
the east side of the existing channel. Water quality functions will be improved due to the creation of more
storage for floodwaters and increased filtering of pollutants. Wetlands are expected to form within
portions of the newly created bankfull bench, especially in the downstream section of the project where
backwater from Big Chinquapin Branch will affect the stream. Barring water quality issues outside of the
Brock Site, the restoration should improve aquatic species diversity and abundance in the stream
channels.
The restoration of riparian buffers along the restored stream channel will improve water quality. The re-
establishment of the riparian buffers with hardwood species will also improve wildlife habitat on the
property.
These measures will improve the physical, chemical, and biological components of the unnamed tributary
and the Brock property, as well as Big Chinquapin Branch and other downstream waters. Specific project
goals:
• Improve water quality by limiting the bank erosion
• Provide a stable stream channel (18501inear feet of stream restoration)
• Restore 6.9 acres and preserve 0.52 acres of riparian buffers along the stream channel
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the unnamed tributary to Big Chinquapin
Branch
6.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The proposed stream channel will be modified, by cutting a floodplain bench. Due to the constraint
imposed by a culvert at the upstream end of the project, the stream will not be returned to the original
floodplain; rather the stream has been designed as a Priority 3 restoration (re-establishing a floodplain at
its existing elevation). The state of the existing channel reveals how it is able to handle the system's flow
and sediment supply. The existing shear stress and stream power are compared with the design in order to
evaluate aggradation and degradation.
Brock Stream Restoration Page 12
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

Design channel dimensions were calculated utilizing the regional curve and the few bankfull indicators
that could be found in the existing channel. The stream design allows the stream to transfer less sediment
through the restoration reach but will also allow for the sediment to deposit on the newly formed bankfull
bench without aggrading or degrading. The channel pattern and profile will not be adjusted. The channel
dimension will be adjusted by grading a bankfull bench on the east side of the channel. Flood analysis
ensures that the stream restoration project will not increase flood stage following construction.
The proposed channel will have a total length of 1,850 feet. The bankfull bench is designed to handle
larger flows. Flood flows will be able to access the newly excavated floodplain. In conjunction with the
channel restoration, the proposed design will reforest 6.88 acres of riparian buffer along the restored
stream channel. Design sheets are included in section 11.
6.1.2 Target Buffer Communities
Buffer reforestation will establish a stable buffer along the restoration reach extending to the limits of the
conservation easement (Table 9.6, Sheet 11.3). The planting plan is dependent on the hydrology of the
site, the surrounding vegetative communities, and available supply of species. The plan is modeled after
mature, unaltered systems as outlined in the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). The newly excavated floodplain will be planted with a Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood Forest community. Remaining areas outside the floodplain, excluding the cemetery, will be
planted as a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Coastal Plain Subtype.
6.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
6.2.1 Methodology
A stable stream has the ability to transfer its sediment load without aggrading (depositing sediment) or
degrading (scouring sediment) over long periods of time. The stream design is based on a comparison
with the existing channel's aggrading/degrading pattern and adjusting the proposed channel's shear stress
and stream power such that the channel has the ability to transfer its sediment load in a stable manner.
Shear stress (lbs/sgft): ti = y R S
Stream power (lbs/sgft/s): w = ~ µ
y =specific weight of water S =hydraulic slope
R =hydraulic radius µ =velocity
The geometry and the profile of the proposed stream combine to provide a stream that will convey the
bankfull discharge and transport the stream's sediment supply. Grade control devices will be installed to
further reduce the possibility of degradation within the restored channel.
6.2.2 Discussion
When working with a sandbed channel the standard practice is to evaluate the stream power of the
channel. Stream power is the product of the shear stress and the bankfull flow velocity. The current
Brock Stream Restoration Page 13
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

stream power is down-cutting the existing streambed; thus the proposed design reduces stream power. At
bankfull flows the unit stream power and shear stress will remain un-changed (Table 9.5). During higher
flood flows the shear stress and average velocity will both decrease on the proposed channel as compared
to the design channel. In the existing stream system during high flows there is more power and a higher
sediment transport capacity than in the proposed channel.
6.3 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
6.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR
The methodology used to evaluate the hydrologic analysis required the evaluation of the existing stream's
bankfull elevation and corresponding bankfull area. Due to the severe alterations in the stream channels at
the Brock Site, bankfull indicators were not easily observed in the field. For this reason, the Coastal Plain
Regional Curves were used to verify the bankfull dimensions surveyed (NCSRI, 2004). Also, bankfull
discharge was verified with the regional curves equation below.
Q = 16.56 (Aµ,atershed)0 72 RZ = 0.95 (NCSRI, 2004)
The Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) was used to evaluate how the
discharge flows within the proposed channel geometry (USAGE, 1997). This evaluation verifies that the
proposed plan, dimension, and profile would adequately carry the discharge at the bankfull stage, the
point where water begins to overflow onto the floodplain.
Given that the project involves modifications to a stream channel, it is important to analyze the effect of
these changes on flood elevations. Floodwater elevations were analyzed using the HEC-RAS Version
3.0.1.
HEC-RAS is a software package that is designed to perform one-dimensional, steady flow, hydraulic
calculations for water surface profiles for a network of natural and constructed channels. The model is
based on the energy equation, and the energy losses are evaluated by friction (Manning's equation) and
contraction/expansion (coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity head). The momentum equation is
used in situations where the water surface profile rapidly varies, such as hydraulic jumps and stream
junctions.
Discharge rates for the design have been evaluated with the regional curve. The bankfull discharge for the
restoration reach is approximately 20.8 ft3/s. The existing channel's V-shaped dimension, straight pattern,
and uniform profile channels the bankfull discharge through a reduced area at a faster velocity than the
proposed design. The proposed design will reduce this velocity. The existing and proposed geometries
were evaluated at the bankfull discharge rates using HEC-RAS. The proposed bankfull bench dimensions,
slow the velocity as the stream travels through the valley.
The analysis supports the field identification of the existing bankfull area with a close approximation and
confirms the proposed channel will adequately carry the discharge at bankfull stage.
•
Brock Stream Restoration Page 14
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

6.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The 100-year discharges were determined using the hydrological procedure and charts presented in the
NCDOT guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design (NCDOT, 1999). According to Chart
C200.1, the Hydrologic Contour is 4. With a drainage area of 315 acres and a hydrologic contour of 4, the
100-year discharge of 130 cfs can be determined from Chart C200.2.
The HEC-1tAS analysis indicates that the proposed channel geometry will not increase the 100-year flood
elevations within the project area, and that the water surface elevation will be reduced by greater than 2.0
feet at the upstream end of the project (Station 37 or Station 10+00) (Appendix 5). The HEC-RAs plan
layout is shown in Sheet 11.4.
6.4 SOIL RESTORATION
The recommended construction sequence will include removing the existing topsoil within the areas to be
restored. The excavated material will be stockpiled and spread across the new floodplain area to provide a
more nutrient rich substrate for the establishment of planted vegetation. Compacted areas of the soil will
be "deep ripped" prior to planting.
6.5 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION
6.5.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
As previously discussed, the target streambank and floodplain riparian communities are Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest. The remaining unforested areas within the easement are to be planted with
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Coastal Plain Subtype species. The planting plan was designed to include
species that would be found in these communities as described by Schafale and Weakley's Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990). Proposed plantings for each zone are presented in
Table 9.6.
Seeding, mulching, live staking, and vegetation planting will be used to stabilize the restored streambanks
and floodplain. All disturbed areas will be seeded with anon-invasive grass species and either mulched or
matted. Matting will provide immediate protection for the streambanks against shear stress while the
plantings develop a root mass. The matting will be made from biodegradable material. In time, the
plantings will replace the matting. The streambed and point bars of the stream channel will not be matted
or planted so they may function as natural point bars.
Plantings will be used for streambank stabilization and riparian buffer establishment. Plantings will
quickly develop a root mass and help protect streambanks and floodplains from erosive forces while
absorbing nutrients. The plantings will eventually provide the stream with shade and wildlife habitat. The
entire unforested areas of the easement will be planted.
The planting plan will use three different groupings of woody vegetation: streambank, floodplain, and
upland riparian buffer (Table 9.6, Sheet 11.3). In addition, it can be expected that natural recruitment
• from onsite woody and herbaceous material will occur. streambank planting will involve planting trees
and shrubs on the channel banks for stability and reinforcement. Planting techniques may include live
Brock Stream Restoration Page 15
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

staking, containerized, and bare root plantings. Species approved for streambank planting include swamp
dogwood (Corpus stricta), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and
Virginia willow (Itea virginica).
Vegetative planting within the new floodplain will consist of Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood species
native to the Coastal Plain physiographic region. Based on species availability at the time of construction,
the following woody species are proposed: American sycamore, willow oak (Quercus phellos), green ash,
water oak, and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
Vegetative planting within the upland riparian area of the restored channel and along the buffer adjacent
to Big Chinquapin Branch will be modeled after species found in coastal plain mesic hardwood forests.
Based on species availability, the proposed woody species include chenybark oak (Quercus falcata var.
pagodaefolia), white oak, bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
American sycamore, and swamp chestnut oak.
6.5.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
It is not anticipated that invasive plant species will be a significant problem on the Brock Restoration Site.
During the first year of monitoring, any invasive species problems will be noted and specific management
options will be proposed.
7.0 Performance Criteria
7.1 STREAMS
The stability of the stream channel will be monitored annually for five years or until success criteria are
met. One reach of the new channel will be monitored for dimension, pattern and profile. Permanent cross
section pins will be installed in the monitoring reach. The longitudinal profile will be a minimum of 20
bankfull widths or 200 feet. As vegetation establishes and the channel stabilizes, the channel's cross-
section is expected to tighten slightly; however, the cross-section should not indicate downcutting or
widening. Monitoring efforts will evaluate any changes by overlaying each year's cross-section and
longitudinal profile with the previous years' for comparison. In addition, photo reference points will be
located using a Global Positioning System and included on the "as-built" plan for the Brock Restoration
Site.
7.2 VEGETATION
•
Vegetative sample plots will be quantitatively monitored during the growing season. According to
NCEEP guidance, 1-2% of the planted area should be sampled. Based on the approximate buffer area,
four 100m plots will be established. In each plot, species composition, density, and survival will be
monitored. The four plot corners will be located using a Global Positioning System (GPS), permanently
located with ROW stakes, and included in the "as-built" report for the Brock Site. •
Brock Stream Restoration Page 16
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

The vegetative success of the riparian buffer will be evaluated based on the species density and survival
rates. Vegetation monitoring will be considered successful if at least 260 trees/acre are surviving at the
end of five years.
7.3 SCHEDULE & REPORTING
1. Restoration Plan July 2006
2. Final Design August 2006
3. Bid Administration
• Execute Contract September 2006
4. Construction Management
• Begin Construction October/November 2006
• Complete Construction/Planting December 2006
5. Mitigation Plan December 2006
6. First Year Monitoring Report October 2007
•

Brock Stream Restoration Page 17
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

8.0 References
Barnhill, W.L. 1981. Soil Survey of Jones County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation Service.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO.
NCDOT. 1999. Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design. North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Raleigh, NC.
NCDWQ. 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
NCSRI. 2004. Coastal Regional Curve. NC Stream Restoration Institute.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wc.Ig/sri/coastal.htm. Accessed September 2004.
Pope, B.F., Tasker, G.D., and J.C. Robbins. 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
Rural Basins of North Carolina -Revised. US Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report
O 1-4207. Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Rosgen, D. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
USACE. 1997. HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Version 2.0. USACE, Hydrologic Engineering Center,
Davis, CA.
USACE, NCDWQ. 2005. Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North
Carolina. Wilmington, NC. November 28, 2005. Accessed Apri12006.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/documents/CoastalPlainSTreamMitigationFinalDraftPolicyNov28.doc.
•
Brock Stream Restoration Page 19
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

9.0 Tables
Table 9.1 Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 9.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Areas and Discharge
Table 9.3 Land Use of Watershed
Table 9.4 Morphological Table
Table 9.5 Shear Stress and Stream Power Analysis
Table 9.6 Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone

•
Brock Stream Restoration Page 21
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

•
Table 9.1 Restoration Structure and Objectives
Pro'ect Number 050650601 Brock Stream Restoration
~est~>~~~i~ Ruch ~E~storati~on ° orlty ~~1nq`" ' r ~s~~ned
:Type ~,~~ >~oac6 ~~~ :~, ~t~t~ar
Footage or ' Faote~e of
Ac~e~ e. c~'e~ +~
Stream Restoration Priorit 3 1,850 feet 1 850 feet
Buffer Restoration 6.88 acres
Preservation 0.52 acres
Total Buffer Acres 7.4 acres
•
Table 9.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Areas and Discharge
Pro'ect Number 050650601 UT to Bi Chin ua in Creek
Parameter Existin Pro osed
Bkf Dischar e cfs) 20.8 20.8
Bkf Area Utilized s ft) 9.9 9.9
Bkf Veloci f/s 2.1 2.1
Table 9.3 Land Use of Watershed
Pro'ect Number 050650601 UT to Bi Chin ua in Creek
Land Use Acres a Percents e
orested 188.0 59.1%
iculture 117.8 37.0%
Rural Residential 10.2 3.2%
Road 2.2 0.7%
•
Brock Stream Restoration
Jones County, North Carolina
Page 23
July 2006

Table 9.4 Morphological Table Project Number 050650601 Brock Stream and Wetland
Restoration
Variables Existin Channel Pro osed Reach
Brock Brock
1. Stream T e GS ES
2. Drains. a Area s . mi 0.49 0.49
3. Bankfull Width Wb ft Mean: 7.0 Mean: 7.0
4. Bankfull Mean De th db ft Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4
5. Width/De th Ratio kf/db Mean: 4.9 Mean: 4.9
6. Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area Ab s ft Mean: 9.9 Mean: 9.9
7. Bankfull Mean Veloci s Mean: 2.1 Mean: 2.1
8. Bankfull Dischar e b cfs Mean: 20.8 Mean: 20.8
9. Maximum Bankfull D th dmax ft Mean: 2.2 Mean: 2.2
10. Ratio of Low Bank Hei t to Mean: 3.3 Mean: 1.0
Maximum Bankfull D th lbh/dmax
11. Width of Flood Prone Area aft Mean: 13.0 Mean: 42.0
12. Entrenchment Ratio a/Wb Mean: 1.9 Mean: 6.0
13. Meander Len Lm ft Mean: N/A Mean: N/A
14. Ratio of Meander Len to Mean: N/A Mean: N/A
Bankfull Width Lm/Wbk
15. Radius of Curvature Rc ft Mean: N/A Mean: N/A
16. Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Mean: N/A Mean: N/A
Bankfull Width c/Wbk
17. Belt Width It ft Mean: 20.0 Mean: 20.0
18. Meander Width Ratio Wblt/Wb Mean: 2.9 Mean: 2.9
20. Sinuosi Stream len h/valle distance K Mean: 1.05 Mean: 1.05
21. Valle Slo a ft/ft Mean: 0.0033 Mean: 0.0033
22. Avers a Water Surface Slo a for Reach Sav Mean: 0.0031 Mean: 0.0031
23. Pool Slo e S ool ft/ft Mean: 0.0001 Mean: 0.0001
24. Ratio of Pool Slo a to Mean: 0.032 Mean: 0.032
Avers a Slo e S ooUSav
25. Maximum Pool D th d ool ft Mean: 3.0 Mean: 3.0
26. Ratio of Maximum Pool De th to Bankfull Mean Mean: 2.1 Mean: 2.1
D th d ooUdb
27. Pool Width ool ft Mean: 8.5 Mean: 8.5
28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2
Width ooUWb
29. Bankfull Cross-sectional Area at Pool A ool s ft Mean: 15.2 Mean: 15.2
30. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area A ooUAbk Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.5
31. Pool to Pool S acin - ft Mean: 20.0 Mean: 20.0
32. Ratio of Pool-to-Pool S acin Mean: 2.9 Mean: 2.9
to Bat>ldull Width - /Wb
33. Pool Len L ft Mean: 20.0 Mean: 20.0
34. Ratio of Pool Len to Bankfull Width L /Wb Mean: 2.9 Mean: 2.9
35. Riffle Slo Sri ft/ft Mean: 0.021 Mean: 0.021
36. Ratio of Riffle Slo a to Avers a Slo a Sriff/Sav Mean: 6.8 Mean: 6.8
37. Maximum Riffle D th dri ft Mean: 2.2 Mean: 2.2
38. Ratio of Maximum Riffle De th to Mean: 1.6 Mean: 1.6
Bankfull Mean De th driff/db

•
•
Brock Stream Restoration Page 24
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

•
•
•
Table 9.5 Shear Stress and Stream Power Analysis
Pro'ect Number 050650601 Brock Stream Restoration
PARAMETER EXISTING PROPOSED
Veloci f/s 2.1 2.1
Shear Stress lbs/s ft 0.25 0.25
Stream Power lbs/s ft/s 0.413 0.413
D100 mm) 30 30

Table 9.6 Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone
Pro'ect Number 050650601 Brock Stream Restoration
Common Name Scientific Name Southeast Re 'on Indieator
Streambank
Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata Facultative Wetland +
Swam Do ood Corpus stricta Facultative Wetland -
Vir inia Willow Itea vir inica Facultative Wetland +
Elderbe Sambucus Canadensis Facultative Wetland -
Floodplain -Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica Facultative Wetland
American S camore Platanus occidentalis Facultative Wetland -
Swam Chestnut Oak uercus michauxii Facultative Wetland -
Water Oak uercus ni a Facultative
Willow Oak uercus hellos Facultative Wetland -
Upland Riparian Area -Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest Coastal Plain Subtype
Bitternut Hicko Ca a cordi ormis Facultative
Sweet Pe erbush Clethra alni olia Facultative Wetland
American S camore Plantanus occidentalis Facultative Wetland -
Che bark Oak uercus alcate var a odae olia Facultative +
White Oak uercus alba Facultative U land
Swam Chestnut Oak uercus michauxii Facultative Wetland -
Brock Stream Restoration
Jones County, North Carolina
Page 25
July 2006

10.0 Figures
Figure 10.1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 10.2. Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 10.3. Project Site MRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 10.4. Project Site Hydrological Features Map
Figure 10.5. Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
•
•
Brock Stream Restoration Page 27
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

•
~~:
~"'
~'~

j ~~x~
.~
;~~
~.
«_,
'
~ ~' ~~:

;,

E ~'

1 Y

j „T% : ..

A
'.
.~'
. t
r" _
~~.
-
t 3
'-~
~
„
~
~~,,yy .x.
R!- l~~ ':.:,,ice ~ .Y - ~ /!
; 3 _. R.c
._ ~ _ •.,r_~
~ r~ ~
~_ ^ . ,
Legend Figure 10.4 Project Site Hydrological Features
~~ Streams Brock Stream Restoration
Jones County, North Carolina
Wetland July 2006
• Drain tiles 0 250 500 1000 Feet
Approximate Easement
Aerial Photos: September 2003 v~/'~ ~~
Hurricane Isabel Damage Assessment ~~
and Recovery Effort (USGS) _ Ecosystem
Starrtec ~ ..,,....
•
•
Page 32

._
_ ~
~~ .
~ ~
~ ~° aid .: ~ m~~-
; ~
~~ x ~
' ~_.
~
~ ~ ~ ~
.~, ~ ~~,
~,
'`
,..
y y~
,~
.~
A
' ~
~ ~~~ .
~
a~
~
~
o
ix"R" ~ ,
k ~
s ~ - ,
~°~ ~ ~~ d

7 ' e- =y

R ~ ~y
^.
'+ , a - .~ f;` ,
~ ~
`
' +,
~ t
•
~

a ~ ~ a ec~
~ y ;- r -
.~
~ n
""
.~ ~ ~
ail ,
~~
3: ~
k
~
~~~
a
}p~~
r

'

e
,

~
4
F ~ -~' ; '~ ~
~ a r
a,
~ '

~,: ~ ~
~~ #
.
,, ~- ~ a
~
c~ .. ., ~ ~ ~'` '"
~' ~
: ~'
~ ~."
~
.t ,1 ~ ~~
.~
Flag Number Northing Easting ~ ~ ,;~~
~ ~ ~
f ~ ~~~ ~ ~'
w1-010 495252.]70518 2459019,67127 ~
'
w1-01 1 495270.850967 2459021.227 ,~
,
~'~ ~

w1-009 495262.958213 2459002.11188 s
/
,
~
w1-008 495284.424412 2458974.07158 ~ ,'
~n ' f ~„ ,: ~
w1-007 495312.489934 2458967.19385 ~_,
-.
w1-006 495340.550917 2458950.64434 ', ~"' .~ .,, r
~
w1-005 495381.706564 2458914.28978 ^~`~ E
~; -
~
~
w1-004 4954]1.273861 2458889.84023 ;~ '
~'
w1-003 495433.286775 2458849.9157 ~
~~
w1-002 495458.969971 245881737638 ~ ' ~
~`
wIA01 495469.10842 2458816.41552 ,' t
w1-012 495282359678 2458984.4434 ~~
m
w1-013 495313.82772 2458975.1234
w1-014 495347.493019 2458963.15459
w1-015 495378.8]4594 2458932.3502
w]-Ol6 495408.628211 2458914.97596
w1-017 495442358838 2458893.41786
w1-018 495465.52572 2458896.10438 •"~
w1-019 495470378064 2458886.94702
1-020 495441
726795 2458874
55621 -

~<
w
.
.
w1-021 495458.375208 2458849.69829

Legend Figure 10.5 Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
'~-- Streams Brock Stream Restoration
Jones County, North Carolina
Wetland Flags July 2006
0 Wetland

Approximate Easement 0 25 50 100 150 Feet
+ Data Form Sampling Points _
Aerial Photos: September 2003 ~~ c'
Hurricane Isabel Damage Assessment `~I/~ F,C tem
_-
and Recovery Effort (USGS) Stantec ..~,.....,
Page 33

11.0 Design Sheets
Sheet 11.1. Existing Conditions
Sheet 11.2. Plan View
Sheet 11.3. Planting Plan
Sheet 11.4. HEC-RAS Analysis
Sheet 11.5. Typical Section
r~

Brock Stream Restoration Page 35
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

M

L
b
U C
N
g"
~~~
a~~~~
•~p T
~~3~~~
~~
N~
N
/' l g~`"r
N .~
`~- `" f /
\ ~
r' ~ ~.-- 1 "" .~' ~
t
~,
}
1i
tiny ~
= -~. ,,..
-..
` pJ
\ f i `?
'~i ;~ \i \ ~.~ ~ i~~r
4 ~` ` ` ,\ ~~ ` j/fir ~ ~_ ~„"
1
~ ~ ~ ~ + --~
~,
l
w 1
~ ~ '~ li ~ ~ ~ ~ /~
~i \r~ \ ` \ ` ~ / ~ //
` /
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ r
t ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~
\\ \` ~` ~` i 3 ; /
1 ~, l ~ l ~ I
,~ , ~ ~ \ r ~ ~,~
n r
i A I I~ S r" ;~
\ 1 ~ ~~~ i
~ `~~ ~i 1~
-.~ ; ~ ~~~~ ~ 1~ ~\ 1
~~
~'I i
J t ~" ~ r , i
c , ,~ o
/ _ ~ r ~ r ~~
/ i
N / f
~ a ~ ~ W
~ ! r
~'i' ~ / ~
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ %~.~
~ ' ~%
/ j
~ S ~ /
y ~~~ ,,
,~t, ~/
^,. ~ ~
~ ~VVV ,r ti~ ~ ~
~ ~ ``
s ~~ ~
rw.~ [ 1 ~! •, 1t l
~ 1 0® ~I _ a I t `y lti
f
g , ,r ~ ` `~ it ~ ~~'ti
~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~
~ ~.. I ~ ~a 1 ~• ~.
~a ~ i
~~ , /
~ ~~~ ~ //
~~ ~
yt
~ ~ ~~ ~~ t
d 1 ~
~ I /
~ ~ 0
~'~ j ~ f
t\ ~ i
~> ~ r ~ I
I ~
\ `ti ~ 1

Z
O
x
N
Q
W
Z
cc
Z
0
0
Z
0
0
w
J
Q
O U
N
O
• • •

s
E~
~~.
Q~
C
t
~~s
s
}~~~_~_
5 •~a~t
i ~
H ~' ~a
p
yy
F
S
n e ~" _
W N
~""uYca.~`°~
-a.
~J
,~
"'
Q
~,
W
\ u
/ t
z l
J
~ ~ ~~
r ,.'
`c's' r
....

,~-~~ ~--~-- 1 t Q v
~..
1
~'`~ .,~"~~,~ '- p'it' ~ ~ 1 . 1~., ,.. , r ° ~ --~' ~t ~ ~
Pl I I I g
\ ~ ~ lj \ "', 1 11
i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ t~ ~ f ,~ ~ ~~_ W
`~ `~ 1 i _.. ~ ~- a
y ~ ~ , ~" ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ j~~ ~ - -~_ ,-,,,._
t \ /i {
~I \ ~ I y ti~ ~-r---...i
~ ~.- /
J I 1\
{ l 1. `
\ ~ N
\\\ ~
s, ~~ °\ ~ , ~ \ /
~i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ \ ~ ~ '
~ \ \ 1~ ~ t
~` ~ ~ t
l ~ ~ ,~ I
~ h
1 ~LI l b
I ~ \
1 '
I j ~~ ! ~\
I ti ~ L~
I ~ `~, ~
~ ~
' ~~,~ t ~
/° r ~ ~
r n,.'~ /

1
1
f

~ , ,.-
~ f
~~
J ~
t ~ I~
t .r z
lit\~~ ~
~~
~ \ '~
1
~ 1i I i ~ 1~"
I I 1
,, ~ W
~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~
1
j
/ j u
'r 1
W
t
'~ 'X,. /
~ l
/1U
/ f
~ ~
W
., L ,--
1 ~ ~ '~'•
///
' ~ ~ \E
j
~~ ~
W J
U ~ +
~ (/'
\~
~~~~~ ~~~
,i ~.l ~
~ ~ , ,
I' t, // ~~
~ ~
~ ®o
ft f
1 ,_.,.D((~.M
f i
~..
`\
~~ ~
l`
~ ;
tti
~~
~~

,l
'. r;.
~ ~
\ ~J
yxUp
WN
~l
i}}
~, :.~
~'d }y
~ ~ I
r~
r
~ I
a I
t !
f ~1
i
1
t l
1 3
`~ ~
I
f ,--~`
J/ 1,
~ / 14
f -~'~~11
jl .~~~~ ~.t ~
.. f ~ i ~ }1
ZW ` ~
it
~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ` \ ` }t
~? ~ `

,:

t
~
~
t
~ f
J
1
'
r
l

~ t
~
1
1
.
~
h
3
x
N
W
Z
cC
0
Z
O
O
z
~ _~ •

ti

¢
z
~,

~
o~
m ~ ~ T
H •~

C e LL T
1 0
~~~~s Q ~ w
,. +~ mm ~ N
6~gVG• Z
~ ~
~
N ~- j ~
U ~

:j
'~:N.~,,;Y.f,y
+v.:;r.un:s^~~t.-.vw
,VV
-w•:r.
,:. u;,,,~,urr-<v.c+-:;+~ .. ,,.
.~-, .~.,.,-
~
,cru-,:y.,t,~.

;,,..
y..,.;,,iV ~~`~~ ~
R~ ~

~w< ~

O
Z

m
-~.- CHINIX/AP/N BR. lG AVG.
~ •~-~~ ~
~ ~ •~
~ ~ ~ .}~
~

l
~ ,~$
~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ G
~ ~
Q U
W

-, m µ N
2~
~ _
~..
~ V)
~

°

OfrCH
e

x ~
~ O
°~ ,~
~,.
)} o

G`

e »
Yj € w

C ~
Z
W4 Y~
7
U
......
; {~
NQ
W
~
'
~
Z

1
~
2
`ti
~
.,
/i
~
0
U
~ I d
~ j
i

1~ Ni
Y
t ~v^w+.,- .. a ww .,
v^v v ~ww^u^u'v°~'"'~ O f
i ~7
~ S

V,
r~1
~
~ YN
OJ
N

-~
/ W
YQ
~_

l/
U
, \\
1
1
~,
~
y
Q ~
z j
/ a
ro
c
J ~='
" ~ m
a V V U
C
r1
l.L v, J C
~ y H j .~
Z , ~ ~ ,
~
~
' C
g
z i
I- ~ ~
W
N Y
Z
Q ~`- x

N
0 Q o

m a~ 3 0
~ ao ~
J - 4
N
1 ~ t m fC
O E 'e C
%/ ~
~ ~~Wy
~
4 A
r u

lr t
/ ~
~ ~,
~`

, ,-
V

l

/ ``W
/ / W
~4
w
~' >Q /
~ >
]
W
y
o
U
U
~ Z

O

,.~-r
~..G i/j. ro L
~
~

/~
~-

U' c
~ ' ~
//
O LL.
m a W
~
'
Z
k C
a~
Z c ~~ ~~ y a
Ci j
k ~
~ a
U' o~ o ~~:~ ~
4~ o c Q Z~~ y m cp ~
.,~' ~ k ~ ~ j j Z ~ ~E ~ j ~ j
l ~D V V U
~~
~~$ w ~,~~~
~ ~a~~a g ~m~~~~ o
~ ~~~a~a ~
~:

~ -~~

m =
~
~
m '~° ~
oo
~ a
w m ~ _
~ to o
o
pRCr+
x~
°[ Z 7 E
~
~ _
u' E ,~ 3
U
~' ~
id
N~

~ m
~ N U C f6 ~
~ Q ~po m ° n
~ m
~ = m C~ N U
Z ~a ~a0 n 0

u~~ ~ c~'~~3
Q ~ m m :? o
n¢ Q Eu,~c mE
J m m m a~ =~c m
n¢U
~
~ c7c
~~ ~ mc
Sc
m
J
J
n

• • •

Z ~' v
U ~ O C ~ ~
H ~~ .~ r
L ~ T
N L 1 Q
W
Q L ~ t-
~g ~ / c 2
N VVIII C 1~ 1r ~(L ~ ~ ~,.. _ if U ~~/y/r Z V
r N
~ ~ --~--
(\ w
f
1-~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~Ct~
`` l
t t '~ I t1~ I \\~ t~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i
" \~ i
~ ~ ~ s x ~
/~/ '' ~ ~ ~\ ~ 1, 11\\ ~ ~
~, ~ t ~ , ~ , i .--
-~- ~ ~ \ ,q - r-
~~ \, ~ ~-
1, ~ ~ \ ~ ~ 3
a
Q ~ ~° f~ fi~ `~~~ ti~~ i~ ~
to ~ ..~
U ~ ~ ~,~, ~ ~ ~ o
~ i
I
I ~
U r ~ ~~ o
i 6
2 0 '~ ~ /l~/ , y
c ~ ~ / j
/~ r
~ ~~ ~/ ll' ~r I 1
`- ~
~~ ~ ~i ~
~i
~~ ,, Z
y
~,, o
I ~ / I 11 ~ o
} ~ ~ ~ i r' rn
X ~ I ~~ i t 1 F-
o® / ?
~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ \ ~~ ~\ ll 1~ o u~ o z
V . '~
L ~ ~
/ { ~~ ~3 t ~~ 1 ~,
~' ~. \ I
~ ~
~~~~
~ `i ~ f j ~
p•
Q i 1 1 ~
~> ~ ~ ~
,FF i- ~
~s 1 _U ~ I j
t 1 1
}t j f
~,1, 1 /
;t ~ ~
I ~ 1
~ ~' I
~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ i
1 :~ /1 r
t '~r ~
~, 1 r %
~ - - _ __._ ~r _ ___. _ _. _.~_--.____~~._

d
m~ z
n 8c O ~ ~
~~
a H ~ r
C ~ ~ ~ T
+~ ~ O
t L F-
~$~~g //~ ~ v o W
~~~~~~ I \% o a'
\\. U C~ z ~
\ ~ ~ >, ~
\i ~ ~
\~~ ~ ~ ~
//~~ ~ W u,
~i ~ ~ c
\~ ~ cn ~
/\ W
\\ o
\j W w
'I _ J
° \/~~ z Q
/~ g ~
~I ~
/ ~ ~°-
\/'~ W
W I \~ ~ o
O I Z \~ a z
H ~ \~'\
H I ° /\ W
U ~ \~
\ W
~ ~ \ Z~
Z ~
~ J
H z \~
U z ~ \'%
(/') _
U \~,
~ J z I \~/~\\\
Q Q w I \~//\~//~~.
U V a //\//\//
~ ~ ~ ~ \j\\j\\j`
~- ~- I i//\//\/%
H m \%\\~%\~%
\/\/\~
t--t ? ~\//\\//\\//
1- a ~\\//\\//\\~
m \/\/\/
O ,~%/\\%\\ j~
/\\/\\/\
~/\~l~/%
\/
r
~~\/i
/ =W
~~\% o00 _
c7//~\\\ v~3vJi
~ \/~ °aa
w~\\// ~°o°o
~~/\ ~~~
\ o -o
//~ ui°v~
i i ~
d

12.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site Notification of Jurisdictional Determination and USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Project Site Biological Reconnaissance Form
Appendix 5. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix 6. Correspondence

~..J
Brock Stream Restoration Page 41
Jones County, North Carolina July 2006

•
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs

C

•
•
Photo 1. Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Photo 2. Former Channel of Big Chinquapin Branch
Located in Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
Adjacent to Big Chinquapin Branch

t
9_ ~
` c:: • ,~~
~: K,y ~
.~, •.«
•f y..
~ t r z ~ ,,~~ ii r ~ , ~,} :.
LKe~ a ~~v j. ~dk _~y .. ~ a r~~ ~
~~~.a ~ a , pt x ~r,«r ~ Y Y
~~ ~ q ` ~y ~ ~ t ~~ )S ~~. ~C~.~ r i X' _ _4 ~ ~~3 ~ ,~~~"~E' ~ ,,~1 tFw~ ,i
<.~ q , , vE t V~ ~~~
~,•' ~ 'e ~+ :rat ~. 4 '~ M ;~1 .. 1~i ., .,a
M ~ ~ ~ _
art rit fi~ ~ ~~ µ`y ~ l~ ~4 ~~ \1t.4". 5 {~.}_ Y L ../ ` , ~ ~~ :~n Y /.~$,l =q~ f r~ •'~
'1 Y ~ ~ q F c K~ j ~~ 'C l x:. .f _
~ " ;~ ' ~r r ~^d cif '~ ~''d ..
Photo 3. Existing Channel; Southern Property Limits Facing North
Looking Downstream Showing Entrenched Channel
•
•

Photo 4. Existing Channel; Middle Reach Facing North
Looking Downstream Showing Mowed Buffer

•

Appendix 2. Project Site Notification of Jurisdictional Determination and
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS .-
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ~ R ~ ~ ~ `~ a ~~ ~~
i ~.. _ ~~
ORM ID: SAW-2006-32014-152 County: Jones U.S.G.S. Qua Ph~Ylin~,Crossroads
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Address: c/o Ms. Amber Coleman, Stantec Consulting
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Telephone No.: [phone]
Property description:
Size (acres) approximately 7 acres Nearest Town Dover
Nearest Waterway Chinauapin Branch River Basin Middle Neuse
USGS HUC 03020202 Coordinates N 35.100723 W -77.465240
Location description An approximate 7 acre tract located on the north side of NCSR 1002 approximately 0.5 miles
east of the intersection with NCSR 1301 adjacent to Chinauapin Branch near the Town of Dover in Jones County,
North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there maybe wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
• B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification,
X There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination maybe
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on 7/3/2006. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ Please be advised that a Prior Converted Cropland (PC) determination made by the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) remains valid as long as the area is devoted to an agricultural use. If the land changes to anon-agricultural use,
the PC determination is no longer applicable and a new wetland determination is required for Clean Water Act purposes.
Page 1 of 2

ORM ID: SAW-2006-32014-152 •
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Mr. Scott Jones, PWS at 1252) 975-1616 extension 27.
C. Basis For Determination
This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is adjacent to
Chinquapin Branch, a tributary flowing to the Trent River.
D. Remarks
Plat entitled "BROOK RESTORATION SITE FOR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM" and dated
03/21/2006. Plat prepared by Stantec Consultive Inc.
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this •
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the South Atlantic Division, Division Office at the Following
address:
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 09/03/2006.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official: ~ `f
Date 07/03/2006 Expiration Date 07/03/2011
Copy famished:
•
Page 2 of 2

I
r:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Revised 8/13/04
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DISTRICT OFFICE: CESAW-RGW
FILE NUMBER: SAW-2006-32014-152
PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION:
State: NC
County: Jones
Center coordinates of site (latitude/longitude): 35.100723 l -77.465240
Approximate size of area (parcel) reviewed, including uplands: 7 acres.
Name of nearest waterway: Chinquapin Branch
Name of watershed: Middle Neuse
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Completed: Desktop determination Date:
Site visit(s) Date(s): 03/21/2006
Jurisdictional Determination (JD):
Preliminary JD -Based on available information, ^ there appear to be (or) ^ there appear to be no "waters of the United States"
and/or "navigable waters of the United States" on the project site. A preliminary JD is not appealable (Reference 33 CFR part
331).
Approved JD - An approved JD is an appealable action (Reference 33 CFR part 331).
Check all that apply:
There are "navigable waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 329 and associated guidance) within the reviewed
area. Approximate size of jurisdictional area:

There are "waters of the United States" (as defined by 33 CFR part 328 and associated guidance) within the reviewed area.
Approximate size of jurisdictional area: 0.11 acres.
There are "isolated, non-navigable, infra-state waters or wetlands" within the reviewed area.
Decision supported by SWANCC/Migratory Bird Rule Information Sheet for Determination of No Jurisdiction.
BASIS OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION:
A. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 329 as "navigable waters of the United States":
The presence of waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in
the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
B. Waters defined under 33 CFR part 328.3(a) as "waters of the United States":
(1) The presence of waters, which are currently used, or were used in the past, or maybe susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
(2) The presence of interstate waters including interstate wetlands'.
(3) The presence of other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats,
wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate commerce including any such waters (check all that apply):
^ (i) which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ (iii) which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
(4) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the US.
(5) The presence of a tributary to a water identified in (1) - (4) above.
(6) The presence of territorial seas.
(7) The presence of wetlands adjacent2 to other waters of the US, except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands.
Rationale for the Basis of Jurisdictional Determination (applies to any boxes checked above). If the jurisdictional water or
wetland is not itself a navigable water of the United States, describe connection(s) to the downstream navigable waters. If B(1) or B(3)
is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document navigability and/or interstate commerce connection (i.e., discuss site conditions, including
why the waterbody is navigable and/or how the destruction of the waterbody could affect interstate or foreign commerce). IfB(2, 9, S or
6) is used as the Basis of Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make the determination. IfB(7) is used as the Basis of
• Jurisdiction, document the rationale used to make adjacency determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and is adjacent to Chinquapin Branch, a tributary of the Trent River.
Page 3 of 2

Lateral Extent of Jurisdiction: (Reference: 33 CFR parts 328 and 329)
Ordinary High Water Mark indicated by: High Tide Line indicated by:
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ the presence of litter and debris ^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ changes in the character of soil ^ physical markings/characteristics
^ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ^ tidal gages
^ shelving ^ other:
^ other:
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum; ^ physical markings; ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
Wetland boundaries, as shown on the attached wetland delineation map and/or in a delineation report prepared by: Stantec
Consulting
Basis For Not Asserting Jurisdiction:
The reviewed area consists entirely of uplands.
Unable to confirm the presence of waters in 33 CFR part 328(a)(1, 2, or 4-7).
Headquarters declined to approve jurisdiction on the basis of 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(3).
The Corps has made acase-specific determination that the following waters present on the site are not Waters of the United States:
^ Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, pursuant to 33 CFR part 328.3.
^ Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased.
^ Artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and
retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
^ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created
by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons.
^ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose
of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States found at 33 CFR 328.3(a).
^ Isolated, intrastate wetland with no nexus to interstate commerce.
^ Prior converted cropland, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Explain rationale: •
^ Non-tidal drainage or irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. Explain rationale:
^ Other (explain):
DATA REVIEWED FOR JURSIDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (mark all that apply):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant.
® This office concurs with the delineation report, dated 02/17/2006, prepared by (company): Stantec Consulting
^ This office does not concur with the delineation report, dated ,prepared by (company):
Data sheets prepared by the Corps.
Corps' navigable waters' studies:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic maps: Phillips Crossroads
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Historic quadrangles:
U.S. Geological Survey I S Minute Historic quadrangles:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: Jones
National wetlands inventory maps:
State/Local wetland inventory maps:
FEMA/F1RM maps (Map Name & Date):
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (NGVD)
Aerial Photographs (Name & Date): CESAW
Other photographs (Date):
Advanced Identification Wetland maps:
Site visit/determination conducted on: 03/21/2006
Applicable/supporting case law:
Other information (please specify):
Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria established in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology).
ZThe term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural •
river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent.

•
~~ ~:
~, ~
Applicant: NC EEP File No.: SAW-2006-32014-152

Date: 07/03/2006
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E

A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
~ .`'
e ~ _,
SI~C'IO~ ~~I RIIt~T~EST ~0I2: APPE~1 L~ or QBJE~'TIONS TO Ai`~ I"yi'~l VIAL I?ROFI EREI~ PE~R'~~I I' , ~ a ?
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Mr. Scott Jones, Project Manager Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAW-RG-W CESAD-ET-CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490
•

•

dN1~0?~b'0 H1~0N ,11N(100 S~NO~
1+~~~,~
WV'~1002~d 11V~W~ONdHN~ W~1S~1S00~ rzorissslb ~~
9989'FSS'616 'lel
90912
Q ~ 'V'S'fi ON Ubt91~2!
P~2! ~li~-~~ ss~oP 108 '00£ a+inS
~ 11 S N 011 b ~ O 1 S ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 9 'out bul~~nsuo~ oa~uo+s
z ~o~ 1~~Hs
II.
I
9s~ ~d 9n as ~
ibl 3aI~S 'd ~d
N~02i8 NN~I~ 3bVl~ I
/~
O
m
z
m
-~
D
m
z
0
m
m
r~
z
n
rn
u
i
/~ ~
~~
~~
i
I
I
I
I
4
I
I~
I
I
I
~I
I
9002/IZ/£
•£ooz'io AatlnNtlr a31va
ONtl 033x7 'B WIN~W AB .Ala3d0ad X70aB NNA'1 3atl17 NO A3naf1S
1N3W35tl3 NOI1tlAa3SN07. 031L1N3 130tld 99£ 30115'8 13NIBV7 ltlld
- - WOa3N3Ntl1 NOIlVWa03Nl AatlONf10B ONtl 1N3W3Stl3 NOI1tlna3SN07'i
°30N3a333a
'3atlM130S 2i30N13Hltld 3l8Wlal ONISfI 0355370ad
-1SOd Sa3n1373a Sd0 3l9Wlal 30Va7 ONIddtlW ONISfI 03NItl180
3a3M ONtl £80VN-01x0 7N 3atl dtlW SIHl NO NMOHS S31tlNI0a007 'Z
-'W2113 SIHl A8 A3~af15 AatlONf108 tl 1N3S3ad3a lON 5300 dtlW SIHl 'I
'S310N
O
I ~
m
-.~
r
z
m
-1
D
m
z
0
m
m
m
z
n
m
u
I
i
I
I
I
I
Is 3DN32i3 a3a
1r1~.;~Stl'3 NoI1C'nL'3sN00
100~N j
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I.
,.d,. ~IV130 Z 133HS ~3S ,
I I
I j
I j
I I
~-\
/ ~ ~ -~,~
i -~
\~
' J~
~ ~ ~ e~ - ;
~-~; _ _ ~ d3ad ONd~l~r~
la 30N3a3d321 -
HDNVaB NIdVf1DNIHD 0~0
3NI~a31N3D
i; ,.a.. ~lyl3a z 1~3HS 33s
w':
4-
--~----~
I ~
I ~
~ I
~ ~ i
,~ ~
1333 OOZ = HONII
,009 ,OOb ,OOZ ,0 ,OOZ
3lVOS OIHdVaO
291 • t,3ot~ • ~a1e
~~ . L ~e~ea
:aB1
~lerweby uogsaugap spuap~,~ s~aawBu3lo ~O~ L86L 84i Bu!i!I!in apses ssm uogeuluuelep
s!4.L '~P s!41 wog s~se% eng paewce of lou poued e ~ uodn pagai aq xew uo4olpsun(y~ uopoag
to uopewuuaiep s~yl 'suopaln6ai paysllgnd xw io mel elA ul eBue~p a ueaq sey e~eyl saelur) peleeu;lep
uaaq lou aney lnq aWS atR uo luasaud aq ,tees uo~psunf jo seals ~aylp •alap sfyy uo pau&siapun
841 ,(q PeuluuelaP ~ 'k!Mpe paeodcud luesa~d eyl ~fq pe~eduA sears etp ul ~y ~e4eM uesl~ eyl to
Y04 uoryoag )o uopolpsunf 84l ~ ~CrepunW ayl spldap ~egem~e >Qid sl411o !des slyl 1e41 seUl118o s!4L,
30Vd
~i009 0330
13NI8V0 1V~d
1NIOd 031(1dW0~
3N1~ 1N3W3SV3
3NIl J,2iVON(109 SONVl13M
3NIl 311
3Nil 1N3W3SV3 NOI1d~2i3SN00
3N1~ .11a3d02id
Od
9C
Od
3
-BEM-
~~
~~ O
y
~-, ~
1V3~
,,~~~ ~~'brJ 11~{~~~.
69Zb-~ 2i0A3~af1S ONVI 1VN01SS330ad
•~~
'900Z'~ladtl d0 Atl0 Hlb SIHl ~tl3S ONtl ONtlH
AW 553N11M '£80VN - OIaO 7N 3atl NMOHS S31tlNI0a007
3H1 1tlHl ONtl S3NIl N3XOa8 SV NMOHS 32lV 03A3~af1S
lON S3RitlONf108 3Hl 1tlH1°N03a3H 037N3a333a Stl dtlW tl
ONtl SONtl'113M 3H1 d0 A3Aaf1S 01313 1tlf117tl NV WOa3 latld
NI 03atld3ad SVM dtlW SIH1 1tlH1 A311 x37 'a3d007 X3a '3 'I

d'dW J.lINI01n
~S_.
~ a~`~
8S ON
,~
~':: , o .
`~:
~~,
•
• •

dN1~02~d0 H1~ON ~1N(10~ S~NO~ ,~,,~,~~.,~„
Wt7'~1`JOdd 1N~W~ONdHN~ W~1SJ~S00~ rzol•IS8•sls -~~
99$9'i S8'616 1aT
909LZ
Q ~ 'V'S'fl ON yblel~2!
P~2! ull~~3 seuoP 108 `00£ 9+l~S
~ 11 S N 011 d d O 1 S~ 2~ X 0 0 ?~ 8 •o~~ bul+msuo~ oe~~+S
9ooznzic
z ~o z l~~HS
1334 001 = HONII
,OOb ,OOZ ,001 ,0 ,001
33dOS OIHdGbO
869'6b88SbZ SL£'85b96b LZO-IAA
95S'bL88S4Z LZL'Lbb56b OZO-IM
Lb6'8888SbZ 8L£'OLb56b SLO-IM
bOL'9688SbZ SZ5'S9bS6b 8L0-IM
8Lb'£688SbZ 65£'ZbbS6b LLO-IM
9L6'bL685bZ 8Z8'SOb56b 9L0-IM
05£'Z£685bZ 5L8'8L£S6b 5L0-IM
55 L'£S685bZ £6b'L4'£S64 bL0-IM
£ZL'SL68SbZ 8Z8'£L£56b £LO-iM
£bb'b868Sbt 09£'LSZ564 ZLO'iM
LZZ' LZ06SbZ L58'OLZ56b L LO-IN+
LL9'6L065bZ LLL'Z5ZS6b OLO-IN+
ZLL'Z0065bZ 856'Z9Z56b 600-IN+
ZLO'bL68S4Z bZb'b8Z56b 800-IM
b6l'L968SbZ O6b'ZL£56b L00-IM
bb8'0568SbZ L5S'Ob£S6b 900-IN+
06Z~bL68SbZ LOL'L8£S6b S00-IM
048'6888S4Z bLZ' L Lb56b b00-IM
9L6'6b885bZ L8Z'££bS6b £00-IM
9t£'LL885bZ OL6'SSbS64 Z00-IN+
9Lb'9L885bZ 80L'69b56b L00-IM
~JNIlS`d3 JNIHIZION # 1NIOd
~~~
:aweN
• IenueW uogseuge4 spuspeM sraaui6u3;c sd+o'J L981 syl Buml, epees sem uopeuluua3ep
slyl ~elep slyl uro~} sea( ang peaoxa o7lou Pound a roe uodn page eq stew uopolpspnf qpy uopoeg
to uogewuuelep sap 'suoyalnBei peyslignd uno ~o mel ay- ul e6ueyo a ueeq sey e~ap sselu~ •pe3eewp~p
ueaq Sou envy 3nq eps ayl uo U~eseld aq Aew uogotpsunf to seals ~etpp •alep spp uo peu6ruepun
e43 ,tq peunwelep se '/~npoe pesodwd 3uese~d ayl ~q P~~wl see 841 u! lob' ~WeM ueel~ aW 10
bpb uoq~;o uopolpsunf eyl;o Nepunoq eyl epldep Ne3eux~oe 3eid sp.µ 30 ~tdoo siyi 1841 sag~lao slyy,
11811 ~lld lea
w
lu 30N32i3d3a
LI3d _ w
1N3W35V3 SS3a03 lu 30N3a333a w02~3 N3~iV1 3N1~ 1.12i3~ a
aNV ss3a~Nl ,sl ~~~ WW; %'
1# ~0~~~~N1 ~`~ ~
~ ---- - -----~%~~dl
j ~
r
m
~ I n
j i 9S£ 9d 911 8D m
lu 30N3a3S3a I Ibl 301'1S `d ~d z
I 1N3W3SV3 NOI1V~b3SN00 .-~
loa~N ~ ~~02i9 NNA~ 3ab~~ o
~ ~
I I m
j
f m
~ z
i ~
~' m
~~
f
~8 ~ 7
019
I ~ II V II ~lldl~a
I
I I 9SF Jd 911 9D
j Ibl 3ai~S 'b ~d
lu 30N3b3d32i ~~02i9 NN.I~ 3?i'd~~ z
1N3W3SV3 NOI1G~a3SN00 I m
1000N
I I ~
.~
\ Z
_~ ~
/ ~~ \ \
3~~~~~ ~ ~ 1i0-1M 2T0-1M~~` LOO-1^^ ~ - ~ ~
~~N ~yd 1- / E I O-1 M ~~) ' ~ ~
1 WO~j~ ~3~1 ~ ~ \\900-iM ~ ~
t`11 ~ - \ rrl
~ ~ . _ ~ ~ bi0-1M ~~ ~ SOO- 1M ~ n
~ _''~_
-- _ \ ~ ~ STD-1M~ ~~ b00- IM ~ m
~~ ~ ~ ~ 000-IM ~ x
~~_\ ~ 9I0-1MX~-, ~g~M 200-ik~• -
- - le 30N3a3d3a 1 v ~BjM
'~ 1N3W3SV3 NOI1V~a3SN00 LTO-~M~P I \ I 0-l~ 0-1M
- _ 1000N ~ ~X 020-1M
~ ~ ~ 8T0-lm 6T0-1M
~'~ /
-~
~`_ _` ~ /
IR 30N3a3d321 bad
3NIl Ala3d0ad SI
HONVaB NIdVf10NIH0 Ol0 d0 3NIla31N30
30Vd
H009 0330
13NI9V~ 1Vld
1NIOd 031f1dW00
3NIl 1N3W3SV3
3NI~ .IaVON^:;9 SONV~I3M
3NIl 311
3NI~ 1N3W3SV3 NOIlV~a3SN00
3NI~ ,lla3dONd
Od
90
~d
•
3
-
- -BIM -
~~
'cooz •~o >,avnNtlr a31tlD
ONtl 033x0 B WIN~W 1,B .Ala3d0ad HOOaB NNAI 3aV10 NO A3AanS
1N3W3Stl3 NOI1tlAa3SN00. 031111N3 130tld 99£ 3015 '9 13NIBb0 ltlld
Woad N3rtll NOI1VWa0dNl AatlDNn08 DNtl 1N3W3Stl3 NOIltlAa35N00 'I
~3DN3a3d3a
'3aVM130S a30NIdHltld 318WIa1 ONISn 0355?~Oad
-15Dd Sa3A13J3a Sd0 33BWIa1 30tla0 ONIdd7W ONISn 03NItl190
3a3M DNtl £80tlN-OIaO ON 3atl dtlW SIHl NO NMOHS 531VNIOa00D'Z
'Wal3 SIHl 1.9 A3AanS AaVONn00 tl 1N3S3ad3a 1~N 5300 dtlW SIH1'I
~S310N
°~O-fi-fi
`e,,`~agoee~aeeY'~~~''
e~~~ 'VVd/ ~~~
e° ~~
~'
~~y ~, ~
~_ e•~~
i
~ ~`
b~j N~
''''''/~~~eeelneoit~°~~~e```````
69Zb-l a0A3AanS ONVI 1tlN01S53d0ad
V
'9002'lladtl j0 Atl0 Hlb SIHl 1tl35 ONtl ONVH
AW 553N11M'CBDVN - OIaO ON 3aV NMOHS 531VNIOa0D0
3H1 1tlH1 ONtl S3NIl N3x0aB Stl NMOHS 3atl 03A3AanS
lON S31atlONnOB 3H1 1tlH1°N03a3H 030N3a3d3a Stl dtlW tl
ONV SONtll13M 3H1 d0 A3Aan5 O131d ~tln1Dtl NV Woad latld
NI 03aVd3ad StlM dtlW SIH1 1tlN1 AdIla30'a3dOD0 X3a'd'I
,, _ :a~a
dVW .111N101~
~IV
j -, S .
~ ---~ ---
_ _____-.--- 8S ON ~
~. ~~
i p~,
\\'~ ~ ,
~N,\
I
• • •

•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro~ect/Site: Brock Restoration Site Date: 12/1/2005
A licant /Owner: NC EEP Count :Jones
Investi ator: P Colwell, M Ruiz, A Coleman State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID: wetland
Is the site si nificantl disturbed At ical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a otential Problem Area? (tf needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: wet
VRC'TRTATTnN
•
Dominant Plant S ecies Scientific Name Stratum Indicator
1 red ma le Acer rubrum Tree FAC
2 s camore Platanus occidentalis L. Tree FACW-
3 ironwood Car inus caroliniana Tree FAC
4 iant cane Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
5 ickerel weed Pontederia cordata L. Herb OBL
6
7
8
9
10
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC-): 100%
Remarks:
NYT)R (~T .(1('TY
[ ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
[ ]Aerial Photographs [X] Inundated
[ ]Other [X] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[X] Water Marks
[X] No Recorded Data Available [X] Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits

FIELD OBSERVATIONS [X] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water 3 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[X] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit (in) [X] Water-stained Leaves
[ ]Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
•

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Horizon Matrix Color
(inches) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 A 10YR3/2 Loam
12-24 Bt 2.SY4/2 Cla loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[X] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[X] Reducing Conditions
X] Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hydric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks: Old meander channel of Big Chinquapin Branch
•
•

r~
L~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Brock Restoration Site Date: 11/2/2005
A licant /Owner: NC EEP Count :Jones
Investi ator: P Colwell, M Ruiz, A Coleman State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES Np Plot ID: up
VFl':RTATT(~N
C
Dominant Plant S ecies Scientific Name Stratum Indicator
1 sugar ma le Acer saccharum Tree FACU-
2 tuli o lar Liriodendron tuli i era L. Tree FAC
3 s camore Platanus occidentalis L. Tree FACW-
4 hackbe Celtis occidentalis L. Tree FACU
5 reen ash Fraxinus ennsylvanica Tree FACW
6 Chinese rivet Li ustrum sinense Shrub FAC
7 hone suckle Lonicera 'a onica. Vine FAC-
8 saw reenbrier Smilax bona-nox Vine FAC
9
10
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC-): 63%
Remarks:
TTYT)R f1T .(1C'TY
[ ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
[ ]Aerial Photographs [ ]Inundated
[ ]Other [ ]Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ]Water Marks
[X] No Recorded Data Available [ ]Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits

FIELD OBSERVATIONS [ ]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water -- (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ]Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit -- (in) [ ]Water-stained Leaves
[ ]Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil -- (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks: no wetland hydrology
.,

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Horizon Matrix Color
(inches) (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-10 A 2.SY3/2 Loam
10-15 Btl 2.SY4/3 Cla loam
15+ Bt2 2.SY5/4 /
2.SY3/2 Clay loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ]Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks: not a hydric soil
WETLAND DETERMINATION
•
•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hydric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks: This point is located in the forested area between the old channel and the current channel of Big Chinquapin Branch.

•
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
•

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Brock River Basin: Neuse County: Jones Evaluator: MPE/KFC/LEM
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Big Chinquapin Branch Latitude: 35 OS 52
Date: 10/9/01 USGS QUAD: Phillips Crossroads Longitude: 77 28 O1
Location/Directions: Brock Property -North of NC58, approximately 6.5 miles west of Trenton (Existing channel
between Brock/Tillett culvert crossing and Big Chinquapin Branch)
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in
the best professional judgment of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should
not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
3) Are Natural Levees Present?
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0
1
2
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
(*NOTE.• /f Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*1 2 3
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present?
Yes=3
No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 5
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3 Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 6
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2.5
•

II. Hvdrolo>?v Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
_Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .S 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debrisl Presents 0 S 1 1 5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 1 1 5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growine Seasonh
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)~ Yes=1 5 No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
III. Biolo~v Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Are Fish Present? 0 5 1 1 5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1 15
3) Are Aquatic Turtles Presents 0 5 1 1 5
Are Cravfish Present? 0 S 1 1 5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 S 1 1 5
6) Are Iron Oxidizine Bacteria/Fungus Presents 0 5 1 1 5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 S 1 1 5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of Al! Plants In Streambed 2
As Noted Above Skio This Step UNLESS SAV Present*l. Mostly OBL
1 Mostly FACW
, 75 Mostly FAC
.5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
0 0
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= 22.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At
Least Intermittent)
•
•

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Brock River Basin: Neuse County: Jones Evaluator: MPE/KFC/LEM
• DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Big Chinquapin Branch Latitude: 35 OS 42
Date: 10/09/01 USGS QUAD: Phillips Crossroads Longitude: 77 28 07
Location/Directions: Tillett Property -North of NC58, approximately 6.5 miles west of Trenton (Existing channel
between NC58 and Brock/Tillett culvert).
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in
the best professional judgment of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modifred natural stream-this rating system should
not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomornhologv Absent Weak Moderate Stron>1
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0
1
2
3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0
1
2
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 I 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
(*NOTE: /f Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) 2 3
• 10) Is A 2°d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present?
Yes=3
No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 0
III. BioloQV Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3 Is Peri~hyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorpholoi?v Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Draina~e.Way? 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2.5
•

II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
_Present In Streambed?
1.5
1
S •
0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Presents 0 S 1 1 5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 S 1 15
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .S 1
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
Conditions Or In Growine Season)? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcuth Yes=1 5 _ No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 S 1 1 5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1 1 5
3) Are AQUaticTurtles Presents 0 5 1 1 5
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 S I 1 5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 1 1 5
6) Are Iron Oxidizine Bacteria/FunQus Presents 0 5 1 1 5
7) Is Filamentous Aleae Present? 0 5 1 1 5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV
(* NOTE: If Total Absence OfAll Plants In Streambed 2
As Noted Above Skip Thls Step UNLESS SAV Present*l. Mostly OBL
1 Mostly FACW
.75 Mostly FAC
.5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
0 0
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary)= 12.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At
Least Intermittent)
•
•

•
Appendix 4. Project Site Biological Reconnaissance Form

•
BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISANCE FORM
Perennial/Intermittent Point
Send to Dave Penrose
401/Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Services Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
e-mail Dave.PenroseCu~NCmail.net, FAX [phone]
a) Location Brock Site, DOT
Stream Name: UT Chinquapin Branch Receiving Waterbody: Chinquapin Br, Trent River
Location/Road: nrNC58 County: Jones Date: 21Feb02 Regional Office:
Washington RO
Basin: Neuse Subbasin: 030411 Latitude/Longitude: See site description below
Ecoregion: Coastal Rosgen Class: ? Observers: Dave Penrose, USGS Quad Sheet: Phillips
Plain LeiLani Paugh, Lia Crossroads
M ott
Notes (attach photograph or drawing on the back of this form): Three sites were sampled on the mainstem of this
tributary; Marker 23 (350536/772831) was above NC 58 within a dense canopy, Marker 24 was at the property line
(350543/772811) and Marker 25 near the downstream confluence (350600/772820). Both downstream sites had no
ri arian cano , a ricultural runoff.
• b) Habitat
Primary Adjacent Land Use: agriculture, cotton Riparian Zone Characteristics: eliminated downstream
Stream Width: up to Flow Conditions: perennial. Stream Order: first
one meter downstream
Stream Permanence Characteristics, Rating (if relevant): Interesting river rock layer about 18" below soil surface.
Good bed and bank characteristics, degree of incision and catchment size (222 AC at the upstream property line and
285 at the confluence)
c) Biology
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa:
Amphipoda: X Isopoda: X Decapoda: X Chironomidae: X Oligochaeta: ^ Mollusca: X (S~haerium)
Ephemeroptera: ^ Plecoptera: ^ Trichoptera: ^ Coleoptera: ^ Other Diptera: ^
Fish and Salamander Taxa:
I/P Results: The most upstream location was dominated by Isopods suggesting intermittent conditions. We started to
see perennial indicators at the Brock property line (Syhaerium, Crayfish) and made the I/P call at that point. The
downstream location had many more perennial indicators. We did not collect any primary indictors (EPT's) at any
location, perhaps due to the level of perturbation in the catchment.
•

Appendix 5. HEC-RAS Analysis
•

•
•
C.
ucr_~nc oi~.,~ pia., ~~ Riv<r RR(1rtK Raarh• FXIRTINr;
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total W.S. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Total Shear Total Power Total
(cfs) (ft) (fNft) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (Ib/ft s)
EXISTING 37 2-YEAR 25.00 34.42 0.003196 2.37 0.21 0.49
EXISTING 37 10-YEAR 150.00 36.91 0.002628 3.61 0.37 1.34
EXISTING 37 100.YEAR 315.00 39.01 0.002980 3.17 0.33 1.04

EXISTING 36 2-YEAR 25.00 34.29 0.002673 2.25 0.19 0.43
EXISTING 36 10-YEAR 150.00 36.76 0.002997 3.72 0.42 1.56
EXISTING 36 100.YEAR 315.00 38.82 0.003449 3.38 0.37 1.26

EXISTING 35 2-YEAR 25.00 34.16 0.002355 2.21 0.17 0.38
EXISTING 35 10-YEAR 150.00 36.59 0.003189 3.86 0.44 1.70
EXISTING 35 100-YEAR 315.00 38.67 0.003259 3.24 0.35 1.12

EXISTING 34 2-YEAR 25.00 34.03 0.002274 2.16 0.17 0.36
EXISTING 34 10-YEAR 150.00 36.41 0.003111 3.81 0.43 1.65
EXISTING 34 100-YEAR 315.00 38.47 0.003394 3.23 0.33 1.08

EXISTING 33 2-YEAR 25.00 33.80 0.003315 2.49 0.23 0.56
EXISTING 33 10-YEAR 150.00 36.11 0.004016 4.19 0.53 2.20
EXISTING 33 100-YEAR 315.00 38.13 0.004105 3.86 0.46 1.77

EXISTING 32 2-YEAR 25.00 33.58 0.003576 2.45 0.23 0.56
EXISTING 32 10-YEAR 150.00 35.92 0.003214 3.77 0.43 1.62
EXISTING 32 100.YEAR 315.00 37.94 0.002703 3.83 0.43 1.63

EXISTING 31 2-YEAR 25.00 33.28 0.006429 3.07 0.36 1.11
EXISTING 31 10-YEAR 150.00 35.68 0.003916 4.14 0.51 2.10
EXISTING 31 100-YEAR 315.00 37.75 0.003003 4.22 0.50 2.13

EXISTING 30 2-YEAR 25.00 33.15 0.002493 2.19 0.18 0.39
EXISTING 30 10-YEAR 150.00 35.56 0.002914 3.66 0.41 1.49
EXISTING 30 100.YEAR 315.00 37.63 0.003122 3.77 0.43 1.62

EXISTING 29 2-YEAR 25.00 33.03 0.002201 2.08 0.16 0.33
EXISTING 29 10-YEAR 150.00 35.44 0.002592 3.50 0.37 1.28
EXISTING 29 100.YEAR 315.00 37.50 0.002641 3.69 0.40 1.48

EXISTING 28 2-YEAR 25.00 32.93 0.002057 2.05 0.15 0.31
EXISTING 28 10-YEAR 150.00 35.30 0.002575 3.50 0.36 1.27
EXISTING 28 100-YEAR 315.00 37.35 0.002704 3.74 0.40 1.50

EXISTING 27 2-YEAR 25.00 32.82 0.002334 2.11 0.17 0.35
EXISTING 27 10-YEAR 150.00 35.15 0.002935 3.66 0.41 1.49
EXISTING 27 100.YEAR 315.00 37.19 0.003048 3.95 0.46 1.82

EXISTING 26 2-YEAR 25.00 32.74 0.001661 1.85 0.12 0.23
EXISTING 26 10-YEAR 150.00 35.06 0.002235 3.33 0.32 1.07
EXISTING 26 100.YEAR 315.00 37.10 0.002556 3.51 0.37 1.30

EXISTING 25 2- YEAR 25.00 32.65 0.003419 2.39 0.22 0.54
EXISTING 25 10-YEAR 150.00 34.94 0.003346 3.80 0.45 1.69
EXISTING 25 100-YEAR 315.00 37.01 0.003041 3.59 0.39 1.41

EXISTING 24 2-YEAR 25.00 32.44 0.004247 2.59 0.27 0.69
EXISTING 24 10-YEAR 150.00 34.72 0.003903 4.07 0.51 2.08

HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 11 River: BROCK Reach: EXISTING (Continued)
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total W.S. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Total Shear Total Power Total
(cfs) (ft) (fUft) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (Ib/ft s)
EXISTING 24 100.YEAR 315.00 36.79 0.003868 3.88 0.47 1.81

EXISTING 23 2-YEAR 25.00 32.09 0.008322 3.22 0.43 1.40
EXISTING 23 10-YEAR 150.00 34.50 0.004078 4.17 0.53 2.22
EXISTING 23 100-YEAR 315.00 36.58 0.005359 3.76 0.49 1.86

EXISTING 22 2- YEAR 25.00 31.98 0.001862 2.02 0.14 0.29
EXISTING 22 10-YEAR 150.00 34.37 0.002793 3.71 0.40 1.48
EXISTING 22 100.YEAR 315.00 36.42 0.003328 3.05 0.32 0.97

EXISTING 21 2-YEAR 25.00 31.85 0.002592 2.29 0.19 0.42
EXISTING 21 10-YEAR 150.00 34.16 0.003649 4.09 0.49 2.01
EXISTING 21 100.YEAR 315.00 36.26 0.003622 2.86 0.30 0.85

EXISTING 20 2-YEAR 25.00 31.67 0.003792 2.64 0.25 0.67
EXISTING 20 10-YEAR 150.00 33.88 0.004990 4.60 0.63 2.89
EXISTING 20 100-YEAR 315.00 36.00 0.005231 3.35 0.41 1.38

EXISTING 19 2-YEAR 25.00 31.38 0.006048 3.07 0.36 1.09
EXISTING 19 10-YEAR 150.00 33.57 0.005571 4.79 0.69 3.28
EXISTING 19 100.YEAR 315.00 35.61 0.007068 3.90 0.55 2.16

EXISTING 18 2-YEAR 25.00 31.14 0.004398 2.69 0.28 0.76
EXISTING 18 10-YEAR 150.00 33.35 0.004857 4.40 0.61 2.68
EXISTING 18 100-YEAR 315.00 35.30 0.005956 3.68 0.49 1.79

EXISTING 17 2-YEAR 25.00 30.92 0.004645 2.80 0.30 0.83
EXISTING 17 10-YEAR 150.00 33.06 0.005655 4.67 0.68 3.18
EXISTING 17 100.YEAR 315.00 35.05 0.005665 3.47 0.44 1.54

EXISTING 16 2-YEAR 25.00 30.75 0.003069 2.41 0.21 0.50
EXISTING 16 10-YEAR 150.00 32.81 0.004776 4.47 0.60 2.68
EXISTING 16 100.YEAR 315.00 34.79 0.005319 3.28 0.40 _ 1.30

EXISTING 15 2-YEAR 25.00 30.63 0.002347 2.08 0.16 0.34
EXISTING 15 10-YEAR 150.00 32.64 0.003810 4.04 0.50 2.03
EXISTING 15 100-YEAR 315.00 34.54 0.004466 3.25 0.38 1.22

EXISTING 14 2-YEAR 25.00 30.52 0.002162 2.01 0.15 0.29
EXISTING 14 10-YEAR 150.00 32.47 0.003363 3.85 0.44 1.69
EXISTING 14 100.YEAR 315.00 34.28 0.004132 3.47 0.38 1.31

EXISTING 13 2-YEAR 25.00 30.43 0.001843 1.81 0.12 0.22
EXISTING 13 10-YEAR 150.00 32.36 0.002634 3.44 0.35 1.22
EXISTING 13 100-YEAR 315.00 34.11 0.003350 3.26 0.32 1.04

EXISTING 12 2-YEAR 25.00 30.29 0.003128 2.18 0.18 0.40
EXISTING 12 10-YEAR 150.00 32.20 0.003167 3.56 0.39 1.38
EXISTING 12 100.YEAR 315.00 33.93 0.003306 2.98 0.23 0.68
1
EXISTING 11 2-YEAR 25.00 29.75 0.018037 4.10 0.73 2.99
'
EXISTING 11 10-YEAR 150.00 31.87 0.005287 4.36 0.58 2.54
EXISTING 11 100-YEAR 315.00 33.76 0.003942 2.80 0.22 0.62

•
C
f ~
~J

•
•
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 11 River: BROCK Reach: EXISTING (Continued)
Reach River Sta Profile Q Total W.S. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Total Shear Total Power Total
(cfs) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (IkblR s)
EXISTING 10 2-YEAR 25.00 29.53 0.003690 2.41 0.23 0.56
EXISTING 10 10-YEAR 150.00 31.73 0.003385 3.74 0.44 1.63
EXISTING 10 100.YEAR 315.00 33.61 0.003766 2.46 0.22 0.55

EXISTING 9 2-YEAR 25.00 29.24 0.006448 2.97 0.36 1.08
EXISTING 9 10-YEAR 150.00 31.46 0.004690 4.27 0.58 2.46
EXISTING 9 100.YEAR 315.00 33.03 0.006621 3.76 0.30 1.13

EXISTING 8 2-YEAR 25.00 29.13 0.002133 2.06 0.16 0.32
EXISTING 8 10-YEAR 150.00 31.32 0.003340 3.86 0.45 1.75
EXISTING 8 100-YEAR 315.00 32.96 0.002842 2.70 0.18 0.49

EXISTING 7 2-YEAR 25.00 28.98 0.003148 2.35 0.21 0.50
EXISTING 7 10-YEAR 150.00 31.09 0.004219 4.16 0.54 2.24
EXISTING 7 100-YEAR 315.00 32.92 0.002156 2.16 0.16 0.35

EXISTING 6 2-YEAR 25.00 28.76 0.004610 2.68 0.29 0.77
EXISTING 6 10-YEAR 150.00 30.80 0.005281 4.50 0.64 2.90
EXISTING 6 100.YEAR 315.00 32.81 0.002318 2.08 0.16 0.34

EXISTING 5 2-YEAR 25.00 28.49 0.005249 2.79 0.31 0.87
EXISTING 5 10-YEAR 150.00 30.49 0.005606 4.60 0.67 3.09
EXISTING 5 100-YEAR 315.00 32.07 0.011794 4.27 0.47 2.02

EXISTING 4 2-YEAR 25.00 28.11 0.009168 3.36 0.46 1.54
EXISTING 4 10-YEAR 150.00 30.26 0.004907 4.41 0.59 2.62
EXISTING 4 100-YEAR 315.00 31.85 0.004392 4.57 0.50 2.29

EXISTING 3 2-YEAR 25.00 27.86 0.004271 2.65 0.27 0.72
EXISTING 3 10-YEAR 150.00 30.06 0.004496 4.21 0.56 2.34
EXISTING 3 100.YEAR 315.00 31.67 0.003928 4.82 0.66 3.18

EXISTING 2 2-YEAR 25.00 27.54 0.007084 3.23 0.42 1.36
EXISTING 2 10-YEAR 150.00 29.54 0.008611 5.50 0.98 5.40
EXISTING 2 100-YEAR 315.00 31.18 0.007154 6.09 1.09 6.66

EXISTING 1 2-YEAR 25.00 27.44 0.005009 2.80 0.30 0.83
EXISTING 1 10-YEAR 150.00 29.49 0.005001 4.59 0.62 2.84
EXISTING 1 100.YEAR 315.00 31.17 0.005009 5.08 0.74 3.74
•

HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 11 River: BROCK Reach: PROPOSED WITH BE
Reach River Sta Profile O Total W.S. Elev E.G. Sbpe Vel Total Shear Total Power Total
(cfs) (ft) (tuft) (ft/s) (Iblsq ft) (Iblft s)
PROPOSED WITH BE 37 2- YEAR 25.00 34.51 0.003454 1.64 0.07 0.12
PROPOSED WITH BE 37 10-YEAR 150.00 35.41 0.003539 2.63 0.25 0.66
PROPOSED WITH BE 37 100-YEAR 315.00 36.12 0.003501 3.40 0.38 1.29

PROPOSED WITH BE 36 2-YEAR 25.00 34.28 0.004551 1.87 0.08 0.16
PROPOSED WITH BE 36 10-YEAR 150.00 35.24 0.003376 2.58 0.24 0.63
PROPOSED WITH BE 36 100-YEAR 315.00 35.95 0.003387 3.35 0.37 1.24

PROPOSED WITH BE 35 2-YEAR 25.00 34.16 0.002193 1.46 0.05 0.07
PROPOSED WITH BE 35 10-YEAR 150.00 35.09 0.002906 2.47 0.22 0.54
PROPOSED WITH BE 35 100-YEAR 315.00 35.80 0.003125 3.27 0.35 1.13

PROPOSED WITH BE 34 2-YEAR 25.00 34.08 0.001530 1.15 0.05 0.05
PROPOSED WITH BE 34 10-YEAR 150.00 34.95 0.002665 2.40 0.21 0.50
PROPOSED WITH BE 34 100-YEAR 315.00 35.64 0.003040 3.25 0.34 1.12

PROPOSED WITH BE 33 2- YEAR 25.00 33.89 0.003526 1.59 0.08 0.12
PROPOSED WITH BE 33 10-YEAR 150.00 34.72 0.004134 2.76 0.28 0.78
PROPOSED WITH BE 33 100•YEAR 315.00 35.40 0.004117 3.59 0.43 1.53

PROPOSED WITH BE 32 2-YEAR 25.00 33.68 0.003660 1.43 0.09 0.13
PROPOSED WITH BE 32 10-YEAR 150.00 34.51 0.003873 2.68 0.27 0.73
PROPOSED WITH BE 32 100-YEAR 315.00 35.19 0.003894 3.52 0.41 1.45

PROPOSED WITH BE 31 2-YEAR 25.00 33.40 0.004677 2.05 0.08 0.16
PROPOSED WITH BE 31 10-YEAR 150.00 34.27 0.004562 2.88 0.30 0.87
PROPOSED WITH BE 31 100-YEAR 315.00 34.97 0.004263 3.64 0.44 1.60

PROPOSED WITH BE 30 2- YEAR 25.00 33.14 0.004940 2.00 0.08 0.17
PROPOSED WITH BE 30 10-YEAR 150.00 34.08 0.003787 2.67 0.26 0.70
PROPOSED WITH BE 30 100-YEAR 315.00 34.79 0.003656 3.43 0.39 1.34

PROPOSED WITH BE 29 2-YEAR 25.00 32.97 0.003232 1.75 0.06 0.11
PROPOSED WITH BE 29 10-YEAR 150.00 33.90 0.003320 2.57 0.24 0.61
PROPOSED WITH BE 29 100-YEAR 315.00 34.62 0.003314 3.32 0.36 1.20

PROPOSED WITH BE 28 2-YEAR 25.00 32.88 0.001774 1.29 0.05 0.06
PROPOSED WITH BE 28 10-YEAR 150.00 33.75 0.002974 2.49 0.22 0.55
PROPOSED WITH BE 28 100-YEAR 315.00 34.46 0.003141 3.27 0.35 1.14

PROPOSED WITH BE 27 2-YEAR 25.00 32.63 0.007774 2.09 0.13 0.27
PROPOSED WITH BE 27 10-YEAR 150.00 _
33.57 0.003963 2.71 0.28 0.75
PROPOSED WITH BE 27 100-YEAR 315.00 34.27 0.003807 3.49 0.41 1.41

PROPOSED WITH BE 26 2-YEAR 25.00 32.50 0.002449 1.49 0.06 0.08
PROPOSED WITH BE 26 10-YEAR 150.00 33.40 0.003127 2.54 0.23 0.59
PROPOSED WITH BE 26 100-YEAR 315.00 34.10 0.003316 3.35 0.37 1.22

PROPOSED WITH BE 25 2-YEAR 25.00 32.46 0.002366 1.26 0.06 0.08
PROPOSED WITH BE 25 10-YEAR 150.00 33.28 0.003358 2.57 0.25 0.63
PROPOSED WITH BE 25 100-YEAR 315.00 33.96 0.003569 3.42 0.39 1.33

PROPOSED WITH BE 24 2-YEAR 25.00 32.33 0.002909 1.29 0.08 0.10
PROPOSED WITH BE 24 10-YEAR 150.00 33.07 0.004321 2.79 0.30 0.83
PROPOSED WITH BE 24 100-YEAR 315.00 33.73 0.004287 3.64 0.44 1.62

PROPOSED WITH BE 23 2-YEAR 25.00 31.97 0.013833 2.17 0.22 0.48
PROPOSED WITH BE 23 10-YEAR 150.00 32.82 0.005160 2.93 0.33 0.98
PROPOSED WITH BE 23 100-YEAR 315.00 33.51 0.004505 3.68 0.46 1.68'

PROPOSED WITH BE 22 2-YEAR 25.00 31.72 0.002860 1.65 0.06 0.10 ~
l~
`~
•

C7
•
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 11 River: BROCK Reach: PROPOSED WITH BE (Continued)
Reach River Sta Profile O Total W.S. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Total Shear Total Power Total
(cts) (tt) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (Ib/Ft s)
PROPOSED WITH BE 22 10.YEAR 150.00 32.63 0.003325 2.58 0.24 0.62
PROPOSED WITH BE 22 100-YEAR 315.00 33.34 0.003410 3.37 0.37 1.25

PROPOSED WITH BE 21 2-YEAR 25.00 31.61 0.002283 1.34 0.06 0.08
PROPOSED WITH BE 21 10.YEAR 150.00 32.47 0.003181 2.54 0.23 0.59
PROPOSED WITH BE 21 100.YEAR 315.00 33.17 0.003354 3.35 0.37 1.23

PROPOSED WITH BE 20 2- YEAR 25.00 31.47 0.003945 1.46 0.09 0.14
PROPOSED WITH BE 20 10-YEAR 150.00 32.29 0.004045 2.73 0.28 0.77
PROPOSED WITH BE 20 100-YEAR 315.00 32.97 0.003951 3.54 0.42 1.48

PROPOSED WITH BE 19 2-YEAR 25.00 31.24 0.003953 1.56 0.09 0.13
PROPOSED WITH BE 19 10.YEAR 150.00 32.08 0.003927 2.69 0.27 0.73
PROPOSED WITH BE 19 100.YEAR 315.00 32.78 0.003735 3.44 0.39 1.36

PROPOSED WITH BE 18 2-YEAR 25.00 31.04 0.004049 1.51 0.09 0.14
PROPOSED WITH BE 18 10.YEAR 150.00 31.89 0.003887 2.67 0.27 0.72
PROPOSED WITH BE 18 100-YEAR 315.00 32.60 0.003640 3.41 0.39 1.32

PROPOSED WITH BE 17 2-YEAR 25.00 30.83 0.004382 1.62 0.09 0.15
PROPOSED WITH BE 17 10.YEAR 150.00 31.69 0.003985 2.70 0.28 0.74
PROPOSED WITH BE 17 100.YEAR 315.00 32.42 0.003614 3.41 0.39 1.31

PROPOSED WITH BE 16 2- YEAR 25.00 30.58 0.004144 1.92 0.07 0.14
PROPOSED WITH BE 16 10-YEAR 150.00 31.49 0.003900 2.71 0.27 0.73
PROPOSED WITH BE 16 100-YEAR 315.00 32.25 0.003407 3.35 0.37 1.24

PROPOSED WITH BE 15 2-YEAR 25.00 30.43 0.002881 1.58 0.06 0.10
PROPOSED WITH BE 15 10.YEAR 150.00 31.30 0.003533 2.63 0.25 0.66
PROPOSED WITH BE 15 100.YEAR 315.00 32.09 0.003022 3.23 0.34 1.09

PROPOSED WITH BE 14 2-YEAR 25.00 30.32 0.002445 1.28 0.06 0.08
PROPOSED WITH BE 14 1Q-YEAR 150.00 31.14 0.003319 2.54 0.24 0.61
PROPOSED WITH BE 14 100-YEAR 315.00 31.96 0.002702 3.10 0.31 0.96

PROPOSED WITH BE 13 2- YEAR 25.00 30.25 0.001183 1.00 0.04 0.04
PROPOSED WITH BE 13 10.YEAR 150.00 30.99 0.002984 2.47 0.22 0.55
PROPOSED WITH BE 13 100.YEAR 315.00 31.84 0.002399 2.98 0.28 0.85

PROPOSED WITH BE 12 2-YEAR 25.00 30.20 0.000820 0.86 0.03 0.03
PROPOSED WITH BE 12 10.YEAR 150.00 30.83 0.003230 2.52 0.24 0.59
PROPOSED WITH BE 12 100.YEAR 315.00 31.73 0.002340 2.96 0.28 0.83

PROPOSED WITH BE 11 2-YEAR 25.00 29.52 0.051773 5.44 1.39 7.54
PROPOSED WITH BE 11 10-YEAR 150.00 30.53 0.006965 3.20 0.41 1.31
PROPOSED WITH BE 11 100.YEAR 315.00 31.58 0.002783 3.12 0.32 0.99

PROPOSED WITH BE 10 2- YEAR 25.00 29.49 0.002580 1.41 0.06 0.09
PROPOSED WITH BE 10 10.YEAR 150.00 30.31 0.003739 2.66 0.26 0.70
PROPOSED WITH BE 10 100.YEAR 315.00 31.50 0.001687 2.66 0.22 0.59

PROPOSED WITH BE 9 2-YEAR 25.00 29.18 0.008291 2.24 0.13 0.29
PROPOSED WITH BE 9 10-YEAR 150.00 30.11 0.004148 2.74 0.28 0.78
PROPOSED WITH BE 9 100.YEAR 315.00 31.43 0.001489 2.56 0.20 0.52

PROPOSED WITH BE 8 2- YEAR 25.00 29.05 0.002419 1.40 0.06 0.08
PROPOSED WITH BE S 10-YEAR 150.00 29.96 0.002974 2.47 0.22 0.55
PROPOSED WITH BE 8 100.YEAR 315.00 31.38 0.001108 2.32 0.16 0.38

PROPOSED WITH BE 7 2-YEAR 25.00 28.94 0.002506 1.32 0.06 0.09
PROPOSED WITH BE 7 10-YEAR 150.00 29.80 0.003193 2.52 0.24 0.59

HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 11 River: BROCK Reach: PROPOSED WITH 8E lContinuedl
Reach River Sta Profile O Total W.S. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Total Shear Total Power Total
(cis) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (Ib/ft s)
PROPOSED WITH BE 7 100-YEAR 315.00 31.33 0.001003 2.25 0.15 0.34

PROPOSED WITH BE 6 2-YEAR 25.00 28.79 0.003312 1.39 0.08 0.11
PROPOSED WITH BE 6 10-YEAR 150.00 29.62 0.003785 2.66 0.27 0.71
PROPOSED WITH BE 6 100•YEAR 315.00 31.29 0.000909 2.19 0.14 0.31

PROPOSED WITH BE 5 2-YEAR 25.00 28.62 0.002968 1.40 0.07 0.10
PROPOSED WITH BE 5 10-YEAR 150.00 29.39 0.004348 2.79 0.30 0.83
PROPOSED WITH BE 5 100-YEAR 315.00 31.25 0.000785 2.08 0.13 0.26

PROPOSED WITH BE 4 2-YEAR 25.00 28.32 0.009200 2.16 0.14 0.31
PROPOSED WITH BE 4 10-YEAR 150.00 29.15 0.005203 2.92 0.33 0.96
PROPOSED WITH BE 4 100-YEAR 315.00 31.22 0.000624 1.91 0.10 0.20

PROPOSED WITH BE 3 2-YEAR 25.00 27.85 0.004764 2.73 0.30 0.81
PROPOSED WITH BE 3 10-YEAR 150.00 28.92 0.004345 2.76 0.29 0.80
PROPOSED WITH BE 3 100•YEAR 315.00 31.20 0.000482 1.75 0.09 0.15

PROPOSED WITH BE 2 2- YEAR 25.00 27.46 0.008667 3.48 0.50 1.72
PROPOSED WITH BE 2 10-YEAR 150.00 28.63 0.006093 3.10 0.37 1.15
PROPOSED WITH BE 2 100-YEAR 315.00 31.18 0.000426 1.69 0.08 0.13

PROPOSED WITH BE 1 2-YEAR 25.00 26.95 0.024940 4.87 1.06 5.14
PROPOSED WITH BE 1 10-YEAR 150.00 28.15 0.012686 4.01 0.59 2.38
PROPOSED WITH BE 1 100-YEAR 315.00 31.17 0.000335 1.52 0.06 0.10
•
•
•

•
Appendix 6. Correspondence
•
C]

•
Stantec Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
stat>tiec.com
sta~ec
November 14, 2005
Rene Gledhill-Early
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 28516
RE: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation projects in Jones County.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Early:
•
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with
two potential wetland and stream restoration projects in Jones County (see attached site maps).
The Stallings site and Brock site have been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel
have been identified as significantly degraded. The agriculture fields on the Stallings site are
classified as prior converted wetlands.
At the Stallings site, remnants of a brick foundation have been observed in an area adjacent to
Webb Farm Rd during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. Stream and
wetland restoration would not occur where the foundation is located (see site map). The
majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as tilling.
Enclosed are current photos of the site and the foundation. We ask that you review this site
based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic properties.
At the Brock site, according to survey conducted in 2003, a cemetery is located adjacent to the
stream in an area covered with shrubs and vines measuring approximately 50 feet wide by 200
feet long. The area was recently investigated and five headstones were found in the southern
section of the area marked as a cemetery. All of the located headstones were dated between
1920 and 1955. The dense vegetation covering the area could be concealing additional
headstones. Enclosed are current photos of the cemetery area and the headstones. Stream
restoration would occur adjacent to the cemetery avoiding any impact on headstones. The
remainder of the site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as tilling.
•

Stdf1~C
May 9, 2006
• State Historic Preservation Office
Page 2 of 2
Reference: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation projects in Jones County
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us at [phone] ext. 259 with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of
site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Melissa Ruiz
Scientist, Environmental Management
cc:
Julia Hunt,
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Enclosed: Site photos, Project Vicinity and Project Site maps
•
L

• Photos of headstones found at Brock Site in Jones County
•
Photo 5: Old graveyard is located in this area of shrubs and vines, agriculture fields surround the cemetery
•

•
r:
•
•i
Photo 7: Mordecai Jarmon 1877-1950
Photo 9: Lizzie Flower died 1955
Photo 6: Eliza Miller 1884-1954
Photo 8: Sarah Jarmon -1900 - ?
Photo 10: Toney Flowers died 1920

Legend
Cemetery
Approximate Easement
® Grading_Area
~~' Roads
~~ Streams
Brock Restoration Site
Jones County, North Carolina
0 150 300 600
Feet

a f t
a. tyA9 ~~...•
V ~ W~
wv.
North Carolina Department o£ Cultural. Resoulrces
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter 8. Sandbeck, Ad~tanistrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
iisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Grow, Deputy Secretary
January 4, 200b
Office of Archives and FIistory
Di~~sion of Histotical Resources
llavid Biook, I)irec[or
Melissa Ruiz
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, -Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 2760G
RE: EPP Wetland and Stream Restoration Project; Brock Site, Jones County, ER 05-2736
Thank you for pour letter of November 18, 2005. We have reviewed this project and offer the following
comments. .
We recommend that a professional architectural historian identify and evaluate the cemetery located at the
Brock Site and report the findings to us:
• No previously recorded archaeological sites axe noted on iriaps~ housed at the Office of State Archaeology. A
professional archaeologist, ho~arever, has never fozxnally surveyed the project area. The project area is located
in the general vicinity of the 1862 Battle of Kinston and the 1865 Battle of Wyse Fork. Given this setting, it is
recommended that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted to record;any sites within the APE.
In particular a survey is warranted to fully document the cemetery located within. the APE and to determine if
there are any sites or remains related to the Civil War era.
•
We recommend that the survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological zemains that may be damaged' or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential
effects on unknown, resources mlxst be assessed prior to the initiation of constriction activities. We also
recommend that the archaeologist consult with the Office of State~Archaeology prior to the commencern.ent o£
any fieldwork.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be foxvvarded to us fox review and comment as soon as they are available and well iri advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted oz expressed an interest in, contract work in North
Carolina is available at w-ww.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults.htm. The archaeologists listed, or anp other
experienced archaeologist; maybe contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
AD1vnNLSTRATION
RESTORATION
SURVEY de PLANNING
~~
507 N. 8kuni 5aci:t, Raleigh NC
515 N."Blount Saeet, Raldgh NC
515 N,, BloLnt Street,• Raleigh, NC
A7at1'ng A,dartis .
X617 tda~l Srnice Center, RaIdgh NC 27699617
4617 Ma+l Service Center. Raleigh NC 27.599x1617
4617 Mall Service Center, Ralagh NC 27b99x1617

The above comments are made pursuant to Section I06 of the National Histo>:ie Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations fox Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you fox pour cooperation and consideration. if you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, envitonxnental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In allfuture
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
~~-e.~+ll.t~l.
eter Sandbeck
cc: Julia Hunt, EEP Project Manager-
•
•

i•
i•

,, ~ .may.', ~j.
~.
n3,.
Cemetery (not to be disturbed)
A ~~``
i
t,
-:
~:
.~~~ ,
:i
r
:~
~t
y~,~1
I '+
~. ;+~_°
r
r..
r~

~,~
Legend
Q Approximate Easement
'~~ Streams
_;~ Cemetery Area
Area of Potential Effect
Aerial Photos: September 2003
Hurricane Isabel Damage Assessment
and Recovery Effort (USGS)
,,
l~
i~
a/ +1
r~ ;
f ,.
.~,.~ ;rye • '#'"h
' ,. f e ~ ,~.~~;.
t b ftf 3
i~ I 1~~ ..
1
~. .
~,
`k r _.
k
~,
~~ ~ A~T
~ ~.
~ * ~y
~~~' r
r

Approximate Area of Potential Effect
Brock Stream Restoration
Jones County, North Carolina
March 2006
0 250 500 1000 Feet
r~
_~' F.cos stem
y
Stantec ~ ~_~,. v..

U.S Deparime+it
of iransportation
Fedewl Highway
Administration
Subject: ER OS-2736
From: Donnie Brew
Environmental Protection Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
To: Renee Gledhill-Early
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 28516
Memorandum
Date: May 10, 2006
RE: EEP Stream Restoration Project, Brock Site, Jones County, ER OS-2736
Lea Abbott of the Office of State Archeology and I met on April 19th to discuss the Brock Site
• stream restoration project. Upon review of additional information, Mr. Abbott concurred that an
archeological survey for this project would not be necessary.
Thank you for your assistance,
Donnie
cc:
Julia Hunt
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Lea Abbott
Office of State Archeology
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4619
Enclosed: Site photos, Project site map
~~N~.inpt P'f) ~
`~,s ~~~
v' ~
I'JuG ~'VIN~
~~~°r lntcr+tiw~ y'~~
E~\~+r ~ ,
~,~ ~~
~ 1~ i ~~ I~~ ~l

Stantec Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
• Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
statrtec.com
$tcllltCC
November 14, 2005
•

Mr. Harry E. LeGrand
NC Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27569-1601
RE: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation projects in Jones County.
Dear Mr. LeGrand:

The purpose of this letter is to request a review and comments on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to endangered species, and migratory birds from two potential wetland and stream
restoration projects located in Jones County (see attached site maps).
The Stallings site and Brock site have been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The agriculture fields at the Stallings site are classified as prior converted
wetlands.
We have reviewed the information on your website and provided a letter to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. Any comments and/or recommendations that you may have for the site would be greatly
appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this project, or need additional information, please do
not hesitate to call me at [phone] ext. 259. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Melissa Ruiz
Scientist, Environmental Management
cc:
Julia Hunt,
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Enclosed: Project Vicinity and Project Site maps

i

F ~~~; -- ~ 2~J
~; ~' 1 ~
~/~- ~ -
NCDENR ` -- _~ ..
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 29, 2005
•
r~
Ms. Melissa Ruiz
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Vllilliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: EEP Wetland and Stream Restoration Projects -Stallings and Brock, sites; Jones County
Dear Ms. Ruiz:
The Natural Heritage Program has. no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at either site nor within a mile of the project areas. Although our maps do
not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily
mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use .
of Natural Heritage Program data should.not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
~~~«~
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr.,' Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled • 10 % Post Consumer Paper
Noe Carolina
tura!!t~

•
Stantec Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
stanbec.com
sta~ec
November 14, 2005
r~
Mr. Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
RE: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation projects in Jones County.
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The purpose of this letter is to request a review and comments on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to endangered species, and migratory birds from two potential wetland and stream
restoration projects in Jones County (see attached site maps).
The Stallings site and Brock site have been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The agriculture fields on the Stallings site are classified as prior converted
wetlands.
We have reviewed the information on your website and provided a letter to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program. Any comments and/or recommendations that you may have for the site would be
greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this project, or need additional information,
please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] ext. 259. We greatly appreciate your assistance in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Melissa Ruiz
Scientist, Environmental Management
cc:
Julia Hunt,
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Enclosed: Project Vicinity and Project Site maps

•