20050676 Ver 1_Complete File_20050516

P@12OWlEb 60 p6 76
APR 1 8 2005
Little b*veTr / J- ' ar
Streams and Wetlands
Restoration Plan Report
March 25 2005
BLWI Project: 020264
NCEEP Project: LR/CF/02
NCDOA File: 010561401
NCDENR Contract: EW03024S
Land and
Water
-P,,
;D ATER
WETIAh SIV
STGV?4,,'MTEREsAxn

PROGRAM
Civil Engineering Ecosystem Engineering Environmental Engineering
Environmental Consulting Gcomatics Consulting
Land Planning Landscape Design
YKOGRAM _
MEMORANDUM:
R[P=@[P=DWP=P
APR 1 8 2005
TO: Cyndi Karoly, Unit Supervisor
DWQ, 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unix DENR-WATERQUAR
, .TINJDS AND STOR?iW1TER 6RAl?'CN
FROM: Lin Xu
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
SUBJECT: Permit Application- Little River / J-Bar Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project
DATE: April 18, 2005
Attached for your review are two copies of restoration plans (one copy sent to DWQ Fayetteville
Regional Office) for Little River / J-Bar stream and wetland restoration project in Moore County.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this plan (715-7571).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Attachment: Little River / J-Bar Restoration Plan (2 originals)
Ilorth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Hall Seri;ce Center, Raleibf? 141C 27699-1652 / 419-71S-0,176 / ?r.Y.>.ncebla.mt
p@ m3Dwm p
APR 1 R 2005
Office Use Only: ?',tjljl p NO TOA? .MATEZE' VOi Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. D`VQ No. 6 76
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 -Mail Service Center Ralei,_11i, NC 27699-16>2
Telephone Number: 919-715-7-571 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: lin.xunncmail.net
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation: N/A
Mailing Address: N/A
Telephone Number: N/A Fax Number: N/A
E-mail Address: N/A
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and MRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Little River /J-Bar Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Moore Nearest Town: Vass
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The Little River / J-Bar site is
located hear mass (Moore County), approximately 3.5 miles southeast aloub Lobelia Road
(iVC Highway 690, formerly Secondary Road 1001) from US Hi;hfvay 1. (Please see the
attached snap)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N/A
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Forest and agriculture
7. Property size (acres): 135 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little River
9. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admii-/maps/.)
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream enharncemeut/restoratioit, wetland
creation, and tivetland preservation
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loade
Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Forest, pasture and a.,riculture
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued pennits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe pen-nits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 13
1. Wetland Impacts (No Impact)
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FENIA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FERIA Map Service Center at 1-800-368-9616, or
online at httpJ/www.fema.<_>ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing, wetlands on the property: 42 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (No Impact)
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secifv)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www•.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0.0 LF
Page 8 of 13
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. (No Impact)
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N//A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The nroiect is involved with enhancing and restorinL, streams, and creation and
preservation of wetlands in the Little River /J-Bar site in Moore County to serve ESP's
program obiective and mitigation needs. The project is a restoration effort and does not
impact adjacent streams and wetlands. See Little River / J-Bar Restoration Plan for
specific information regarding the restoration design.
Page 9 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with I5A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream `York in North Carolina, available at
http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncw-etlands/strmtiide.htnil.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The restoration plan is attached. The plan indicates the conservation easement
acquired by the state, plan views, cross section view and proposed method of
enhancement and restoration.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.tishvr2/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Page 10 of 13
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
Y. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and snap all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify N/A )?
Yes ? No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Page 11 of 13
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3
2 0 1.5
Total 0
Lone I extends out 30 legit perpendicular trom near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (D`VQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (D`V Q Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (D`VQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 12 of 13
N/A

//l / i8/ 66-
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
Little River /J-Bar SU•cams and T17etlands - Restoration Plan Report
tlfooi-e County Noi-th Carolina Alarch 200
Map 3-2 Little River/J-Bar , - -? - t
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project i _ I , I 4 .. _--ry
Vass NC - -»-1 - 1 _ - , -
=- 690 i I r {(1 4 \
..11 , y • •? rI: t
-If
'' ?- r14? •.•.tl ?.I?' ? ?? ?? ,t,t " '?4, r-.?i `i' _f ..~ '?aFTCs ,y ? -.,-.' ti ^ _ .;'• -
f? r raj ,?1 , ,.. i.. f `..t '\ Cllu?ll'?f ? ? ?'-?-,•,,i ? •.
690 -?
?.
tt 1 ? ..
? • yr•i
7T. 4*
. r.
-
fir. ?j ?? .:.d`.•"` - _ .\ l), 'is+ I? _•„ •-k'"`
f ` •
i _?? i - ? ? - `^ ?,• ?:- _„"r f _??. a '-i
:f
USGS 7.5 minute Murchisontown, Lobelia, 1000 0 1000 20DO Fect
and Niagra Topographic Quadrangles
(Project site is located on the Lobelia topoquad) Scaio: V = 2000' BLUE
March 2005
Page 7 of 66
6?
t"
z
-
.°
.
y i
.. ', ,x,14 • , r S-?' :R` •.y,?ay' ?s ,. a})l
/ Sz c 3 ?Sa •,.., a ? ? y'.~ .?` A 3' ? - , r lzi ? ? - ?'X -v w. ? , ? j ..;?'.. 4 '. ?.
'Alo z <*a a? 4 Wetland Creation
Wetland Enhancement
Existing Channels
x';? ' -t 1= A x Proposed Stream
Alignments
.4
y. s 7 ..'S t b Y7 t *`,!' ! ??vb :. i Structures
?.w 'tt -A'? °,,f v ,?' ? •'? } t n ?k•.- ?',''! - °:- Curtain Log
Ink
?. ;'?- # _Y4 '? f 2 rc'.... x+66 ?-r, •s :?
Log Weir
?^-r '?4+ #g -?"!°i •? +,i,};?". '? t? , f Iv,'.. ?.,,` (Root Wads - see plan set)
?? , f f •?, w ',r,, ??? ,. _ Easement Boundary
' '"9F•' '?Ar. ,
.? r+.,? fi, , r `. , ?: K •.P a? , "lr° r ""?z:°as. _: .t'?. -* s?. ? z, , z.' y -
Map 7-1. Little River/J-Bar aoa o aoo Feet
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Scale: 1" = 400' L,
Restoration Plan March 2005
r?
o
O
S
O ?
ti
o'
v ?
'b

3 0 j3
?D
AP D
R l 8 2005
4 ?ENR-WATER
E7tA!`DS,?dOSTpy Q LS
NCH
Streams and Wetlands
Restoration Plan Report
March 25 2005
BLWI Project: 020264
NCEEP Project: LR/CF/02
NCDOA File: 010561401
NCDENR Contract: EW03024S
Water
1L.? ?iJ Land
Infrastructure. F'A

PROGRAM
Civil Engineering Ecosystem Engineering Environmental Engincenng
Environmental Consulting Gcomatics Consulting
Land Planning Landscape Design
RECEIVED
MAR 2 8 2005
ENHANCEMENT PR GRAM
L 1t 1, al, 1veT, / J- n -
Streams and Wetlands
Restoration Plan Report
March 25 2005
BLWI Project: 020264
NCEEP Project: LR/CF/02
NCDOA File: 010561401
NCDENR Contract: EW03024S
Water
L ]BUEInfrastructure. Land
PA
. J'
PROGRAIM
a?I1R • WAS ?,iM??."ff.R G``.: ?;`;'"
Civil Engineering Ecosystem Engineering Environmental Engineering
Environmental Consulting Geomatics Consulting
Land Planning Landscape Design
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore Colony North Carolina March 2005
0 CONTENTS
BODY
1. Introduction .......................................................................4
2. Goals and Objectives ................................................................5
3. Location Specifics ..................................................................5
4. Watershed Specifics ................................................................. 8
A. Background .....................................................................8
B. Mapping ....................................................................... 8
C. Land Uses and Soils .............................................................. 9
D. Growth Potential ................................................................ 10
5. Existing Conditions (Wetlands and Streams) ............................................. 10
A. Site Potential ................................................................... 10
B. Hydrologic and Other Features ..................................................... 11
C. Soils .......................................................................... 12
D. Vegetation ..................................................................... 12
E. Endangered/Threatened Species .................................................... 13
F. Stream Geometry and Substrate ..................................................... 13
G. Monitoring .................................................................... 13
6. Stream and Wetland Reference Studies ................................................. 19
A. Reference Stream ............................................................... 19
B. Reference Wetland Background .................................................... 22
C. Reference Wetland Vegetation ..................................................... 22
D. Reference Wetland Soils ..........................................................22
7. Wetland Plan ..................................................................... 23
A. Background .................................................................... 23
B. Hydrologic Development .......................................................... 23
C. Vegetation Community Restoration .................................................. 27
D. Soils Development ..............................................................30
8. Stream Plan ......................................................................32
A. Stream System Design Approach Discussion .......................................... 32
B. Analog Methodology ............................................................. 32
C. Empirical Methodology ........................................................... 32
D. Analytical Methodology .......................................................... 33
E. Project Analysis and Design Approach ............................................... 34
F. Restoration Potential ............................................................. 34
H. Stream Dimensional Design ....................................................... 35
1. Stream Pattern Design ............................................................. 39
J. Stream Profile Design ............................................................. 39
Page 2 of 66
Little Rimer /J--Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
K. Sediment Transport and Shear Stress ................................................ 39
L. In-Stream Structures ............................................................. 40
M. Stream Riparian Planting Plan ..................................................... 40
N. Restoration Background Information References ....................................... 40
9. Design Details (Typicals) ............................................................ 42
10. Wetland Post-Construction Performance Criteria .......................................... 46
A_Hvdroingv .....................................................................46
B. Vegetation .....................................................................46
C. Soils ..........................................................................46
11. Stream Post-Construction Performance Criteria ........................................... 46
A. Geomorphology .................................................................46
B. Vegetation .....................................................................46
12. Post-Construction Monitoring Plan .................................................... 47
FIGURES
4-1. Land Use / Land Cover (composite of site watersheds) ...................................... 9
4-2. Soil Types (mapping units) .......................................................... 10
7-1. River/Floodplain Stage-Discharge (Elevation-Flow) Relationship at Site ....................... 25
7-2. Minimum Continuous Flow within Growing Season during Half or More Sampling Years ......... 26
MAPS
3-1. Location ..........................................................................6
3-2. USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle ............................................... 7
5-1. Hydric Features and Monitoring Equipment ............................................. 17
5-2. Onsite and Reference Vegetation Communities ........................................... 18
7-1. Restoration Plan ...................................................................31
12-1. Monitoring Plan ................................................................... 48
TABLES
3-1. Little River Background Information .................................................... 5
4-1. Moore County Population Projections .................................................. 10
5-1. Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel A ......................................... 14
5-2. Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel B ......................................... 15
5-3. Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel C ......................................... 16
6-1. Reference Stream Morphological Data .................................................. 21
6-2. Reference Soil Hydraulic Properties (USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey) ................. 23
7-1. Sandhills Gaged Watersheds Selected for Analysis ........................................ 24
7-2. Minimum Continuous Flow within Growing Season during Half or More Sampling Years ......... 25
7-3. Proposed Species Composition ....................................................... 28
8-1. Design Stream Morphological Data - Channel A .......................................... 36
8-2. Design Stream Morphological Data - Channel B .......................................... 37
8-3. Design Stream Morphological Data - Channel C .......................................... 38
Page 3 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and 1Yetlcnnls - Restoration Plan Report
.lfoore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
0 1. Introduction
The Little River / J-Bar project is being undertaken to enhance, restore, create, and/or protect functional aspects
of streams and wetlands within a 135± acre conservation easement located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of
US Highway 1 along Little River in Moore County, North Carolina. The project is funded by the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
The project is located on property sometimes referred to as the "Little RiverJ-Bar Ranch", "New J-Bar Ranch",
or simply "J-Bar". Historically, the property was sometimes known as the "McKeithen Tract". The property is
currently owned by J J Barnes and his family. The property is actively managed for wildlife habitat to facilitate
hunting on the overall tract.
The project site limits are defined by conservation easement boundary. The project site is bounded on the west
by the tract property boundary, on the south by the Little River primary channel, on the east by the tract property
boundary, and partially on the north by the Little River floodplain edge. The project site is dominated by a fully
timbered, ditched, and furrowed area of approximately 85 acres. Prior to the initiation of this project, the
timbered area was planted with Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Various herbaceous and woody species, in addition
to the Loblolly pine, are also found at the project site. A well vegetated buffer of from 200± feet to 500± feet in
width is located between the timbered area and the Little River primary channel.
Several channels traverse the project site. Three of these channels are believed to be excavated and relocated
natural streams with headwaters forming within watersheds of the northern slope. Land use / land cover in these
watersheds is primarily forested and agricultural with catchment areas ranging from approximately 25 acres to
132 acres. The two larger channels exhibit some semblance of a natural pattern, while the third channel is routed
through a series of drainage ditches. Portions of the larger two channels have also been mechanically excavated.
This appears to have been part of an overall effort to drain the area.
The proposed project components include: 1) realignment and reformation of the three channels crossing the
project site to approximate more natural, functioning small blackwater streams; 2) earthwork in the timbered
area to develop and/or restore hydric soil conditions; and 3) planting of the timbered area with specific native
species to control erosion and direct revegetation of the project site. The initial project estimates were 53± acres
wetland enhancement/restoration, 28± acres of wetland creation/development, and 30± acres of wetland
preservation as well as 1,100± linear feet of stream enhancement/restomtion. The current expected project totals
are estimated to comprise an estimated 7,315± linear feet of stream enhancement/restoration, 56± acres of
wetland enhancement, 11± acres of wetland creation/development, and approximately 42± acres of mature
bottomland hardwood wetland preservation. The post-construction totals to be developed from monitoring data
will almost certainly be somewhat divergent from these given the complexity of site hydrology and the resultant
uncertainty in hydrologic parameter estimation.
Page 4 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore Cowin, North Carolina March 2005
0 2. Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of the Little River / J-Bar project is to facilitate the development of a natural system which
exhibits desired functions appropriate to the geomorphic setting of the site. Specific goals include: 1) water
quality improvement; and 2) natural community improvement.
To achieve this goal, the following objectives are being pursued:
• Develop and/or redevelop floodplain wetland landforms
• Implement pollutant removal features
• Form and/or reform stream dimension, pattern, and profile
• Generate aquatic and terrestrial habitat elements
3. Location Specifics
The Little River / J-Bar project site is part of the J-Bar Ranch, which is owned and operated by J J Barnes and
his family. The J-Bar Ranch is made up of multiple properties in the Vass area of Moore County. The project
site is located near Vass, approximately 3.5 miles southeast along Lobelia Road (NC Highway 690, formerly
Secondary Road 1001) from US Highway 1 (Map 3-1). The site and contributing watersheds are located in the
Sandhills hydrophysiographic region of North Carolina. This is a distinct region of sandy rolling hills which
extends from south central North Carolina, through the middle of South Carolina and Georgia, into east central
Alabama.
The site is located at 35.22° North / 79.24° West on the northwestern portion of the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Lobelia (Map 3-2 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic
Quadrangle). The project site is further located in the Cape Fear River basin, within the USGS 8-digit
Cataloging Unit 03030004, USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 03030004070050.
The Little River reach along the project area has been designated Stream Index 18-23-(10.7) by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). This reach has also been designated a High Quality Water
(HQW) and WS-III class Water Supply Watershed by NCDWQ. The reach is in subbasin 03-06-14. Table 3-1
provides additional classification information for the project reach of Little River. The floodplain streams are
unnamed tributaries to the Little River.
Table 3-1 Little River Background Information
River Basin Cape Fe
CDWQ Stream Index # 18-23-(10.7)
CDWQ Stream Class Rating WS-III, HQ
CDWQ Use Rating Full Su ortin
CDW Subbasin # 03-06-1
SGS 8-Digit Cataloging Unit 0303000
USGS 14-Digit Hydrologic Unit 0303000407005
ru
Page 5 of 66
•
•
•
Page 6 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streums and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
r/ 1-,,,..,.., nr,,..,r, ?,...,,r.,,. ne;..•,•t, inns
Little River /J--Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
•
•
0
Map 3-2 Little River/J-Bar
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Vass NC ?? - -
y w ?,
'G.- 6
'?+_?.,
'?? p 11 ???? _t? t 1 1 1?? J r%w j'•? t ?ts _ .
4 ,
i! x !, 1? ;? ( tires Y t (?? s;, f? ? ; -'"fit ? _ ? r?,•
r +?- t?r'`rr? l??ti t 1..,,J ti V •.w a? i -_ ?1?? ?? ?,,? ff ;?? ? ,? ,.p_ v?',11 ? ?i . ? ??.? ;.J•r?_ ?•` rs
t t ?. I r_ ` ? ? f 1('!f its` ` j? ? s^? r / "-??• }ta'r, ,?, ` ` ? +• ,? •-). t 1 ? ~??1 ti ??: _. l - 1 ;. ,l t
_ Area r1w
ftb
• ;:: 011 i 4 ,? • • . "F / Y •+ t /.` +? .? °=+ s ? = +c
r
2GO
001
n
Zola
USGS 7.5 minute Murch'sontown, Lobelia, 1000 0 1000 2000 Peet
and Niagra Topographic Q?u?a?/d?rangles -- BLUE np?R°'°` Opk'Itl(P
(b• •'7°`•• sft Is k=ftd an ft Lobeft tgpWu8d? • M&Mh - t
Page 7 of
Little River /J-Bar Streams and 1Vetlonds - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
® 4. Watershed Specifics
Background
The boundary of the watershed contributing flow to the site is somewhat complex as it depends on a continually
varying parameter set which includes: 1) recent precipitation event runoff magnitudes; 2) current Little River
water surface elevations; and 3) current site soil water depths. The watershed boundaries, therefore, are not
static and vary from week to week, season to season, year to year, and decade to decade dependent upon a
variety of hydrologic influences. Though the boundaries are not static and uncertainty exists relative to the
boundaries fluctuation, a reasonable approximation of the watershed boundaries was determined for purposes of
analysis and design.
Surface water flow to the three altered stream channels enters the site from watersheds on the adjacent northern
slope of the property. These watersheds range in extents from 25f acres to 132+ acres. The composite area of
site channel watersheds, including the project site, is approximately 335 acres. During larger precipitation runoff
events, the project site receives floodplain flow from Little River. The Little River watershed area at the project
site is approximately 109 square miles.
The local watersheds draining to the site are predominantly cutover areas consisting of shrubs and small
successional trees. Elevations in the watershed range from 220 feet to 310 feet above sea level with the most
relief being outside the project area. Soils in the watershed are either well-drained sandy soils on the higher
elevations or poorly drained soils in the floodplain.
40 Mapping
A wide variety of data sources were investigated and many different GIS data layers were obtained for use on
the project. The first layers utilized were the USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Maps, regional LIDAR Q ght
Detection and Ranging) derived elevation data, site aerial topographic survey elevation data, and the USGS
14-digit Hydrologic Units. Watershed boundaries were delineated utilizing the DiGeM (Digitales
Gelande-Modell) and TauDEM (Terrain analysis using Digital Elevation Models) software applications with the
available elevation data. Subwatersheds were also delineated in this manner. After determination of the
boundaries, the watershed characteristics were reviewed using Moore County digital aerial imagery, 2003
true-color aerial imagery, 1993 Grayscale USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQ), 1999 Color
Infrared USGS DOQQ, 1996 Land Use / Land Cover (LULL), North Carolina Gap Analysis (GAP), digital
Moore County Soil Survey, Moore County Soil Survey field sheets, USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG)
hydrography, Moore County parcels, and the Moore County roads layer The watershed boundaries were refined
utilizing these datasets. These datasets were also used in several different aspects of the project including siting
of monitoring equipment, identification of important watershed features, preparation of plans for field
surveying, development of input data for hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and development of a new high
resolution Land Use / Land Cover map.
E
Page 8 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County Nonh Carolina Afarch 2005
Land Uses and Soils
The majority of the area within the adjacent northern slope watersheds contributing flow to the site are cutovers
consisting of shrubs and small trees. Land Use / Land Cover (LULC) data for these watersheds were developed
from 1994 Land Use / Land Cover coverages, 1999 color infrared (CIR) aerial imagery, and 2003 true color
aerial imagery. As indicated in Figure 4-1, the largest LULC component type was determined to be "mixed
shrubs/trees" (69.2%), followed by "hardwoods" (16.0%), "southern yellow pine" (11.7%), "pasture" (1.1%),
"roadways / pathways" (1.1%), "cultivated" (0.8%), and "water" (0.1%). The majority of the hardwood
component type occurs in the floodplain of the Little River, particularly in the vegetated buffer directly adjacent
to the primary channel. Expected foreseeable land use / land cover change in the adjacent northern slope
watersheds is expected to include general reforestation and expanded habitat management. The widening of US
Highway 1 in the Vass area is expected to increase land development in the Little River watershed.
Figure 4-1 Land Use / Land Cover
(composite of site channel watersheds)
Ro;
Southern Yellow Pine
11.7%
er
yo
ivated
.8%
Hardwoods
16.0%
Pasture
1.1%
Mixed ShrubstTree,
69.2%
Soil types (mapping units) from the USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey G1S layer were combined with
digitized USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey field sheets to develop a coverage of the watershed soils.
The most prevalent soil types are Bibb (33.7%), Kahnia (21.6%), and Ailey (19.5%). Bibb is a poorly drained
sandy soil that forms in alluvial deposits, the well-drained sandy Kalmia occurs on stream terraces, and Ailey is
a well-drained sandy upland soil. Figure 4-2 indicates the distribution of soil types within the watershed.
Page 9 of 66
Little Rimer /J-Bar Streams acrd McIlandc - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore Counth° North Carolina March 2005
Figure 4-2 Soil Types
(mapping units)
Gilead
Vaucluse
17.3%
Aile,
19.5'
21.6%
Growth Potential
Bibb
33.7%
Almost the entire watershed, as well as the project site, is owned by one property owner, J J Barnes. Depending
on Mr. Barnes' plans for the property, there may or may not be future change in land use in the watershed. The
improvement of US Highway 1 in the Vass area is expected to increase development in the region as it becomes
feasible to live in Moore County and work in the Raleigh-Durham area. The new highway is less than three
miles from the project area and will have an exit ramp onto Lobelia Road (NC Highway 690). Population
projections for Moore County based on US Census data are shown provided in Table 4-1. This data was
obtained from the North Carolina Office of State Budget & Management.
Table 4-1 Moore Count Po ulation Projections (Census Data)
Year Population Chan

000 74,76
010 89,533 19.7°/
020 104,051 16.2
5. Existing Conditions (Wetlands and Streams)
Site Potential
The three excavated and relocated natural streams which traverse the project site are excellent candidates for
enhancement/restoration. Each of these channels will be relocated to their approximate pre-relocation
alignments (See Map 7-1). A detailed pattern and profile for each of these streams will be developed along these
Page 10 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and lVetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Co:urry North Carolina llfarch 2005
aligmnents. The realignment and reformation of the three channels will result in appropriately functioning
blackwater streams. The existing excavated ditches will be filled to varying degrees, preventing active channel
flow while providing residual ephemeral pools.
Earthwork will be undertaken in the timbered, ditched, and furrowed area of approximately 85 acres to develop
and/or restore hydric soil conditions. Berms will be fonned in this area to control surface water. This area will
also be planted with specific native species to control erosion and direct revegetation.
Prior to the initiation of this project, the timbered area was planted with loblolly pine (Ppus taeda). Various
herbaceous and woody species, in addition to the loblolly pine, are also found at the project site. A well
vegetated buffer approximately 200 feet to 500 feet in width is located between the timbered area and the Little
River primary channel.
The project site will be converted into functional wetlands by means of wetland creation and enhancement.
Specific areas of the site will be excavated whereas other areas of the site will be formed into beans. Excavated
ditches will be plugged and streams will be reconnected to the floodplain. Native vegetation will be planted in
all areas of the site. The current expected project totals are estimated to comprise an estimated 7,315± linear feet
of stream enhancement/restoration, 56± acres of wetland enhancement, 11± acres of wetland
creation/development, and approximately 42± acres of mature bottomland hardwood wetland preservation.
Hydrologic and Other Features
Due to the complex hydrologic response of the site, continuing investigation of the as to the frequency of inputs
from the Little River watershed by monitoring water levels in the project area and obtaining a historical record
of flow from the Little River at the Lobelia USGS Gage Station. The river stage data was correlated with
measured stage data of the on-site stream and wetland Using a regression based on this information, BLWI staff
back-calculated the stage of the water in the wetland for the entirety of the Little River flow records.
The streams/ditches that flow through the project site are indicated on the Location Map and are labeled A, B,
and C (Map 3-1). Channel D is a small tributary to channel B and is included in discussion regarding that
stream. Only one of the channels (Channel B) appears on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Lobelia
7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle and the Moore County Soil Survey as a "blue-line" stream. Flow is
currently being monitored in this stream as it enters the site.
Channel A begins on the western side of the project area and flows through a culvert, then southeast across the
site and eventually into the Little River. Channel B is a second order stream according to USGS maps and has
the largest watershed of all three drainage networks at approximately 132 acres. Channel B flows from the
headwaters in the northern portion of the Barnes property, and then through a culvert under the soil road that
bounds the project area. A few hundred feet after it leaves the culvert it joins with Channel D and then flows
southeast across the project area to the Little River. Channel C is actually a network of drainage ditches fed by
an ephemeral channel just to the east of Channel B. The drainage ditches join Channel B in the eastern portion
of the project area.
The floodplain area is periodically inundated by flow from Little River. It is believed that some flow from the
River enters Channel A during larger inundation events.
Page 11 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Sircams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Counn North Carolina Afarch 2005
0 Soils
Soils are a vital component of any stream or wetland project. Soil properties affect vegetation survival, stream
stability, and subsurface hydraulics, while at the same time exhibit indicators of historic conditions. Multiple
soil parameters were intensely investigated for the purposes of this project.
The Moore County Soil Survey indicates Bibb and Kalmia soil series at the project site. Bibb soils are poorly
drained soils occurring on floodplains and consist of about 12 inches of dark loam overlaying light-colored
sandy loam subsoil. The Bibb soil series is classified as a hydric soil. The soil series Kalmia is a well drained
soil that occurs on stream terraces and formed in loamy fluvial sediments. Kalmia typically consists of about 12
inches of light-colored sandy loam over yellowish sandy clay loam that transitions to light-colored sand.
Soils in the timbered portion of the project area were auger-sampled and mapped based on hydric soil features
according to criteria referenced in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Map
5-1 Hydric Features). Eighty soil descriptions were taken in transects across the project area. Eight topsoil
samples were analyzed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Soil Testing Lab (Appendix A Site
Soil Test Report). In general, the drier Kalmia-type soils were not as abundant as shown in the soil survey. Only
3f acres of clearly upland soils were found. However, approximately 17 acres of transitional areas were found.
This included areas that had hydric features too deep to be classified as a hydric soil. The remaining soils in the
timbered portion of the project area were found to have hydric features at or near the surface.
The topsoil at the project site exhibits a 4.6 pH on average with a 24% BS. The topsoil at the reference site
exhibits a 4.6 pH on average with a 22% BS. This degree of acidity is common in similar Sandhills soils.
40 Relative to normal plant growth, according to the soil test report, the project area has sufficient nitrogen, low
potassium and magnesium, and very low phosphorus levels.
Vegetation
Vegetation was sampled throughout the site. Two distinct emerging communities were evident, Community A
and B (Map 5-2). Community A was clearcut, prepped and planted with loblolly pine (Pimrs taeda) in the
mid-1990s. No further forest management was performed on the site, allowing herbaceous and woody
vegetation to grow among the pines. The dominant woody species is loblolly pine although there is also a large
number of winged sumac (Rhus copallina). Other woody species found are inkberry (Ilex glabra), water oak
(Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), titi (Cyrilla racemllora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua),
and maple (Ater rubnun). Herbaceous species include dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), blackberry (Rubus
sp), greenbriar (Smilax sp), and sedge (Carex sp). The loblolly pine saplings are more established and larger in
the slightly higher elevation drier areas. Blackberry (Rubus argutus) is the dominant herbaceous species in these
areas. As this point in time, a mature natural plant community is not present due to the recent disturbance and
loblolly pine dominance. The other emerging woody species are those found in a bottomland hardwood forest.
A mature bottomland hardwood forest is located adjacent to the site along the banks of the Little River.
Community B was also clearcut in the past but was not planted with loblolly pine or any other woody
vegetation. There are not as many saplings in this community as in Community A. Scattered sweetgum and titi
are found throughout the grassy area. Dominant herbaceous species are spikerush (Eleocharis sp), bulrush
(Scirpus sp), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and bur reed (Sparganium americanum).
Page 12 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
tlfoore County North Carolina March 2005
0 Endangered/Threatened Species
According to the 2000 Natural Heritage Element Occurrence GIS file from the North Carolina Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), no threatened or endangered species are located in the project
area. Significant natural heritage areas are also not present in the project area. Further analysis was not
undertaken.
Stream Geometry and Substrate
The existing stream conditions were assessed using a Rosgen Level It Classification methodology. The Rosgen
classification system was created for natural hydrologic systems predominantly in the western portions of the
United States. The streams in this project do not fit well in the Rosgen classification system due to riverine
flooding, high water tables, dominant vegetation, channel straightening, sand system dynamics, and typical
regional channel characteristics. Regardless, an effort was made to analyze these reaches based on the Rosgen
system.
Channel A was determined to have an average Rosgen classification of C5, and Channel B and Channel C are
classified as E5 (Tables 5-1 through 5-3). As mentioned above, channelized streams do not fit easily into the
Rosgen classification system. Meanders for onsite channels are smaller than what would be found in a natural
Sandhills system. The longitudinal slope of Channels A and B is 0.002 ft/ft while Channel C is 0.01 fVft. Stream
bankfull depth in Channel A varies from approximately 0.38 to 0.54 feet deep while bankfull width ranges
between 5.5 and 14.88 feet. Channel B is a slightly deeper and narrower channel where bankfull depth varies
from approximately 0.36 to 3.2 feet deep and bankfull width ranges between 2.6 and 12 feet. Bankfull depth in
Channel C varies from 0 to 5.3 feet deep while bankfull width rages from 3.5 to 6.4 feet. Channel C has severely
altered hydrology and is currently a rim ditch along the edge of the floodplain. Portions are filling in while
others are eroding. Channel A has the smallest average cross-sectional area at 4.88 square feet while Channel B
and C have similar cross-sectional areas at 15.5 and 14.31 square feet, respectively. Collected stream bed
samples were analyzed for particle size distribution. Samples were representative of the dominant bed material
in relatively stable sections of the stream. The d50 for Channel A was found to be 0.14 mm, which falls into the
category of fine sand. The d50 at Channel B was found to be 0.57 mm, which falls into the category of medium
sand (Appendix C Site Wetland and Stream Data). Sediment was not sampled in Channel C, though visual
inspection clearly indicates a fine to medium sand.
Monitoring
Site monitoring was undertaken to obtain an approximate data representation of the conditions and short-term
history of soil and water level patterns for that area. Water level gages (recorders) were installed to collect both
surface water (stream/floodplain) elevation data and subsurface water (soil) elevation data. One water level gage
was set to record measurements at 15 minutes intervals while the remaining eight gages were set to record
measurements at 30 minute intervals. The 15 minute interval data was used to assess information resolution and
for surface water hydraulics analysis. Water level gage locations are depicted on Map 5-1.
Page 13 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Platt Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005

n
T.. L.1.. C 1 T.,.?+:n.. C+,-.,nm Mnrnhnlnnirn1 nnfn - i'hgnnpl A
12
Parameter
Minimum
Maximum
Average

Drainage Area, DAs mi 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) 1,726
Stream Type (Ros en) C5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 2.81 8.06 4.48
ankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 5.5 14.9 9.1
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 0.5 0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ft/ft) 8.90 20.51 14.32
Width Flood prone Area, W aft 182 710 446
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (fdit) 33.1 47.7 40.4
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.80 1.92 1.86
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1 1 1
Bander Length, Lm ft 36 57 47
Bander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.12
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 5 25 16
c ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft - - 1.75
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 25 14
Bander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft) - - 1.53
Sinuosity, K 1 1.12 1.06
Valley Slope, Sval ft/ft - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002
16 (mm) - - -
35 mm - -
50 mm - - 0.14
84 mm - - 0.49
95 (mm) - - 1.40
Page 14 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Weiland,; - Rcstoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina Afarch 2005

r t.v c 11 1 ?:?a:.,.. C+. ,,,, Rinrnhnlnttirnl nntn _ ChnnnPI R
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average

Drainage Area, DAs mi) 0.2 0.2 0.2

Stream Length (f) 2,707

Stream Type (Ros en) ES
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0.94 38.41 15.50
ankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 2.6 12.0 6.8
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 3.2 2.3
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ft/ft) - - 3
Width Flood prone Area, W aft 182 700 441
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 65.23
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.4 3.2 2.3
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.00
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.4 3.2 2.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bander Length, Lm ft 34 133 71
Bander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 10.50
Radius of Curvature, Re ft 5 36 16
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft) 2.10 3.00 2.43
Belt Width, Wblt ft 25 50 38
Bander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.50
Sinuosity, K 1.19 1.19 1.19
Valley Slope, Sval ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002
16 (mm) - - 0.33
35 mm - - 0.48
50 (mm) - - 0.57
84 mm - - 1.39
95 (mm) - - 1.89
Page 15 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Comm, North Carolina March 2005
IN
C7
Table 5-3 Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel C
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average

Drainage Area, DA (s mi) 0.04 0.04 0.04
Stream Length (ft) - - 1,530
Stream Type (Ros en) - - E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0 34 14.31
ankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 3.5 6.4 5.3
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0 5.3 2.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) - - 2
Width Flood rove Area, Wf a ft 45 512 278.5
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 12.8 80 52.54
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0 5.3 2.7
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0 5.3 2.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1 1 1
Meander Length, Lm ft
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 10 6.5
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft) 0.85 1.56 1.22
Sinuosity, K 1.06 1.79 1.13
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.001 0.020 0.010
16 (mm) - "
35 mm - "
D50 (mm) - "
84 mm "
95 (mm) - "
* The existing channel is essentially straight
Page 16 of 66
I

C
a?
cW
G c
•c
CT
c?
cc
LL
? c
E Icy=
•
17 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore C'ouno, North Carolina March 2005
A 1%
_ I/? - ? E J
-,vv ``i ?F !? ,Rr ! Ali
'" if 1A?
I?fv .t
-31
Owlt
?1? JA
41
k 8
???+} _? ?; ? VF i,?" ;? ?` ?'?'.? SFr'' ?• * `_.???? ?? tT,?
` .; u s-. t fir !F+ - t'i" fi 4 - ?t
e`jf ? Rr" ?r.
.4.4 1 r,
A?i
K w,
it ? V
4) M
r! a s t +f m
Y?? _ f l t
• ? -i ?? ', ?.'=.,,.. r ? > O„ C?C to
A'? ?'? 1 '?? J ?,4 m.. ?? .J?.C. 3 '?r.,? ? ?`?r '?r '? F • ?4'r
t _j
• T
Page 18 of 66
Little Rimer /J--Bar Streams and 11'etlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Comm, North Carolina March 2005
S 6. Stream and Wetland Reference Studies
Reference Stream
To utilize reference channels for geometric design of the Little River / J-Bar project, or any other stream project,
several conditions must be met:
1) The project watershed must match the hydrologic character of the reference watershed to a significant
degree (including boundary conditions).
2) The reference watershed and site must be stable and have been so for a significant time period.
3) The project watershed must be stable, have been so for a significant time period, and will continue to be so
for the design life of the project.
4) The project site parameters must match the reference site parameters to a significant degree (bank
vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc).
This project is located in a sand dominated and high water table system. When working on these type of
systems, several additional factors must be considered:
1) Vegetation is a primary development force and cannot be replicated until many years after site construction.
2) Surface water runoff is not the single forcing variable driving stage.
3) Water table interaction affects energy slope.
4) Water table interaction affects stage return intervals.
5) Backwater conditions affects stage return intervals.
® 6) The temporal length of a given stage event is important.
7) The bankfull event in many (if not most) eastern such streams is much less than 1.5 years.
8) The bankfull event is not correlated to a single return interval.
9) Effective discharge is not equivalent to bankfull discharge in sand bed streams.
10) The bankfull event is generally not equivalent to channel forming flow.
Using the above outlined conditions and factors as guides, the following parameters were developed as
minimum requirements for a reference stream to be considered at this site:
1) The reference stream must be stable and have been so for at least the previous 20 years.
2) The reference stream watershed must be stable and have been so for at least the previous 20 years.
3) The reference site water table depth-duration frequency must be within 15% of the project site frequency.
4) The contributing watershed must be between 110 and 147 acres (f 15% of the project watershed size at
original extents).
5) The surface water runoff response relative to volume and flow rate must be within 15% of the project site
during low water table antecedent moisture conditions.
6) The surface water runoff response relative to volume and flow rate must be within 15% of the project site
during high water table antecedent moisture conditions.
7) The watershed land use distribution must be within 15% of the project watershed.
8) The downstream boundary must be directly connected to a watershed of between 93 and 125 square miles
(f15% of the downstream connected watershed sizes).
9) The reference site bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, and bed material can be
® duplicated to within 15% at the project site.
Page 19 of 66
Little Rimer /J-Bar Streams and Medan& - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Comte, North Carolina March 2005
No reference stream has been found to meet these required minimum parameters. A search was performed in the
Cape Fear River basin for similar systems. It is unlikely that such a reference stream exists. However, a
longitudinal survey was performed in Channel A to provide comparative design information.
The channel was determined to have a Rosgen classification of C5. The longitudinal slope of the stream is 0.002
ft/ft. Stream bankfull depth varies from approximately 0.38 feet to 0.54 feet deep and width ranges between 5.5
feet and 14.9 feet. Channel dimension varies from 2.81 feet to 8.06 square feet. The stream substrate is fine
sand. The reference did not meet all of the above criteria and therefore was not used in the design process
(Appendix E Reference Stream Data).
Applying the DiGeM and TauDEM software applications to local available topographic data, 300+ potential
watersheds were automatically delineated based on area. These watersheds were then ranked based on soil
composition and average slope relative to the site central site hillslope watershed (Channel B). From this
ranking, the 50 highest ranked watersheds which were defined at or near the edge of river floodplains of
approximately the same magnitude of Little River were selected. Twenty two of these sites which were
accessible and best matched the character of the site watershed were visited to assess and measure cross-section
information (Appendix E). This information was then used to assist in the site channel design process.
Without a strong reference site, more focus has been placed on applying the analytical methodology of stream
design in combination with the reference, or analog methodology. The analytical methodology is based on the
application of physically-based mathematical models of natural phenomena to the project site and wetland. It is
not dependent on data sets external to the project. The methodology is the primary one used by the US Army
Corps of Engineers and the US Geological Survey. For a full description of the analytical methodology as well
as the analog and empirical methodologies, see Section 8 of this report.
E
Page 20 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restorcdion Plan Report
Afoore County Norlh Carolina March 2005
-1 E
rr 1. c 1 n r . Qt. ... Mnrnhninnirnl Ilat-I
--
arameter
Minimum
Maximum
Avera e

Drainage Area, DAs mi 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) 138
Stream Type (Ros len) - - C5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 2.8 8.1 4.5
ankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 5.5 14.9 9.1
Bankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 0.5 0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 8.9 20.5 14.3
Width Flood prone Area, W aft 182 710 446
Entrenclunent Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 33.1 47.7 40.4
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.8 1.9 1.9
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bander Length, Lm ft 36 57 47
Bander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.1
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 5 25 16
c ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft) - - 1.8
Belt Width, Wb1t ft 3 25 14
Bander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft) - - 0.5
Sinuosity, K 1.00 1.12 1.06
Valle Slope, Sval ft/ft - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002
16 (mm) - - -
35 mm - - -
50 mm - - 0.14
84 mm - - 0.49
95 (mm) - - 1.40
Page 21 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wedmrdc - Restoration Plan Repovt
Moore Counh> North Carolina March 2005
® Reference Wetland Background
The reference wetland site search was first limited to the Sandhills region of the Cape Fear River Basin. A GIS
search was conducted based on desired characteristics derived from the project site. These included watershed
size and hydrologic characteristics. Several potential sites were identified on surrounding private land. These
initial site searches identified an acceptable reference wetland system (Map 5-2). The project site and the
reference site were assessed to determine baseline similarities to ensure hydrologic and physiographic
consistency. Both sites are within the same 14-digit Hydrologic Unit.
The reference wetland site was investigated to document the sites hydrology, soils, vegetation, topography. The
reference wetland is located adjacent to the site on the southern side of the Little River (Map 6-1). It fits the
qualifications for an appropriate reference because it has similar hydrologic influences that the site will have
when it is constructed. It is a bottomland hardwood community that is similar in its watershed land use and its
hydrologic relationship with the Little River.
River stage data was obtained upstream and downstream of the site at four separate locations. Overbank channel
data was also obtained at the site. From this, associated stage-discharge information, statistical analysis, and
surface water hydraulics analysis, the water level stage of any location within the Little River floodplain
between Long Point Road (upstream) and Lake Bay Road (downstream) could be determined. This provided a
more robust information set and associated procedure than a focus on monitoring of just the reference site across
the River channel from the project area.
Reference Wetland Vegetation
® The reference wetland is a bottomland hardwood forest. Plots were sampled along transects perpendicular to the
Little River. The dominant species is sweetgum. Other canopy species include American holly (Ilex opaca),
water oak, red maple, and loblolly pine. The midstory contains American holly, sweetgum, and horsesugar
(Symplocos tinctoria). The dominant vines are greenbrier and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicaus). Understory
species include cane grass Arundinaria gigantea, American holly, and horsesugar. In wetter areas, understory
vegetation was sparse. The average basal area is 192.5 ff/ac.
The vegetation in the area adjacent to the project site was also sampled. It is also a bottomland hardwood forest
although it appears to be more mature as the amount of loblolly pine and sweetgum is significantly lower.
Dominant species are laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and green ash (Fraxiuus pennsylvanica). Other canopy
species found are water oak, willow oak, maple and American holly. The average basal area is 180 ff/ac.
Reference Wetland Soils
Soils on the reference site were assessed in November 2003. Soil descriptions were completed at each sample
location and a sample was taken for analysis. These samples were analyzed by the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture Soil Testing Lab (Appendix D Reference Site Soil Test Report). The average topsoil pH is 4.6
(average BS = 22%). Similar to onsite conditions, the reference site is limited in phosphorus, potassium and
magnesium. The reference site primarily consists of Bibb soils with a small portion of Kalmia soils. A
description of Bibb and Kalmia soils can be found in Section 5 of this report.
0 Page 22 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Meilancts - Restoration Platt Report
Moore Countv North Carolina Afardt 2005

'TnTO. /._7 Anrnrnnrn X,vnHnnri Qnal t1wirnniie Prnnerties (USDA-NRCS Moore Countv Soil Survey)
Parameter Bibb Soil Serie Kalmia Soil Serie

Permeability 0.6 in/hr - 2 in/hr (0-70 inches 0.6 in/hr - 2 in/hr 12-37 inches
Moist Bulk Density 1.45 /ce - 1.75 cc 12-70 inches 1.40 /ce - 1.60 g/cc 12-37 inches
r anic Matter 1 % - 3 0.5%-20
Vlassification T is Fluva uents taxad'unct T is Ha ludult
7. Wetland Plan
Background
The wetland development will involve excavating specific areas of the site and forming berms along defined
alignments. Excavated ditches will also be plugged. This will be undertaken to facilitate the required duration
and frequency of inundation relative to project goals. Native vegetation will be planted in all areas.
The stream construction, in combination with site excavation, ditch plugging, and berm formation, will raise the
average site water table and provide extended surface water flow during and after flood events. Due to their
hydrologic and functional interconnectivity, it is necessary to develop the stream and wetland plans for the site
concurrently. The wetland plan has been prepared to develop wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetative
communities.
® Hydrologic Development
E
The primary mechanism for soil saturation and associated hydric soil development at the site is continuous
periods of floodplain inundation by River flows. This type of water input dominantly defines the nature of
riparian wetland water budgets. Thus, hillslope watershed flow inputs to the site floodplain are minor relative to
the River inputs. The hillslope inputs are only significant relative to the fringe/seep wetland areas at the
floodplain edge. As these inputs are controlled by hillslope watershed land use and the project will reduce
subsurface drainage at the slope toe, these areas were not quantitatively analyzed as such would provide
insignificant value relative to the overall project goals. Likewise, dry fringe affects due to excavated ditches are
greatly dampened by River flooding and backwater affects. As such, these were assessed to be insignificant
relative to the overall project goals. Quantitative analysis was not undertaken for such given the expected
associated additional cost.
The proposed earthwork design is based on two independent analysis techniques. One technique is based on
statistical analysis of stream flow data from multiple sites in the Sandhills hydrophysiographie region. The other
technique is based on landscape analysis of hydric soil features from boring logs at the site. Two independent
techniques were employed to provide a quantitative comparison in the design analysis procedure.
The statistical analysis technique included many subcomponents. Gaged watersheds were located in the
Sandhills hydrophysiographic region within North Carolina and South Carolina. Relative similarity of these
watersheds to the Little River watershed (defined at the site) was then determined. Fourteen watersheds were
determined to be significantly similar in character to the site watershed for analysis application (Table 7-1).
Page 23 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Medan& - Restoration Plan Report
Aloore County North Carolina Alarch 2005
n
T hle 7-1 Sandhills -100 d Watersheds Selected for Anal sis
a
SGS Station
Watershed Size
Station Location
# s mi

213228795 0.1 Jordan Creek near Silver Hil
2102908 7. Flat Creek near Invemes
2148300 40. Colonel Creek near Leesbur
2132320 83.3 Big Shoe Heel Creek near Laurinbur
2135300 9 Sca e Ore Swam near Bisho vill
2130900 108 Black Creek near McBe
2133500 183 Drowning Creek near Hoffina
2172500 19 South Fork Edisto near Montmorenc
2104500 29 Rockfish Creek near Hope Mill
2103000 348 Little River at Mancheste
133624 365 Lumber River near Maxtor
103500 45 Little River at Linde
173500 683 North Fork Edisto at Oran ebur
173000 72 South Fork Edisto near Denmar
Gage data from applicable watersheds were obtained and reformatted for utilization with a statistical analysis
software application developed for this procedure. In simplified terms, the software application determines the
years during which a specific flow is continually equaled or exceeded for a given number of days. Two
inundation scenarios were analyzed: 12 days during at least half of all years and 23 days during at least half of
all years. The threshold for jurisdictional wetland conditions at the site is approximately 12 days (minimum
period within the growing season of March 23 to November 11) continuous exceedance during at least half of
all years. The design condition for the site is approximately 23 days continuous exceedance during at least half
of full sampling years. This corresponds to the upper range of inundation for jurisdictional status.
E
A hydraulic model was developed for Little River between Long Point Road and Lake Bay Road. This was
accomplished utilizing the HEC-RAS (_Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis stem) hydraulic model,
obtained elevation data, developed Land Use /Land Cover information, and collected River flow data. From this
model, a stage-discharge relationship was derived for the site (Figure 7-1). The hydraulic model and associated
procedure provided a more robust information set than a focus on monitoring of just the reference site across the
River channel from the project area.
The flow frequency response of a given sized watershed relative to another watershed of the same size can vary
considerably, even within the same hydrophysiographic region and with similar Land Use /Land Cover.
Application of flow frequency response information from one watershed to another watershed would, therefore,
not seem to follow. The relationship of stage change to flow variation, however, provides insight as to how this
can reasonably be accomplished.
As indicated in Figure 7-1, relatively large flow differences along the River floodplain produce relatively small
stage differences. This is typical of flow along well-developed flood plains. As such, a given absolute error in
flow estimation at the site will generally result in a relatively insignificant stage estimation error.
Page 24 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County Norlh Carolina hfarch 2005

Fi ure 7-1 River/Flood lain Stage-Discharge Elevation-Flow Relationship at Site
222.0-
221.9-
221.8-
221.7-
S221.6-
C:
m 221.5-
a) 221.4-
221.3-
221.2-
221.1-
221.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Flow (cfs)
Frequency of inundation is the primary factor for assessment of soil saturation and associated hydric soil
development at the site. A quantitative understanding of this provides a basis for determination of site elevation
corresponding to jurisdictional wetland status. Linking flow-frequency to stage-discharge allows development
of an inundation-frequency relationship for the site. A continuous flow period analysis was therefore undertaken
for the 14 selected gages. The results of this analysis is presented in Table 7-2 and Figure 7-2.
® Table 7-2 Minimum Continuous Flow within Growing Season during Half or More Sam lin Years

USGS Station Watershed Size Station Location Minimum Flo
12 Days or More Minimum Flo
23 Days or More
# s mi cfs cfs

213228795 0.1 Jordan Creek near Silver Hill 0.1 0.1
2102908 7. Flat Creek near Invernes 11.8 10.
2148300 40. Colonel Creek near Leesbur 37. 25.
2132320 83.3 Big Shoe Heel Creek near Laurinbur 115 88.1
2135300 9 Sca e Ore Swam near Bisho vill 133 101
2130900 10 Black Creek near McBe 211 15
2133500 183 Drowning Creek near Hoffina 361 173
2172500 19 South Fork Edisto near Montmorene' 27 215
2104500 29 Rockfish Creek near Hope Mill 33 258
2103000 34 Little River at Mancheste 65 38
133624 36 Lumber River near Maxtor 568 431
103500 45 Little River at Linde 72 48
173500 683 North Fork Edisto at Orangebur 85 69
173000 72 South Fork Edisto near Denmar 82 63
Page 25 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and JVetlandv - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Countv North Carolina Afarch 2005
E Figure 7-2 Minimum Continuous Flow within Growing Season during Hall or Nlore yam un Y ears

1000-
900-
-
01 (R^2 = 0.9961
s* Q = 1 37(A)^1
12 Da
800 .
y
700 23 Days: Q = 1 16(A)^0.98 (R^2 = 0.9961
U +
0 600 -

'" 500-
0
+
U) 400 +
12 Days
H 300 + + 23 Days
200
100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Watershed Area (sq mi)
As a side note, this utilization of flow rate to ascertain an associated stage is generally the inverse of the
procedure which applies regional flow relationships to stream channel design. The strength of the relationship
for wetland inundation analysis is the weakness of the relationship for stream flow analysis: small stage
differences resulting in large flow differences. Such limits or prevents the use of regional flow relationships to
stream channel design.
The landscape analysis was a more direct procedure. Multiple soil borings were taken at the site and hydric
feature information recorded. The elevation of these features was then determined. From this, the relative depth
to hydric features across the site was determined.
The two techniques corresponded very well. Much better, in fact, than was expected. The landscape analysis
related considerable variability of hydric feature elevation relative to ground surface, ground slope, soil texture,
and channel locations. The data was, however, a direct indicator of site soil water conditions. The statistical
analysis related consistent hydric feature elevation relative to the Little River floodplain channel alignment. The
data was, however, an indirect indicator of site soil water conditions. The results from the two analysis
techniques were meshed to develop the overall site earthwork and elevations. The overall approach has resulted
in a high degree of procedure confidence.
Frequency of inundation varies by site elevation. Beyond surface hydraulic analysis, this variation was
addressed by applying subsurface Dupuit flow from the northern hillslopes across the site to the Little River
channel. This application was verified with hydric feature elevation data. Thus, the wetland surface elevation
decreases generally from the hillslope toe to the River channel. Proposed surface lowering in areas designated
for excavation extends to approximately 0.6 ft.
From the hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, it was determined that most of the site exhibits jurisdictional wetland
status. The site exhibits significantly more hydric soils than are indicated by the Soil Survey information.
Page 26 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlcinds - Restoration: Plan Report
Moore Count, North Carolina Afarch 2005
Facilitation of wetland hydrologic conditions is critical to successful wetland development at the site. The goals
of the hydrologic components are to meet the US Army Corps of Engineers hydrologic criterion and to develop
an appropriate hydrologic character which supports the wetland community. Implementing the proposed stream
channels, plugging the existing ditches, and constructing the proposed berms will facilitate development of the
desired hydrologic character.
The proposed stream channels will be fully reconnected to the floodplain. Excavated ditches will be plugged at
appropriate locations with the remaining ditch sections left as vernal pools.
The combination of these with influxes of surface water from the stream and surrounding soil water interflow
will constrain hydrologic drainage and improve water table conditions. Raising the elevation of the stream beds
will also reconnect the stream with its natural floodplain, providing regular influx of surface water to the
wetland. The modification of surface water hydroperiod will improve overall site biological, chemical, and
physical conditions which support wetland vegetation and hydric soil development. This modification will also
enhance pollutant removal characteristics of the floodplain.
In the wetland areas, a mixture of grading, channel plugs, and berms will be used to manipulate and enhance the
hydrology of the site. Following stream channel construction, ditch plugs will be installed to redirect waters into
the new stream and to prevent short circuiting. Berms will be used along the proposed streams and across the
floodplain to promote wetland storage, flushing, and to prevent preferential drainage.
Vegetation Community Restoration
The project area will be planted entirely with native, noninvasive vegetation. Planting densities throughout the
wetland will be 400 stems per acre. The project are is divided into three planting zones: buffer/fringe,
floodplain, and channel corridor. Table 7-3 lists the proposed species for each zone. The buffer/fringe is located
along the northern boundary of the conservation easement. It serves as a transition zone between the adjacent
floodplain and uplands and contains a diverse variety of forbs, shrubs, and trees. The floodplain zone also
contains a diverse mix of forbs, shrubs, and trees. This is the largest zone and encompasses most of the active
wetland development areas. The species are those found in different stages of successional forest that precede a
typical bottomland hardwood forest. These successional species are more likely to survive than climax species
as they grow well in full sun and are often competitive species. The third zone will be planted in the stream
channel corridor. Live stake shrubs, live stake trees, and a seed mix will help stabilize the banks. Outside of the
banks a mix of riparian species including forbs and trees will be planted.
Page 27 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and l tiedan& - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005

'fable 7-3 rro osea
Type ecies t.um usuwu
Group
Scientific Nam
Common Nam

Seed Mix - Forbs Buffer/Fringe Aster s ectabili Showy aste
Chamaecrista asciculat Showy uail e,
Glandularia canadensis Rose mock verva'
Helianthus annuus Common sunflowe
Monarda did yin Scarlet bee-bal
Rudbeckia hirt Blacke ed sus
Salvia azure Blue sa
Salvia 1 rat Common sa
Salvia s lender Scarlet sag(
S nth otriclntm cordi oliun Common blue aste
loodplain Ascle is tuberos Butterfly milkwee
Ba tisia australb Wild blue indi E
Chamaecrista asciculat Showy quailpe
Echinacea laevi at Smooth purple coneflowe
Echinacea ur ure Purple coneflowe
Verbena hastat Swam verben
hannel Corridor Eu atoritun maculatun Joe a wee
bn atiens ca ensi Touch-me-no
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal flowe
Monarda unctat Coastal bee-bal
Saururus cernuu Lizard tai
Chamaecrista asciculat Showy uail e
Seed Mix - Grasses Channel Corridor Panictnn dichotomi onin Fall anic as
Panicum vir atui Switch as
Schizach rium sco arum Little blueste
Sor hastrum nutai Indian ras
are Root Shrubs Buffer/Fringe Clethra ahti oli Sweet a erbus
Ga lussacia dtanos Dwarf hucklebe
Ga lussacia rondos Hucklebe
flex coriace Sweet allbe
Morus ruby Mulbe
Persea borboni Red ba
Prunus an sti oli Chicksaw lu
Vaccinium co mbosun Hi hbush bluebe
Vaccinium crassi oliun Creeping bluebe
loodplain Amelanchier canadensh Junebe
Castanea until Chinquapin
Ce halanthus occidentalb Buttonbus
C rilla racend or Tit'
Ilex labr Bitter allbe
Kalmia an usti oli Lamb-kil
Page 28 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and IVetlan& - Restoration: Pkin Retort
Moore Countv North Carolina March 2005
Kabnia hirsut Sandhill laurel
Leucothoe axillarb Coastal dog-hobble
L onia lucid Fetterbus
Aforella ceri er Wax m rtl
Persea alustris Swam bay
Rosa alustris Swam ros
Sambucus canadensi ElderbLff?
Vaccinium arboreun S arklebe
Bare Root Trees Buffer/Fringe Aralia s inos Devil's walking stic
Asimitta trilob Paw- a
Cornus orid Flowering do woo
Dios ros vin inian Persimmo
Ilex o ac American holl
Liriodendron tuli fifer Tulip o la
Magnolia ands or Southern ma noli
Prunus anzerican American 1
Prunus an tsti oli Chickasaw 1
ttercus laurifoli Laurel oak
Ubnus american American el
loodplain Celtis laevi at Su arbe
Chamaec aris th oide Atlantic white cedar
Juni erus vin ittiatt Eastern red ceda
Magnolia vtr ittiatt Sweet ba
Taxodium distichw Bald c res
hannel Corridor Betula ni r River birc
Outside Banks Cltamaec aris th oide Atlantic white ceda
Cornus amomun Silk do woo
Gordonia lasianthu Loblolly ba
Magnolia vin inian Sweet ba
Pinus serothi Pond in
Salix ni r Black willow
Taxodium distichutt Bald c res
Live Stake Shrubs Channel Corridor Ce halanthus occidentals Buttonbus
On Banks Sambucus canadensh Elderberr)
Morella ceri er Wax m rtl
five Stake Trees Channel Corridor Betula ni >r River birc
On Banks Cornus antotntat Silk do woo
Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly ba
Magnolia vin inian Sweet ba
Salix n r Black willo
Page 29 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
0 Soils Development
Soils investigation found that natural wetland floodplain soils exist on most of the site. However, activities
associated with forestry practices have lead to compaction, reduction of organic matter, and the alteration of
proper wetland chemical conditions in these soils. Soil preparation activities on the site will include minimal
grading work. The entire site will be tilled or scarified to a depth of at least 6". Grading activities will be
managed to maintain an appropriate A horizon (topsoil) in all wetland areas. If grading is likely to require
excavation below existing A horizons or reduce the depth significantly, topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled
for later replacement. Soil amendments will be kept to a minimum, but may include broadcast fertilizer
application, some targeted fertilizer application, and possibly some organic matter addition.
Proper construction management will be critical to soils preparation and to avoid adverse impacts at the site.
Traffic of heavy construction equipment must be limited to avoid compaction. Management must also ensure
that tillage practices are completed correctly and to the specified extent. The manager must ensure that erosion
control practices are followed to prevent the loss of topsoil from the site. Soil testing for bulk density,
chemistry, and other parameters may be needed during the construction process to ensure that soil conditions
will be meet project requirements.
Pagc 30 of 66
WE
-, ?. ?+ ? y„L w ? 'i? A • ?w?r?.r•}g «{? M.y .r
"? ?'xwnr r.- sM ? _'trF'a4 y? ?.'. tY ??. } gN. ? ,y+ •:Y _'i'. '? ,0
C
a?
-Ow
All
mss. ?y,ys,,.?,!'
WF?
a6 , e, ?1 R ?,.,N± Il, ^14s yrF7?°a"as.q
?'??' ; ~F?4 s?.l.
w.? ry..??F y,»e #?
10
Wetland Crea»on
Wetland Enhancement
'N N, Existing Channels
Alignments
. ,-, ?Y., ?+ . '??b ? y . ?*,i']. .wk x??. M £,'•? app
wit- 1 Val
NO all A.
}..., ri jiy
i 6 wr. ?'+ s`? -'w '?., ar^ .a<-a? • Curtain Log
Log Weir
a
?Rod W8d8 - see plan SAt)
- y +? _ xfi z
•?..-"?, ` We ? 1^ ? r ? _ /? { •. _ 'F]A FA=mt WWrV01y
Map 7-1. Little River/J-Bar 400 ° 40o F•ec
wwr
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Scale: 1" = 400' BLUE,.,..U..
Restoration Plan March 2005
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
,lfoore County North Carolina .lfarcl: ?005
0 8. Stream Plan
Stream System Design Approach Discussion
In the United States, most ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration efforts focusing on streams and wetlands
have been unsuccessful. Many reasons have been given for these failures, with the lack of detailed hydrologic
and hydraulic investigation, modeling, and design being generally the most common cause. To be successful,
ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration efforts (as with any planning and design effort) require various
methodologies to be employed dependent upon the individual type and character of the specific project.
Stream design methodologies can generally be separated into three categories: 1) Analog; 2) Empirical; 3)
Analytical. Each of these methodologies has strengths and weaknesses. As such, various aspects of each
methodology may be employed in any given project.
Analog Methodology
The Analog methodology is typified by the reference reach method popularized by Dave Rosgen of Wildland
Hydrology and is the most simplistic of the three methodologies. The Analog methodology is based on the
logical and statistical inference that if two systems are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be
alike in other respects. In this methodology, sets of geometric and hydraulic parameters are measured relative to
flow rate return intervals. This information is then applied to the design of the system.
For a project to be successful using this methodology, several considerations must be met: 1) the project
watershed matches the hydrologic character of the reference watershed(s) to a significant degree; 2) the site and
reach parameters must match the reference site(s) to a significant degree (bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank
slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc); 3) The reference watershed(s) and site(s) must be stable and have
been so for a significant time period; 4) The project watershed must be stable, have been so for a significant
time period, and continue to be so for the design life of the project. If these conditions are not met, this
methodology is not applicable for project design.
As such, this methodology is generally not applicable to projects in urbanizing watersheds, watersheds which
may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life, watersheds where agricultural
practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, watersheds where reservoirs may be
constructed or removed, and various instances of watershed change. This method is generally suitable for sites
at which the hydrologic response of the contributing watershed is significantly stable and will remain such for
the intended lifetime of the project.
Empirical Methodology
As the name of this methodology suggests, the Empirical methodology is based on the application of statistically
derived parameters from large datasets and intensive system studies. This methodology is somewhat similar to
the analog method in that both methodologies are based on sets of measured data. The main difference is that
the Empirical methodology utilizes much larger, refined, and more focused datasets than does the Analog
methodology. A secondary difference is that the Empirical methodology often utilizes mean annual flow rate as
the primary design parameter whereas the Analog methodology generally employs the bankfull flow rate as the
0 Page 32 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and lVetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Connh, North Carolina March 2005
primary design parameter, with the consideration that the bankfull flow is the channel forming discharge. The
Empirical methodology is typified by the regime reach method.
As with the Analog methodology, for a project to be successful using the Empirical methodology, several
considerations must be met: 1) specific project watershed response parameters of the project watershed must
match specific watershed response parameters of the dataset watersheds to a significant degree; 2) specific
project site and reach parameters must match specific parameters of the dataset sites and reaches to a significant
degree (bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc); 3) during the data
collection period, the dataset watersheds, sites, and reaches must be equivalently stable or varying as the project
watershed, site, and reach and continue to be so for the design life of the project (equal to, or less than, the data
collection period if varying). If these conditions are not met, this methodology is not applicable for project
design.
With the proper dataset and considerable understanding of this dataset, watershed hydrology, and fluvial
geomorphology, it is potentially possible to apply the Empirical methodology to projects in urbanizing
watersheds, watersheds which may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life,
watersheds where agricultural practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, and
watersheds where reservoirs may be constructed or removed, and various instances of watershed change. This
however, is generally well beyond the limits of available datasets as well as the statistical validity of such
extrapolations. Again as with the Analog methodology, this method is generally suitable for sites at which the
hydrologic response of the contributing watershed is significantly stable and will remain such for the intended
lifetime of the project.
Analytical Methodology
The Analytical methodology is based on the application of physically based mathematical models of natural
phenomena to the project site and watershed. This methodology is quite different from the Analog and
Empirical methodologies as no dependence is placed on datasets external from the project. Temporally and
spatially distributed phenomena may also be addressed with this methodology, as opposed to Analog and
Empirical methodologies. The Analytical methodology is typified by the system simulation method and is the
primary methodology employed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Geological Survey.
To successfully employ the Analytical methodology, two considerations must be met: 1) the designer must be
able to adequately mathematically describe the relevant primary natural phenomena within the system; 2)
adequate environmental parameters must be available to drive the mathematical model of the system. If these
conditions are not met, this methodology is not applicable for project design.
The Analytical methodology is the most flexible and robust of the three methodologies presented and the only
one that can be used to design and analyze the system for specific project functions such as pollutant removal,
flood attenuation, and habitat development. This methodology can be applied to projects in urbanizing
watersheds, watersheds which may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life,
watersheds where agricultural practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, watersheds
where reservoirs may be constructed or removed, and other various instances of watershed change as well as
significantly stable watersheds.
Page 33 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Curolina March 2005
Project Analysis and Design Approach
The J-Bar / Little River stream and wetland project is located in the Sandhills of North Carolina. The Sandhills
is one of ten distinct hydrophysiographic regions in the state. These are the Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont,
Triassic Basin, Sandhills, Southern Highlands, Southern Inner Coastal Plain, Northern Coastal Plain, Southern
Outer Coastal Plain, Tidewater, and Barrier Islands regions. Individual regions vary from other regions with
regards to base flow, infiltration, heat flux, evapotranspiration, runoff response, and various other hydrologic
phenomena. Compared with most other hydrophyisogmphic regions in the state, relatively little surface water
flow and stream stage data is available for the Sandhills region.
Undeveloped watersheds in the Sandhills region are typified by moderate to high infiltration potential sandy soil
systems with moderate to high relief. This results in relatively high stream base flows and highly buffered
precipitation runoff response. This is in contrast to much of the Piedmont region (bordering the Sandhills region
to the West) which is typified by low to moderate infiltration potential clayey soil systems with moderate to high
relief. This results in much lower stream base flows and much less precipitation runoff response buffering.
When developing the analysis and design approach, the system location, project goals, and available project
timeline were particularly taken into consideration. A hybrid analysis and design approach was developed for
the project that utilized aspects of the Analog (reference reach) and Empirical (regime reach) methodologies
with the Analytical (system simulation) approach at the core. The approach developed involves a combination
of stream design and hydraulic analysis techniques. The specific methods used included natural channel design,
sandbed stream design methods, and other stable channel engineering methods. The approach also included
integration of advanced watershed hydrologic and stream hydraulic modeling, utilizing the continuous
AnnAGNPS Annualized Agricultural Nonpoint Source) simulation model and the GSTARS (Generalized
Sediment Transport for Alluvial Rivers) hydraulic model to aid in the analysis. A few of the main sources
detailing these methods are referenced at the end of this section. Although fairly involved and detailed as well as
modified to account for site parameters as the project progressed, the general analysis and design approach
employed is as follows:
1) Estimate watershed, stream, and wetland response using relatively simple models and methods
2) Simulate continuous watershed response using AnnAGNPS
3) Employ GSTARS for channel hydraulics and sediment transport analysis
4) Set bankfull elevation at floodplain elevation
5) Raise/lower bankfull/berm elevations and modify channel parameters and floodplain elevations as needed
and reanalyze
Restoration Potential
The project site has excellent potential for a high quality stream restoration project. Located in a broad valley,
the site provides adequate room to utilize a full range of belt width and meander forms. The significant
floodplain available also means that floodprone area requirements will be easily achieved. There is no adjacent
development that would restrict the design. The combination of these allows for reestablishing new stream
channels near their original elevation and reconnecting them with their historical floodplains.
Although this site has many advantages, their are several distinct challenges with a project of this type. Because
the design requires changing the channel bed elevations, special attention must be paid to structure design and
Page 34 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration: Plait Report
Afoore County North Carolina Alarch 2005
installations to prevent the possibility of headcuts (downstream) and channel incision (upstream). Another
challenge to this project was developing a design for a sandbed stream system. Common natural channel design
procedures employed in North Carolina may have application to gravel bed streams, with higher slopes and
lower water tables, but have limited applicability in sand dominated and high water table systems.
Stream Dimensional Design
The reference analysis found average bankfull widths of 3.9 feet (Appendix E). Most side slopes are supported
by dense vegetation on the channel banks including overhanging trees. Tree roots were prominent in the channel
banks. Due to the sandy, non-cohesive soils in the area, steep bank angles would not be stable without dense
vegetative root mass. This vegetative support will take years to develop and the proposed stream will have to be
constructed to remain stable independent of such devices. As a result, the restored stream will be designed to
remain stable based on its geometry and a limited amount of vegetative cover and protection. The result is a
stream with a larger cross-sectional area and sideslopes with a flatter, more stable repose angle (Tables 8-1
through 8-3).
Flatter slopes, sandy soils, and high water tables create very different hydrologic system dynamics in the
Sandhills than in the piedmont and mountain regions. The interaction between streams and high water tables in
these areas affects stage return intervals and flooding frequency. Vegetation serves as a primary stream genesis
development force. These factors complicate the relationship between bankfull flow and channel forming flow.
The stream design is likely divergent from typical templates for piedmont and mountain streams. Proposed
stream channel cross sectional areas are larger than the reference channels due to sandy material and the absence
of vegetation. The size of the project dictates that flow rates and sediment loads will change along the length of
the stream. Therefore, the stream parameters will vary from upstream to downstream. The channel dimensions
will be balanced to maintain water depths that remain near the surface for lengthy periods during the year
without excessive drainage while providing for adequate sediment transport. The channel capacity (geometry
and slope) was designed to encourage overbank flow at frequent return intervals promoting extended flooding
and storage in the wetland. The balance between adequate sediment transport to prevent excessive deposition,
nonexcessive sideslope repose to prevent bank failure, and nonexcessive depth to prevent overdrainage of the
site was the primary challenge of design.
Initial dimensional designs were driven by bankfull flow rate determinations. Peak flow rate and sediment
inflow were calculated using AnnAGNPS and 20 years of weather data (Appendix F).
Using the model results and engineering judgment, initial dimensions were chosen for further analysis and
testing with the final pattern and profile designs. The base width of the design channels will range from 2 feet to
3 feet. Sideslopes range from 3:1 to 2.5:1 (H:V) and will be protected with erosion control fabric. The bankfull
depths will be the set to approximately 1.6 feet, with some sedimentation expected that will reduce this depth
over time. Design top widths will range from 9.8 feet to 12.8 feet. This will create an average width to depth
ratios of 6 ft/ft to 7.9 ft/ft which is expected to change as woody vegetation grows and alters cross-sections.
Although this ratio is lower than at the reference site, it is consistent with data presented by various research
projects.
Page 35 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
llfoore Countv North Carolina Afarch 2005

11 Sinuosity, K 1.00 1.12 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.32 1.32

m_,-o 1 ca_,.,..... A"t,.....A..l.,......,I " to _ Chonnol A
Parameter Existing Reference Pro osed
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Drainage Area, DA (s mi 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) - - 1726 - - 138 - - 2301
Stream Type (Ros en) E5 C5 C5 E5 C5 C5 E5 E5 E5
ankf ill Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 2.8 8.1 4.5 2.8 8.1 4.5 11.8 13.8 12.8
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 5.5 14.9 9.1 5.5 14.9 9.1 12.8 12.8 12.8
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D ft/ft) 8.9 20.5 14.3 8.9 20.5 14.3 - - 7.8
Width Flood prone Area, W aft 182 710 446 182 710 446 182 710 446
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 33.1 47.7 40.4 33.1 47.7 40.4 14.3 55.7 35.0
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
ax Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length, Lm ft 36 57 47 36 57 47 57 150 103
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (fVft) - - 5.1 - - 5.1 4.5 11.7 8.1
Radius of Curvature, Re ft 5 25 16 - - 25 25 50 36
c ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft) - - 1.8 - - 2.7 2.0 3.9 2.9
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 25 14 3 6 5 8 70 30
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft) - - 1.5 - - 0.5 0.7 5.5 2.4

Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft - - - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/fl) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.014 0.005
16 (mm) - - - - - - - -
35 mm - - - - - - - -
50 mm - - 0.14 - - 0.14 - - 0.14
84 mm - - 0.49 - - 0.49 - - 0.49
95 (mm) - - 1.40 - - 1.40 - - 1.40
Page 36 of 66
Little Rimer /J-Bar Streams and il'etlandr - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore County Nord: Carolina ttfarch 2005

mt?_ o q LIa-.,.,.... rii,...., h.. 1........, 1 nndf - ('lhnnnol R
1 aLPI: O-b OLI cuui u• aavav
Parameter --
Existing
Reference
Pro osed
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Drainage Area, DA s mi 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft)
Stream Type (Ros en) -
- -
- 2707
E5 -
E5 -
C5 138
C5 -
E5 -
E5 2514
E5
ankf ill Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0.9 38.4 15.5 2.8 8.1 4.5 11.8 13.8 12.8
ankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
13ankftill Depth, Dbkf ft 2.6
0.4 12
3.2 6.8
2.3 5.5
0.4 14.9
0.5 9.1
0.5 12.8
1.5 12.8
1.8 12.8
1.6
Width to De th Ratio, W/D ft/ft) - - 3.0 8.9 20.5 14.3 - - 7.8
Width Flood rove Area, W aft 182 700 441 182 710 446 182 700 441
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 65.2 33.1 47.7 40.4 14.3 54.9 35.0
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.4 3.2 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.0 - - 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.4 3.2 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length, Lm ft 34 133 71 36 57 47 82 150 115
Meander Length Ratio, Lrn/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 10.5 - - 5.1 6.5 11.8 9.0
Radius of Curvature, Re ft 5 36 16.4 - - 25 25 50 40
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft 2.1 3.0 2.4 - - 2.7 1.9 3.9 3.1
Belt Width, Wblt ft 25 50 38 3 6 5 10 53 28
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.5 - - 0.5 0.8 4.1 2.2
Sinuosity, K 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.30
Valley SSlope, Sval ft/ft - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.040 0.009
16 (mm) - - 0.33 - - - - - 0.33
35 mm - - 0.48 - - - - - 0.48
50 mm - - 0.57 - - 0.14 - - 0.57
84 mm - - 1.39 - - 0.49 - - 1.39
95 (mm) - - 1.89 - - 1.40 - - 1.89
Page 37 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and 111'edands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Count, North Carolina March 005
Table 8-3 Stream Morphological Data - Channel C
Parameter Existing Reference Pro osed
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Drainage Area, DAs mi) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.04 0.04
Stream Length (ft)
Stream Type (Ros en) -
- -
- 1530
E5 -
ES -
C5 138
C5 -
E5 -
E5 2497
E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0 34 14.3 2.8 8.1 4.5 8.8 10.3 9.5
ankfull Width, VVbkf (ft) 3.5 6.4 5.3 5.5 14.9 9.1 9.8 9.8 9.8
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0 5.3 2.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) - - 2.0 8.9 20.5 14.3 - - 6.0
Width Flood prone Area, W aft 45 512 278.5 182 710 446 45 512 278.5
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/VVbkf (ft/ft) 12.8 80.0 52.5 33.1 47.7 40.4 4.6 52.5 28.5
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.0 5.3 2.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.0 - - 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.0 5.3 2.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 I.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length, Lm ft * * * 36 57 47 89 173 125
bk
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/ * * * - - 5.1 9.2 17.7 12.8
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft * * * - - 25 25 50 40
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft * * * - - 2.7 2.6 5.1 4.1
U
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 10 7 3 6 5 12 83 41
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt 0.8 1.6 1.2 - - 0.5 1.2 8.5 4.2
Sinuosity, K 1.06 1.19 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.001 0.020 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.062 0.017
16 (mm) - - - - - - - - -
35 mm - - - - - - - - -
50 (mm) - - - - - 0.14 - - -
84 mm - - - - - 0.49 - - -
95 (mm) - - - - - 1.40 - - -
* The existing channel is essentially straight
Page 38 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Metlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County Nor[h Carolina Afarch 2005
® Stream Pattern Design
The existing channel has minimal natural developed meander bends for channel analysis. The reference reaches
analyzed do exhibit meanders, however, it was found that the those reaches are significantly supported by root
mass and dense streamside vegetation. The new stream must be stable for a long period of time prior until
vegetation can develop significantly enough to fully support the channel. Therefore, developed equations and
ratios were used to generate estimates for the design pattern information. The pattern design was then developed
utilizing site contours and a range of pattern values. The pattern design resulted in a restored channel length of
2,301 feet for Channel A, 2,514 feet for Channel B, and 2,497 feet for Channel C (Map 7-1).
Stream Profile Design
The flood plain slope is the major parameter driving and constraining channel slope. The on-site reference
stream average hydraulic slope is 0.002 ft/ft. This slope was used as an initial parameter during quantitative
analysis of the proposed stream channels and modified relative to this analysis and site features. Site features
influencing the profile design are primarily existing elevations and slopes, with connecting stream channels also
a significant consideration. Overly deep channels will excessively drain the surrounding area, will not exhibit
sufficient out of channel flow, will develop periodic stagnant conditions, and may be overly stressed along the
banks. Overly shallow channels may become easily blocked and reroute, resulting in a highly unstable channel
that could cause undesirable site conditions. A profile chart showing the existing channel bed, existing ground
surface, and proposed stream bed is included in the plan set.
As the restored stream will need to be stable under a variety of conditions, analysis was completed to determine
a range of stable slope possibilities. The restored stream reach slopes average 0.039 fVft. Morphological tables
for each of the three streams comparing the existing, reference, and design stream are included at the end of this
section.
Sediment Transport and Shear Stress
Stream analysis has been completed using a dynamic hydraulic model, GSTARS, which was developed by the
US Bureau of Reclamation. GSTARS is a numerical model for simulating the flow of water and sediment
transport in alluvial channels. GSTARS computes hydraulic forces in a manner similar to the HEC-RAS
hydraulic model, but also has the capability to complete a full sediment transport analysis based on incoming
sediment loads, shear stress, bed scour, and bank movement. This analysis was used to test the stability of the
design stream dimensions and pattern during design storms and over a long period of time. Predicted time
series, modeled with AnnAGNPS, of inflows and sediment loads have been routed through the model. This
analysis not only predicts the stability of the stream on an event basis, but also provide a test of stream response
to more naturally occurring storm shapes and frequencies.
It is especially difficult to apply tractive force methods to sand bed streams. Sediment transport in such systems
occurs regularly and stability is a delicate balance between incoming sediment load and deposition and localized
erosion and scour. In a sandy system, the potential for deposition and aggradation must be equally weighed with
the potential for erosion and degradation. Therefore, approaches to determine channel stability must utilize the
above procedures, but also incorporate additional detailed methods to assess this balance.
Page 39 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and IVetlands - Restorution Plan Report
Moore Comitiv North Carolina March 2005
® Both a limiting velocity and critical shear stress analysis were completed for the design stream. To improve
applicability, these calculations were initially completed for a range of possible flow rates, channel dimensions,
and slopes. The calculations were applied throughout the stream reach to account for localized slope and
meander conditions. Velocity and shear stress were calculated for a variety of storm events over the entire
stream reach using the HEC-15 (1ydraulic Engineering Circular 15 methodology (Design of Roadside
Channels with Flexible Linings). These values were compared to published thresholds. Velocity thresholds for
sandy materials typically range between 2 ft/s - 2.5 ft/s. Critical shear stress values are typically 0.01 lb/sf.
Higher velocities and shear may be allowable depending on incoming sediment supply and bank protection.
Additional protection measures such as cross vanes will also be used for grade control in potential problem
areas. Shear stress calculations can be found in Appendix F.
In-Stream Structures
In-stream structures will be used along the length of the stream to provide grade control, extra bank protection,
and encourage development of bedfonn features (Map 7-1). The reference analysis found some woody debris in
the reference reach. Roots from streamside trees traverse the bed and fallen trees and limbs were found
frequently along the streams. Root wads will be installed in meander bends. A variety of different log structure
designs will be used. Several typical designs are included in this document. These structures will be securely
seated and sealed using compacted sand and clay or filter fabric. Log structures may be supported with vertically
driven rootwads or other additional woody debris. Log weirs will be installed at grade.
Stream Riparian Planting Plan
The stream riparian corridor will be planted with a wetland seed mix of herbaceous and woody species for
erosion control (Table 7-3). Additional woody vegetation will be planted in the floodplain adjacent to the stream
banks (Refer to Section 7 - Vegetation Community Restoration).
Stream Design Background Information References
• Copeland, Ronald R, Dinah N McComas, Colin R Thorne, Philip J Soar, Meg M Jonas, and Jon B Fripp,
2001 Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (ERDC/CHL TR-01-28) US Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
• Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998 Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield,
VA
• Millar, R G and B J MacVicar, 1998 An analytical method for natural channel design In: Proceedings of the
ASCE Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference, Denver, CO
• Miller, D E and P B Skidmore, 2001 Natural Channel Design: How Does Rosgen Classification-Based
Design Compare with Other Methods? In: Proceedings of ASCE Wetlands/River Restoration Conference,
Reno, NV
• Pope, Benjamin F, Gary D Tasker, and Jeanne C Robbins, 2001 Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised (WRIR 01-4207) US Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC
Page 40 of 66
Little Rimer /J-Bar Streams and Wctlancls - Restoration Plat Report
Moore Comnry North Carolina bfarch 2005
® Rosgen, D L, 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO
• Skidmore, P B, F D Shields, M W Doyle, and D E Miller, 2001 A Categorization of Approaches to Natural
Channel Design In: Proceedings of ASCE Wetlands/River Restoration Conference, Reno, NV
• Thorne, Colin R and Philip J Soar, 2001 Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers (ERDC/CHL
CR-01-1) US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
• Weaver, J Curtis and Benjamin F Pope, 2001 Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected
Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin North Carolina, through 1998 (WRIR 01-4094) US Geological
Survey, Raleigh, NC

Page 41 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Revtor-atioti Plan Report
Afoove Counh, Forth Carolina Afarclr ?005
0 9. DesiLn Details (Typical)
STREAM CHANNELS (SECTION AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
CHANNEL A & CHANNEL B
Erosion Control Blanket
Compacted Berm North American Green SC15CE3N
Height: 0.5' Anchor vertically in 0.5' deep trench at 1.5'
Width. 3.5' beyond edge of berm
Sideslopes: 3:1 Anchor 15' bankward in 1.5' deep trench of
channel bottom toe
_ _ _ _ _ 12.75' to Center of Berm at Bonk Top Stage - - _ - - -
Varies (1.00' to 1.25' typical)I
\\/\\\/\ I nn-

CHANNEL C
Erosion Control
.?_?. ?__-.--- --..., i
0 Page 42 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and JVedanch - Restoration Plan Report
Above County North Carolina Afarch 2005
LOG WEIR STRUCTURE (FACE AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
FACE
n- r.... Cf.....
1/2 Timber Vdth
Compacted
Sealant Clay -
Anchor wing timbers with 3/4'
diameter metal pins at 1/6,
3/6, and 5/6 along the
timber centerline through each
timber layer I
I I I'
Bank Top Stage
Anchor wing timbers with 3/4*
PLAN diameter metal pins at 1/6,
2/6, 3/6, 4/6, and 5/6 along
the timber centerline through
each timber layer
-w= -?- - I Bonk Top Stage
Cross timber and wing timber
length is twice bottom width of
channel
1/2 Timber Width ->, /
Page 43 of 66
99J0 bb a2ed 0
,_
ollo© IouuOyO
ool adol4
pN wolloq IQUUD43 pu0 wjaq }o a6pa
N01103S l3NNVH0 1VN10f11JJNOl to youail daap ,S'0 ul 611o011an ?oy0uy
N60SIOS uoaJO uo:1aury ylJoN
iaAuoA IOJluoO uosw3
o?oNn? ?uils;,r
jia1PLM dol puuouO /?
IU 4110
ylp++M dol IauuoyO aolrl
N011035 13NNVHO SS080
('STN)
(SNO1103S) onld ?3NNVHO ONIISIX3
n
LJ
500 tp-,VjV nuljoano 111.10N Apaloo aaoojv
podau tmjd uorlniolsad - sPunjjdAj pnn sruna r1S JL7U-`/.+011 lY aj11!7
Little River /J-Bat- Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Comity North Carolina March 2005
`',-J
FLOOD PLAIN BERM
(N.T.S.)
Erosion Control Blanket
North American Croon SC1506N
Anchor vertically in OS' deep trench beyond
too of berm fill slope too and weir side edges
CROSS BERM SECTION
0.5'
1.0' Berm Weir
Top Depth: 0.5'
Bottom Widths: 4.0'
Sidcslopcs: 3:1
1.0' Flood Plain
1{' 4.0
ROOT WAD STRUCTURE (FACE AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
FACE
Edge of root mass to extend
above flood poin stage
Flood Plain Stago _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15'
1/2 Bank Top
Page 45 of 66
Little Rimer /J-liar Streams and 4etlamis - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore Counn, North Carolina Afarch 1005
10. Wetland Post-Construction Performance Criteria
Hydrology
A total of seven continuous water level recorders are planned for monitoring the hydrology of the wetland area
(Map 12-1). A few of the existing recorders will remain in the same location while a few will be relocated so
that appropriate coverage of each wetland type may be achieved. Recorders will be programmed to initially
record water table data on an hourly basis. If water table changes are not found to occur rapidly, the recorders
may be reprogrammed to record at longer intervals. Water level data will be compared with previous data
recorded at the reference site to detenmine if the water table changes after restoration. The restoration site should
meet US Army Corps of Engineers wetland hydrology requirements.
Vegetation
Success for the vegetative plantings will be determined by the establishment of ten permanent plots (10 meter X
10 meter) and sampling within these plots (Map 12-1). The plots will be randomly placed in each vegetation
community type (channel corridor, buffer/fringe and floodplain). Data from each plot pertaining to species
composition, presence of volunteer or invasive species, percent survival, and percent ground cover will be
collected. An 80% survival rate of planted vegetation will be considered successful at the end of the first year. A
minimum of 320 trees/acre should be present at the end of the fifth year of monitoring.
Soils
As most of the soils at the site are already considered hydric, no monitoring or success criteria is proposed for
soils. Wetland soil development success will be based on data obtained from the site soil water level recorders.
11. Stream Post-Construction Performance Criteria
Geomorphology
Channel cross-sections, profile, pattern, and materials will be assessed. One cross-section will be established
approximately every 500 feet along each new channel. The designed stream lengths total 7,312 feet and 15
permanent cross sections will be established (Map 12-1). At each cross section the width/depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, and low bank height ratio will be measured and compared with the designed stream
geomorphology (the as-builts) for dimension and profile. The channels are expected to grow more narrow over
time as woody vegetation is established. Photo reference points will be established at each cross section.
Longitudinal profiles will be checked for sinuosity, meander width ratio, radius of curvature and compared with
the post construction as-builts. Grab samples will be collected to determine the established d50 and d85.
Vegetation
Success will be considered from the establishment of the wetland seed mix along the stream banks and an 80%
survival rate of planted vegetation in the floodplain at the end of the first year.
Page 46 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and jGetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
0 12 Post-Construction Monitoring Plan
The site will be monitored once a month for the first three months and quarterly thereafter during the first
post-construction year. Each visit will consist of a visual inspection for general site conditions, presence of
eroding banks, condition of the installed structures, general stream stability and the condition of the ditch plugs.
Soil water gage data will be downloaded and compiled. Vegetation will be assessed in ten permanent plots
across the project site, including at least one plot in the channel corridor zone of each channel. Within each plot,
data will be collected pertaining to species composition, presence of volunteer or invasive species, and percent
survival. Near the end of the first year of project implementation the stream will be surveyed for existing
conditions and general evaluations will be made. Fifteen cross-sections will be surveyed along the stream
channel (Map 12-1) to determine stream development and for comparison to stream design parameters. The
channels are expected to grow more narrow over time as woody vegetation is established. The ditch plugs will
be examined for stability and sufficient ground cover. Any invasive woody vegetation will be removed at this
time.
Permanent photo stations will be established at key points for compiling a record of project success over the
monitoring period. A map of the proposed monitoring survey, gage, and vegetation plot locations is located on
Map 12-1. A monitoring report will be submitted to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program at the end of the first
post-construction year. Any recommendations for remedial actions will be made at this time. The project will be
monitored for an additional four years by an independent contractor.
Page 47 of 66

r ?
y a ?ia?
• n r \
.
* * y ?. ;?:
' '? •M• ['fit F ?.r!t'?3 n....?` ?,:+?"' .. r A? . <. .. r'?`' '
• j-
4
?r
R
?qr
' 46? w.
AW?
!I?,. .^ ; ?` ; '?? •' Vegetation Not
Wetland creation * water Level Recorder v. In A
Wetland Enhancement
?'. 'w?? ?. ?', • ?a^ , . « ,' h? Well
?,' ?• _ '? '? ?'' ' :?: ' ,? :ti J V Proposed Stream
7F
r,'?r ? Y 4?,• ' i' ?,a ? ? ; w ANgmwft Rain wage
00
00
® Easement BOUndery Crow Section
Map 12-1. Little River/J-Bar 400 ° goo r L"d
Stream and Welland Restoration Project scale: 1^ = 4W BLUE,,,,,,,,u,,,,,,
,Monitoring Plan March 2005
o ?
Z
A
k rr?__
(?0
O ?
IF
S O
O
? r
co
a
'TJ
0
?- I

Little River /J-Bar Streams and lVetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX A
SITE SOIL TEST REPORT
Page 49 of 66

Rn
0
0
a
C

1`CDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Report No: 05202
BLUE Land Water infrastructure t:rp,,,, r.,
i 1 °; l&': 11; :l Sn:,t
Clri!.;tl. (JC 71'7"
"
fie ort
t
il
eS
.
o
SERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Moore Count
Agronomist Comments: 11
Field Information 1p lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop o r A Crop or car Lime N (Os h1o 1g Cu n An Soo Note

711a(i1:;1.
Test Results
Soil Class HMY. IY/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg! Mn-1 A1n-AI (1)Mn-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-Al Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 Na-N NHr-N Na
1.11'J (; 11 1 7;; ", 1 : t (1 7 7 ? ?, ti 14t iii, C `? C la ??, 7`? l : 11 (;
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N IM K-0 h1g Cu Zn B Mn See Note
lt;:;,17 k.: C:u?t 1.71 C C i(1 AL i tl t) i t
Ina (?; ,?:.
Test Results
Soil Class I%/V CEC 6516 Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca'% Mg's h/n 1 hfn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 In-Al Cu-1 5-1 55-1 Na-N NH-11 f!a
i,':I'1 llf? 1.11 i.il 7,t(1 /8 (i 11) ( RQ 1(i :', ! :4 1. 4?S C1
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N POs KO h",g Cu Zn 8 Mn See Note

'Ina C:?:[';.
Test Results
Soil Class Hb1;6 I;/V CEC BSY Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% MgY IM-1 h1n-AI (1)b1n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NLE-N NFk-N Na
i'JIN 0 S)7 I M :iti 1"1(1 a'i 4) (1 16 8(i 40 10 0(1
Field Information p lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N NOs K-0 Mg Cu Zn B Ain See Note
1.')i
:!;1 t?)i'C
C(1 i0
U 11
1n:1 C; [:;I.
Test Results
Soil Class H U'L I?/V C£C M Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% hig;G h1 i-I h1n-AI (1)h1n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-I SS-1 Na-N NFb-N Na
i.iilj C 11 1 11 4 L' ?C C ? ? : '? C 1'si 12.;; ti c 'lei I? a?i 1!) C.?1
'r
O
0
n
0
0
4
Q
y
c
2
t-
a
a
c
S.
a
n
C
c
c
AdIlL
a
oa
n
0
rn
NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Recd Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Grovier: BLVA Repo rt No: 05202 Pq 2
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop MO Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N POs KO h19 Cu Zri B Mr? See Note
1 ^.I nu We C W c c 11
71i ! Ci; p.
Test Results
Soil Class HNU 17/V CEC BSN Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% hfgY h1n-I h!n-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 55-1 Na-N NFk-N Na
I.I.Ji ch Ilit 39 73r, 3(, 4 0 li 13c i;e 31 psi ut
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr IYA Crop or Year Lune N NUS K0 Mg Cu Zn B hlrr See Note
1( `Cu f;,Il:;tyt 1?1 Cr;iL ;i,:(,1:•,,.??,I 1 l l (.L iC EC; t??! i..; L L' 11
71Y! i?.i.:11.
Test Results
Soil Class IlMi", I%/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg),1, Mn-1 h!n-AI (1)h"n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-Al Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 Na-N NFb-N Na
.!IN C!1/ IJ l 3 H lti!1 if, ?. t( (1 i;S 1 . C 11 C
77
10
ii
'I
1
(LII
Field Information App lied Limc Recormend ations
Sample No. Last Crop MO Yr T/A Crop or Year Urne N K05 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mri see Note
N C;;v. ! L''?;!:;•;::;L! ! Cl) it! /O !dl (i 11

Test Results
Soil Class Hbfi6 U/V CEC BSN Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca Y, higl P,"n 1 hfn-AI (1)h"n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 5-1 SS-1 Na-N Nn-N Na
CSI/ 1.7'.l 7.tl I" 7J ?, t; 1; I.1 ii 0 ';.C ,`; 11 1 / i!? •'t (LII
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N 1,105 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
1L;Cts t;:(:, i1 l?tG(i1 !1?„!,..•;!.l Lal CI; iC. , pi
711;! C(;-;1.
Test Results
Soil Class Ht11;6 ON CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% hlg MW-1 h1n-Al (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NC-N NFb-N Na
P.lili I.hl 1.7u a.l 111 !; %}? ;:; I; 13

h
0
z
a
r
a
ri
?J
a
a
C
a
n
0
b
a
b
c
0

Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page 52 of 66
99 JO £S a$Ed
(ZOOZ/OI) luauiaSea ut Tanta alll!'l •g ologd
(£OOZ/10 olcs oouaiajai
puellann Jim isajo3 poompreq pueluiollog 'S
(£OOZ/£) uotlelaSan alisuo Surisrxg '£
•
n
U
(£OOZ/£) g iauuegD In peoj Iios iapun yjanlnD -Z ologd
(£OOZ/£) isatAmnos sunlool em loafold -I
SOOZ yoItIN purloipo ypoA Uunoj aaooK
podag upld uorJpaoJsad - spunj1aM pup soma-ug .rag-f/ rang 31ur7

(£OOZ/£) g laUUBgD 'V ologd
C7
E,
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration: Plan Report
Moore Couniv North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX C
SITE WETLAND AND STREAM DATA
Page 54 of 66

c?
yr
0
a
1003r
80
3 60
a
.a
u-
c
U 40
a
20
0
Site Stream Bed Particle Size Analyses
Sieve Numbers
A R In IA 9n 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
Stream B - lower
ream B - upper
0
20

40
N
cc
O
U
60 ci
v
a
80
100
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
Sand Silt or Clay
Fine Coarse Medium Fine
?l
-Stream A
y ?
o;
o?
n ?•
z
b
U
n
o ?
a
c
ti
b
c
E
?n
c,
--
Water Level Elevation
Site Gages
228.0
»
227.0 ? .? ? _. ,, • * ?`?-, .''?. 4.?.,?,? I ?,
226.0
225.0
co 224.0 r ^ j r' f
z 223.0
s
222.0 •L.
221.0 v w ?R?
J R ?t r y4{I4,e"S+,a..?+,?.+a??.e.^}??`y. •4 ?' X wR ?.
220.0
219.0
218.0

WL0001
WL0002
- WL0004
WL0005
- WL0007
- WL0008
WL0009
13-Sep-03 01-Nov-03 20-Dec-03 07-Feb-04 27-Mar-04 15-May-04
r
0
0
z
0
0
0
C
n
lei,
N
b
sa
D
a
a.
0
a
o`
ij
Little Rives I J-Bar Streams and 1Vetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Counn, North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE SITE SOIL TEST REPORT
Page 57 of 66
1L.
a:
00
0
0 0
NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Report No: 12983
BLUE Land water infrastructure
m
=;"
e o
oil est rt
1711'1 01 SERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Moore Count
Agronomist Comments: I1 ;
Field Information 1 plied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop m o r Crop or 'car Lime J ,Os KO g Cu n h,n See Note
Ci( 15tC((?il_ 1!.,(;!;,,s:!,l 1.71 OC 4(ct„ W??; 11
It I'! C;t o
Test Results
Soil Class HA1' VIN CEC BSS Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% &1n-1 Mn-AI (1)h1n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 54 SS-1 N0;-N NH-N Na
?,11ti ('"W I'M 3.1 1) 7fi 41 17 17 IiW 3(t i 11 Il 1(. 7 C0
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Alo Yr T/A Crop or Year Limc N NOs KO h1g Cu Zn 8 Mn See Note
C; c') 111 CC t;C
111!! Ci: i?.
Test Results
Soil Class HAU. WIV CEC 8Sr5 Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% h1g ? h1n-1 ATn-AI (t)hin-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 ss-1 ti a-N tilt-N Na
?.Ilti C97 1 (11 3.`, I30 '7 1 1, l `" 7i P(C I () 'i] ) 1 it (. 't" C(I
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop 41o Yr T IA Crop or Year Lime N f305 KO Mg Cu Zn B h1n See (dote
?if1C;ri1 1.!11 OU 7(i I,?;.i;) (I lI
71C!C;
Test Results
Soil Class Hj= 6111V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca;6 Mg Aln-1 Ain-Al (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 5-1 SS-1 NCB-N NH-N Na
?111 1 'il 11.f'.(; ",.I 110 '1S? ":_!, )I) 77 1(;() [;(I ) 1 1<". ].t 11 4t) (, I
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N NOs KO Mg Cu Zn 8 Mn See Note
NJ) Ci('i( 0 L' (' 11
711'! Li: i1.
Test Results
Soil Class HA1w iV/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Cai Mg% h1n-1 h1n-AI (7)hln-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 Na-N NH-N Na
?.lit! lid L`.i;; ti.`" 35 [t ",'7 ? 1 17 a:) %lU 1Q.(1 I1 in '16 C.1
y
c
0
h
b
:r
ii
C
.?i
n
b
n'
c
a
n
?J
Z

n
P'7

NCDA Aqronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road Raleigh. NC 27607-6465 [phone] Gro;ucr: BUJI Report No: 12983 PQ 2
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
-
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime
Ina ('i 1%11 N POs KO Mg Cu Zn 6 h1n See Note
Test Results
Soil Class HAII. IYN CEC BS;, Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg;,,
?,Ilfl ?'C;{ l..!'.; ti.l 11.U :i (1 71 LC '; hin-1 A1n-AI (1)A",n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 Na-N NFk-N Na
lit 1L 1 `;3 ('.1

y
c
0
0
c
c
0
a
c
n
'J
N
z
a
ti
g
C
n'
C
C
1
0
Little Rimer /J-Bar Streams and Wctlande - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX E
REFERENCE STREAM DATA
Pagc 60 of 66
Little River /J-Bur Streams and Wctlands - Restoration: Plan Report
Moore Countv North Carolina March 2005
YJ
N
C O
O
N
V/ O
.?V
L a
a c
•o
MN
W Q
Q
E E
::3 c
(a Z
N
L)
C
L
¦,
O
1461oM Aq JOSJCOD;ua3Jad
N M v O
0
(D ?
O
T
U

cc
c
I
c%N> L
0
C.
V)
O
N'
CJ, C!
cOc ?
ccCI i
N! j
`:c
C9' in'
?,
v
z;
a.
' OI
U'.
O
o O O O o
rn co r- ID ?n V
;461aM Aq jaul.A IU03Jad
Page 61 of 66

Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore CountY North Carolina Alan! 2005
n_O_n 1, I Q?nr:Tln}n
1\V lVl Vlll.V 1\4C1V 11VJ - t/IVV.J ..
Reach /
Width
Depth
Are
# s

3.1 0. 1.
1 3. 0, 1.
3.3 0. 1.
301 3. 0. 2•
15 2. 0.8 2.1
2.8 0. 2.1
10 3. 0.8 2.3
4.1 0. 2.
3.3 0.8 2.5
17 3. 0. 2.
11 4. 0. 2•
14 3.1 1. 3.1
16 4. 0. 3.1
13 4.3 0. 3.
3.3 1. 3.3
12 4.1 0. 3.
4. 0. 3.
5. 0.8 3.
18 5.3 0.8 3.
19 4.5 1. 4.5
0 6. 1, 6.
1 5.3 1. 8.3

Minimum 2• 0 1'
Median 3.3 0.8 2
Mean 3. 0. 3.
Maximum 6. 1. 8.3
Page 62 of 66
1 1
?11
Little Rimer /J-Bur Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore County North Carolina Mach 2005
APPENDIX F
STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN DATA
Page 63 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Welland,; - Restoration Plan Report
bfoore County North Carolina March 2005
C7
0

O
r
c
r
r
O
G:r
a
'O
r.
L
v
C
L
C?
L
c:
C?
i
O
In
M
Fj
o ?
.a ?
?J -
o
0
.o
N N ^ ^
(sj:)) moll 3luad
Page 64 of 66
Little River /J--Bar Streams and Medan& - Restoration Plait Report
Afoore County Not-Ili Carolina March 2005
C7
C
• r
•Ir
•r
vt
r
r
rr?
L
G
r..
r.
CJ
L
Cd
POW
O

I,

i
i
i
c
Vy "t M N ?--? O
.sa
Page 65 of 66
Little River /J--Bar Streams and iYetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Cotntty North Carolina 1lfarch 2005
® Channel Shear Stress Analysis
Stream A and Stream B
Flow Width Slo De t VC10CM Stress
Bas Side She
cfs) (ft) (ft/ft (ft (f s (lb/so
3. 3. 0.5 2.1 0.2
10 3. 3. 0.75 2.5 0.4
p 3. 3. 1.0 3.0 0.5
p 3. 3. 1.2 3.4 0.71
P 3. 3. 1.4 3.6 0.81
Stream C
Flow Width Slo De t Velocit Stres
Bas Side She
cfs ft ft/ft ft UPS) lb/so
2. 2.5 0.63 2.23 0.3
10 2. 2.5 0.8 2.6 0.4
p 2. 2.5 1.23 3.2 0.6
p 2. 2.5 1.4 3.5 0.8
p 2. 2.5 1.6 3.8 0.
Page 66 of 66
RECEIVED

Lffle River / J-Bar
Streams and Wetlands
Restoration Plan Report
March 25 2005
BLWI Project: 020264
NCEEP Project: LR/CF/02
NCDOA File: 010561401
NCDENR Contract: EW03024S
a7 a MAR282005
ENHANCEMENTPR GRAM
J
PROGNAM
4 Q. 'A7" LUE Land
Water
Infrastnicuire P+
Civil Engineering Ecosystem Engineering Environmental Engineering
Environmental Consulting Geomatics Consulting
Land Planning Landscape Design
11
Little River /J-Bar Screams and Wellanch - Restorcition Plcnt Report
Moore County North Carolina Alarch 2005
CONTENTS
BODY
1. Introduction .......................................................................4
2. Goals and Objectives ................................................................ 5
3. Location Specifics .................................................................. 5
4. Watershed Specifics ................................................................. 8
A. Background ..................................................................... 8
B. Mapping ....................................................................... 8
C. Land Uses and Soils ..............................................................9
D. Growth Potential ................................................................ 10
5. Existing Conditions (Wetlands and Streams) ............................................. 10
A. Site Potential ................................................................... 10
B. Hydrologic and Other Features ..................................................... 1 I
C. Soils .......................................................................... 12
D. Vegetation ..................................................................... 12
E. Endangered/Threatened Species .................................................... 13
F. Stream Geometry and Substrate ..................................................... 13
G. Monitoring .................................................................... 13
6. Stream and Wetland Reference Studies ................................................. 19
A. Reference Stream ............................................................... 19
B. Reference Wetland Background .................................................... 22
C. Reference Wetland Vegetation ..................................................... 22
D. Reference Wetland Soils .......................................................... 22
7. Wetland Plan ..................................................................... 23
A. Background .................................................................... 23
B. Hydrologic Development .......................................................... 23
C. Vegetation Community Restoration .................................................. 27
D. Soils Development .............................................................. 30
8. Stream Plan ...................................................................... 32
A. Stream System Design Approach Discussion .......................................... 32
B. Analog Methodology ............................................................. 32
C. Empirical Methodology ........................................................... 32
D. Analytical Methodology .......................................................... 33
E. Project Analysis and Design Approach ............................................... 34
F. Restoration Potential ............................................................. 34
H. Stream Dimensional Design ....................................................... 35
1. Stream Pattern Design ............................................................. 39
J. Stream Profile Design ............................................................. 39
Page 2 of 66
Little River /J-Bur Streams and Retlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore C0I1171y Norlh Carolina March 2005
K. Sediment Transport and Shear Stress ................................................ 39
L. In-Stream Structures ............................................................. 40
M. Stream Riparian Planting Plan ..................................................... 40
N. Restoration Background Information References ....................................... 40
9. Design Details (Typicals) ............................................................ 42
10. Wetland Post-Construction Performance Criteria .......................................... 46
A. Hydrology ..................................................................... 46
B. Vegetation .....................................................................46
C. Soils ..........................................................................46
11. Stream Post-Construction Performance Criteria ........................................... 46
A. Geomorphology .................................................................46
B. Vegetation ..................................................................... 46
12. Post-Construction Monitoring Plan .................................................... 47
FIGURES
4-1. Land Use /Land Cover (composite of site watersheds) ...................................... 9
4-2. Soil Types (mapping units) .......................................................... 10
7-1. River/Floodplain Stage-Discharge (Elevation-Flow) Relationship at Site ....................... 25
7-2. Minimum Continuous Flow within Growing Season during Half or More Sampling Years ......... 26
MAPS
3-1. Location .......................................................................... 6
3-2. USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle ............................................... 7
5-1. Hydric Features and Monitoring Equipment ............................................. 17
5-2. Onsite and Reference Vegetation Communities ........................................... 18
7-1. Restoration Plan ................................................................... 31
12-1. Monitoring Plan ................................................................... 48
TABLES
3-1. Little River Background Information .................................................... 5
4-1. Moore County Population Projections .................................................. 10
5-1. Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel A ......................................... 14
5-2. Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel B ......................................... 15
5-3. Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel C ......................................... 16
6-1. Reference Stream Morphological Data .................................................. 21
6-2. Reference Soil Hydraulic Properties (USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey) ................. 23
7-1. Sandhills Gaged Watersheds Selected for Analysis ........................................ 24
7-2. Minimum Continuous Flow within Growing Season during Half or More Sampling Years ......... 25
7-3. Proposed Species Composition ....................................................... 28
8-1. Design Stream Morphological Data - Channel A .......................................... 36
8-2. Design Stream Morphological Data - Channel B .......................................... 37
8-3. Design Stream Morphological Data - Channel C .......................................... 38
Page 3 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Plan Reporl
Moore County North Carolhur March 2005
® 1. Introduction
The Little River / J-Bar project is being undertaken to enhance, restore, create, and/or protect functional aspects
of streams and wetlands within a 135± acre conservation easement located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of
US Highway 1 along Little River in Moore County, North Carolina. The project is funded by the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
The project is located on property sometimes referred to as the "Little RiverJ-Bar Ranch", "New J-Bar Ranch",
or simply "J-Bar". Historically, the property was sometimes known as the "McKeithen Tract". The property is
currently owned by J J Barnes and his family. The property is actively managed for wildlife habitat to facilitate
hunting on the overall tract.
The project site limits are defined by conservation easement boundary. The project site is bounded on the west
by the tract property boundary, on the south by the Little River primary channel, on the east by the tract property
boundary, and partially on the north by the Little River floodplain edge. The project site is dominated by a fully
timbered, ditched, and furrowed area of approximately 85 acres. Prior to the initiation of this project, the
timbered area was planted with Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Various herbaceous and woody species, in addition
to the Loblolly pine, are also found at the project site. A well vegetated buffer of from 200± feet to 500± feet in
width is located between the timbered area and the Little River primary channel.
Several channels traverse the project site. Three of these channels are believed to be excavated and relocated
natural streams with headwaters forming within watersheds of the northern slope. Land use / land cover in these
watersheds is primarily forested and agricultural with catchment areas ranging from approximately 25 acres to
132 acres. The two larger channels exhibit some semblance of a natural pattern, while the third channel is routed
through a series of drainage ditches. Portions of the larger two channels have also been mechanically excavated.
This appears to have been part of an overall effort to drain the area.
The proposed project components include: 1) realignment and reformation of the three channels crossing the
project site to approximate more natural, functioning small blackwater streams; 2) earthwork in the timbered
area to develop and/or restore hydric soil conditions; and 3) planting of the timbered area with specific native
species to control erosion and direct revegetation of the project site. The initial project estimates were 53± acres
wetland enhancement/restoration, 28± acres of wetland creation/development, and 30± acres of wetland
preservation as well as 1,100± linear feet of stream enhancement/restoration. The current expected project totals
are estimated to comprise an estimated 7,315± linear feet of stream enhancement/restoration, 56± acres of
wetland enhancement, 11± acres of wetland creation/development, and approximately 42± acres of mature
bottomland hardwood wetland preservation. The post-construction totals to be developed from monitoring data
will almost certainly be somewhat divergent from these given the complexity of site hydrology and the resultant
uncertainty in hydrologic parameter estimation.
C
Page 4 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams crud Welkinds - Restoration Pkin Report
Moore Counly North Carolinu Afarch 2005
® 2. Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of the Little River / J-Bar project is to facilitate the development of a natural system which
exhibits desired functions appropriate to the geomorphic setting of the site. Specific goals include: 1) water
quality improvement; and 2) natural community improvement.
To achieve this goal, the following objectives are being pursued:
• Develop and/or redevelop floodplain wetland landforms
• Implement pollutant removal features
• Form and/or reform stream dimension, pattern, and profile
• Generate aquatic and terrestrial habitat elements
3. Location Specifics
The Little River / J-Bar project site is part of the J-Bar Ranch, which is owned and operated by J J Barnes and
his family. The J-Bar Ranch is made up of multiple properties in the Vass area of Moore County. The project
site is located near Vass, approximately 3.5 miles southeast along Lobelia Road (NC Highway 690, formerly
Secondary Road 1001) from US Highway 1 (Map 3-1). The site and contributing watersheds are located in the
Sandhills hydrophysiographic region of North Carolina. This is a distinct region of sandy rolling hills which
extends from south central North Carolina, through the middle of South Carolina and Georgia, into east central
Alabama.
The site is located at 35.22° North / 79.24° West on the northwestern portion of the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Lobelia (Map 3-2 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic
Quadrangle). The project site is further located in the Cape Fear River basin, within the USGS 8-digit
Cataloging Unit 03030004, USGS 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 03030004070050.
The Little River reach along the project area has been designated Stream Index 18-23-(10.7) by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). This reach has also been designated a High Quality Water
(HQW) and WS-III class Water Supply Watershed by NCDWQ. The reach is in subbasin 03-06-14. Table 3-1
provides additional classification information for the project reach of Little River. The floodplain streams are
unnamed tributaries to the Little River.
Table 3-1 Little River Background Information
River Basin Cape Feat
CDWQ Stream Index # 18-23-(10.7
CDWQ Stream Class Ratio WS-III, HQ
CDWQ Use Ratio Full Su ortin
CDWQ Subbasin # 03-06-1
SGS 8-Digit Cataloging Unit 0303000
SGS 14-Digit Hydrologic Unit 0303000407005
n
Page 5 of 66
•
•
0
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
•
Map 3-2 Little River/J-Bar
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Vass, NC

? ?fsR

A L
?13
USGS 7.5 minute Murchlsontown, Lobelia, 1000 U 1000 2WO Feet
and Niagra Topographic Quadrangles - - BLUE
(P!%ot site is located on the Lobelia topKWO Scale: 1" = 2000'
March 2005
7 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and I {'ellundr - Reslornlinn Plnn Report
Afoore County North Carolina Afardr 2005
® 4. Watershed Specifics
Background
The boundary of the watershed contributing flow to the site is somewhat complex as it depends on a continually
varying parameter set which includes: 1) recent precipitation event runoff magnitudes; 2) current Little River
water surface elevations; and 3) current site soil water depths. The watershed boundaries, therefore, are not
static and vary from week to week, season to season, year to year, and decade to decade dependent upon a
variety of hydrologic influences. Though the boundaries are not static and uncertainty exists relative to the
boundaries fluctuation, a reasonable approximation of the watershed boundaries was determined for purposes of
analysis and design.
Surface water flow to the three altered stream channels enters the site from watersheds on the adjacent northern
slope of the property. These watersheds range in extents from 25± acres to 132± acres. The composite area of
site channel watersheds, including the project site, is approximately 335 acres. During larger precipitation runoff
events, the project site receives floodplain flow from Little River. The Little River watershed area at the project
site is approximately 109 square miles.
The local watersheds draining to the site are predominantly cutover areas consisting of shrubs and small
successional trees. Elevations in the watershed range from 220 feet to 310 feet above sea level with the most
relief being outside the project area. Soils in the watershed are either well-drained sandy soils on the higher
elevations or poorly drained soils in the floodplain.
® Mapping
A wide variety of data sources were investigated and many different GIS data layers were obtained for use on
the project. The first layers utilized were the USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Maps, regional LIDAR L(_ight
Detection and Ranging) derived elevation data, site aerial topographic survey elevation data, and the USGS
14-digit Hydrologic Units. Watershed boundaries were delineated utilizing the DiGeM (Digitales
Gelande-Modell) and TauDEM (Terrain analysis using Digital Elevation Models) software applications with the
available elevation data. Subwatersheds were also delineated in this manner. After determination of the
boundaries, the watershed characteristics were reviewed using Moore County digital aerial imagery, 2003
true-color aerial imagery, 1993 Grayscale USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQ), 1999 Color
Infrared USGS DOQQ, 1996 Land Use / Land Cover (LULC), North Carolina Gap Analysis (GAP), digital
Moore County Soil Survey, Moore County Soil Survey field sheets, USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG)
hydrography, Moore County parcels, and the Moore County roads layer The watershed boundaries were refined
utilizing these datasets. These datasets were also used in several different aspects of the project including siting
of monitoring equipment, identification of important watershed features, preparation of plans for field
surveying, development of input data for hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and development of a new high
resolution Land Use / Land Cover map.
C
Page 9 of 66
Liille River /J-Bai- Sfreanu and 11'ellands - Reslorcrlion Plan Rep wl
Moore Couniv North Carolina Alcmch 2005
is Land Uses and Soils
The majority of the area within the adjacent northern slope watersheds contributing flow to the site are cutovers
consisting of shrubs and small trees. Land Use / Land Cover (LULC) data for these watersheds were developed
from 1994 Land Use / Land Cover coverages, 1999 color infrared (CIR) aerial imagery, and 2003 true color
aerial imagery. As indicated in Figure 4-1, the largest LULC component type was determined to be "mixed
shrubs/trees" (69.2%), followed by "hardwoods" (16.0%), "southern yellow pine" (11.7%), "pasture" (1.1 %),
"roadways / pathways" (1.1 %), "cultivated" (0.8%), and "water" (0.1 %). The majority of the hardwood
component type occurs in the floodplain of the Little River, particularly in the vegetated buffer directly adjacent
to the primary channel. Expected foreseeable land use / land cover change in the adjacent northern slope
watersheds is expected to include general reforestation and expanded habitat management. The widening of US
Highway 1 in the Vass area is expected to increase land development in the Little River watershed.
Figure 4-1 Land Use / Land Cover
(composite of site channel watersheds)
Southern Yellow Pine
Roadways / Pathways 11.7%
?Water
Cultivated
j 0.8%
Hardwoods
16.0%
I
Pasture
Mixed Shrubs/Trees
69.2%
Soil types (mapping units) from the USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey GIS layer were combined with
digitized USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey field sheets to develop a coverage of the watershed soils.
The most prevalent soil types are Bibb (33.7%), Kalmia (21.6%), and Ailey (19.5%). Bibb is a poorly drained
sandy soil that forms in alluvial deposits, the well-drained sandy Kalmia occurs on stream terraces, and Ailey is
a well-drained sandy upland soil. Figure 4-2 indicates the distribution of soil types within the watershed.
Page 9 of 66
Dille River /J-Bur Streams and Wellunds - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
0 Figure 4-2 Soil Types
(mapping units)
Gilead _
2.6% Water
Kenansville 0.1%
5.3%
\ I _
Vaucluse
17.3%
Aile,
19J
Bibb
33.7%
21.6%
Growth Potential
Almost the entire watershed, as well as the project site, is owned by one property owner, J J Barnes. Depending
on Mr. Barnes' plans for the property, there may or may not be future change in land use in the watershed. The
improvement of US Highway 1 in the Vass area is expected to increase development in the region as it becomes
feasible to live in Moore County and work in the Raleigh-Durham area. The new highway is less than three
miles from the project area and will have an exit ramp onto Lobelia Road (NC Highway 690). Population
projections for Moore County based on US Census data are shown provided in Table 4-1. This data was
obtained from the North Carolina Office of State Budget & Management.
Table 4-1 Moore County Population Projections (Census Data)
Year Population Chan

000 74,769 -
010 89,533 19.7%
020 104,051 16.2
5. Existing Conditions (Wetlands and Streams)
Site Potential
The three excavated and relocated natural streams which traverse the project site are excellent candidates for
enhancement/restoration. Each of these channels will be relocated to their approximate pre-relocation
alignments (See Map 7-1). A detailed pattern and profile for each of these streams will be developed along these
Pagc 10 of 66
Dille River /J-Bar Dreams and Wellands - Resloralion Plan Report
Moore Counlv North Carolina March 2005
® alignments. The realignment and reformation of the three channels will result in appropriately functioning
blackwater streams. The existing excavated ditches will be filled to varying degrees, preventing active channel
flow while providing residual ephemeral pools.
Earthwork will be undertaken in the timbered, ditched, and furrowed area of approximately 85 acres to develop
and/or restore hydric soil conditions. Berms will be formed in this area to control surface water. This area will
also be planted with specific native species to control erosion and direct revegetation.
Prior to the initiation of this project, the timbered area was planted with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Various
herbaceous and woody species, in addition to the loblolly pine, are also found at the project site. A well
vegetated buffer approximately 200 feet to 500 feet in width is located between the timbered area and the Little
River primary channel.
The project site will be converted into functional wetlands by means of wetland creation and enhancement.
Specific areas of the site will be excavated whereas other areas of the site will be formed into berms. Excavated
ditches will be plugged and streams will be reconnected to the floodplain. Native vegetation will be planted in
all areas of the site. The current expected project totals are estimated to comprise an estimated 7,315± linear feet
of stream enhancement/restoration, 56t acres of wetland enhancement, l It acres of wetland
crcation/development, and approximately 42f acres of mature bottomland hardwood wetland preservation.
Hydrologic and Other Features
Due to the complex hydrologic response of the site, continuing investigation of the as to the frequency of inputs
40 from the Little River watershed by monitoring water levels in the project area and obtaining a historical record
of flow from the Little River at the Lobelia USGS Gage Station. The river stage data was correlated with
measured stage data of the on-site stream and wetland Using a regression based on this information, BLWI staff
back-calculated the stage of the water in the wetland for the entirety of the Little River flow records.
The streams/ditches that flow through the project site are indicated on the Location Map and are labeled A, B,
and C (Map 3-1). Channel D is a small tributary to channel B and is included in discussion regarding that
stream. Only one of the channels (Channel B) appears on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Lobelia
7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle and the Moore County Soil Survey as a "blue-line" stream. Flow is
currently being monitored in this stream as it enters the site.
Channel A begins on the western side of the project area and flows through a culvert, then southeast across the
site and eventually into the Little River. Channel B is a second order stream according to USGS maps and has
the largest watershed of all three drainage networks at approximately 132 acres. Channel B flows from the
headwaters in the northern portion of the Barnes property, and then through a culvert under the soil road that
bounds the project area. A few hundred feet after it leaves the culvert it joins with Channel D and then flows
southeast across the project area to the Little River. Channel C is actually a network of drainage ditches fed by
an ephemeral channel just to the cast of Channel B. The drainage ditches join Channel B in the eastern portion
of the project area.
The floodplain area is periodically inundated by flow from Little River. It is believed that some flow from the
River enters Channel A during larger inundation events.
r:
Page I I of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
hfoore CounlY North Carolina March 2005
® Soils
Soils are a vital component of any stream or wetland project. Soil properties affect vegetation survival, stream
stability, and subsurface hydraulics, while at the same time exhibit indicators of historic conditions. Multiple
soil parameters were intensely investigated for the purposes of this project.
The Moore County Soil Survey indicates Bibb and Kalmia soil series at the project site. Bibb soils are poorly
drained soils occurring on floodplains and consist of about 12 inches of dark loam overlaying light-colored
sandy loam subsoil. The Bibb soil series is classified as a hydric soil. The soil series Kalmia is a well drained
soil that occurs on stream terraces and formed in loamy fluvial sediments. Kalmia typically consists of about 12
inches of light-colored sandy loam over yellowish sandy clay loam that transitions to light-colored sand.
Soils in the timbered portion of the project area were auger-sampled and mapped based on hydric soil features
according to criteria referenced in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Map
5-1 Hydric Features). Eighty soil descriptions were taken in transects across the project area. Eight topsoil
samples were analyzed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Soil Testing Lab (Appendix A Site
Soil Test Report). In general, the drier Kalmia-type soils were not as abundant as shown in the soil survey. Only
3± acres of clearly upland soils were found. However, approximately 17 acres of transitional areas were found.
This included areas that had hydric features too deep to be classified as a hydric soil. The remaining soils in the
timbered portion of the project area were found to have hydric features at or near the surface.
The topsoil at the project site exhibits a 4.6 pH on average with a 24% BS. The topsoil at the reference site
exhibits a 4.6 pH on average with a 22% BS. This degree of acidity is common in similar Sandhills soils.
Relative to normal plant growth, according to the soil test report, the project area has sufficient nitrogen, low
potassium and magnesium, and very low phosphorus levels.
Vegetation
Vegetation was sampled throughout the site. Two distinct emerging communities were evident, Community A
and B (Map 5-2). Community A was clearcut, prepped and planted with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) in the
mid-1990s. No further forest management was performed on the site, allowing herbaceous and woody
vegetation to grow among the pines. The dominant woody species is loblolly pine although there is also a large
number of winged sumac (Rhos copallina). Other woody species found are inkberry (Ilex glabra), water oak
(Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), titi (Cyrilla racentifora), sweetgum (Liguidambar styracijhua),
and maple (Ater r-ubnan). Herbaceous species include dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolitan), blackberry (Rebus
sp), greenbriar (Smilax sp), and sedge (Carex sp). The loblolly pine saplings are more established and larger in
the slightly higher elevation drier areas. Blackberry (Rubes argutus) is the dominant herbaceous species in these
areas. As this point in time, a mature natural plant community is not present due to the recent disturbance and
loblolly pine dominance. The other emerging woody species are those found in a bottomland hardwood forest.
A mature bottomland hardwood forest is located adjacent to the site along the banks of the Little River.
Community B was also clearcut in the past but was not planted with loblolly pine or any other woody
vegetation. There are not as many saplings in this community as in Community A. Scattered sweetgum and titi
are found throughout the grassy area. Dominant herbaceous species are spikerush (Eleocharis sp), bulrush
(Scirpus sp), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and bur reed (Sparganuim antericanum).
Page 12 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Reslnrnlion Plan Report
Moore Counly North Carolina March 2005
® Endangered/Threatened Species
According to the 2000 Natural Heritage Element Occurrence GIS file from the North Carolina Center for
Geographic Infonnation and Analysis (CGIA), no threatened or endangered species are located in the project
area. Significant natural heritage areas are also not present in the project area. Further analysis was not
undertaken.
Stream Geometry and Substrate
The existing stream conditions were assessed using a Rosgen Level II Classification methodology. The Rosgen
classification system was created for natural hydrologic systems predominantly in the western portions of the
United States. The streams in this project do not fit well in the Rosgen classification system due to riverine
flooding, high water tables, dominant vegetation, channel straightening, sand system dynamics, and typical
regional channel characteristics. Regardless, an effort was made to analyze these reaches based on the Rosgen
system.
Channel A was determined to have an average Rosgen classification of CS, and Channel B and Channel C are
classified as E5 (Tables 5-1 through 5-3). As mentioned above, channelizcd streams do not fit easily into the
Rosgen classification system. Meanders for onsite channels are smaller than what would be found in a natural
Sandhills system. The longitudinal slope of Channels A and B is 0.002 ft/ft while Channel C is 0.01 ft/ft. Stream
bankfull depth"in Channel A varies from approximately 0.38 to 0.54 feet deep while bankfull width ranges
between 5.5 and 14.88 feet. Channel B is a slightly deeper and narrower channel where bankfull depth varies
from approximately 0.36 to 3.2 feet deep and bankfull width ranges between 2.6 and 12 feet. Bankfull depth in
Channel C varies from 0 to 5.3 feet deep while bankfull width rages from 3.5 to 6.4 feet. Channel C has severely
altered hydrology and is currently a rim ditch along the edge of the floodplain. Portions are filling in while
others are eroding. Channel A has the smallest average cross-sectional area at 4.88 square feet while Channel B
and C have similar cross-sectional areas at 15.5 and 14.31 square feet, respectively. Collected stream bed
samples were analyzed for particle size distribution. Samples were representative of the dominant bed material
in relatively stable sections of the stream. The d50 for Channel A was found to be 0.14 mm, which falls into the
category of fine sand. The d50 at Channel B was found to be 0.57 mm, which falls into the category of medium
sand (Appendix C Site Wetland and Stream Data). Sediment was not sampled in Channel C, though visual
inspection clearly indicates a fine to medium sand.
Monitoring
Site monitoring was undertaken to obtain an approximate data representation of the conditions and short-term
history of soil and water level patterns for that area. Water level gages (recorders) were installed to collect both
surface water (stream/floodplain) elevation data and subsurface water (soil) elevation data. One water level gage
was set to record measurements at 15 minutes intervals while the remaining eight gages were set to record
measurements at 30 minute intervals. The 15 minute interval data was used to assess information resolution and
for surface water hydraulics analysis. Water level gage locations are depicted on Map 5-1.

Page 13 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and II'etlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Counhv North Carolina lfarch 2005
E.7
Table 5-1 Existing Stream Morphological Data - Channel A
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average

Drainage Area, DA (s mi) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) 1,726
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 2.81 8.06 4.48
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 5.5 14.9 9.1
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 0.5 0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 8.90 20.51 14.32
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a (ft) 182 710 446
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 33.1 47.7 40.4
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.80 1.92 1.86
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 0.7 1.0 0.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft 1 1 1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 36 57 47
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.12
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 5 25 16
c ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft - - 1.75
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 25 14
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 1.53
Sinuosity, K 1 1.12 1.06
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002
16 mm - - -
35 mm - - -
50 (mm) - - 0.14
84 (mm) - - 0.49
95 (mm) - - 1.40
Page 14 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Strecmu and Wetlandr - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina Afcrrch 2005
E

n
Table 5-2 Existing Stream Mornholoeical Data - Channel B
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average

Drainage Area, DA (s mi 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) 2,707
Stream Type (Ros en E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0.94 38.41 15.50
ankf ill Width, Wbkf ft 2.6 12.0 6.8
ankf ill Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 3.2 2.3
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) - - 3
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a (ft) 182 700 441
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf ft/ft - - 65.23
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.4 3.2 2.3
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.00
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.4 3.2 2.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bander Length, Lm ft 34 133 71
Bander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 10.50
Radius of Curvature, Re ft 5 36 16
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft 2.10 3.00 2.43
Belt Width, Wblt ft 25 50 38
Bander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft - - 5.50
Sinuosity, K 1.19 1.19 1.19
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002
16 mm - - 0.33
35 mm - - 0.48
50 (mm) - - 0.57
84 (min) - - 1.39
95 (mm) - - 1.89
Page 15 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Screams and Wcllands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Couniv Norlh Carolina March 2005
Table 5-3 Existinu Stream Mori) holodcal Data - Channel C
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average

Drainage Area, DA (s mi) 0.04 0.04 0.04
Stream Length (ft) - - 1,530
Stream Type (Ros ten) - - E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0 34 14.31
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 3.5 6.4 5.3
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0 5.3 2.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) - - 2
Width Floodprone Area, Wf a (ft) 45 512 278.5
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 12.8 80 52.54
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0 5.3 2.7
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0 5.3 2.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1 1 1
Bander Length, Lm ft
Bander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature, Re ft
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 10 6.5
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft 0.85 1.56 1.22
Sinuosity, K 1.06 1.79 1.13
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.001 0.020 0.010
16 mm - - -
35 mm - - -
50 (mm) - - -
84 (mm) - - -
95 (mm) - - -
* The existing channel is essentially straight
Page 16 of 66
b
w
0
•
1?1
•
xC, a.`r x ?, 358 t?«r x 9A'Ir
"a'fikC A t r,'?"' a yy, k+
'
A
z «
?9 `
r
t 'V 991'.
k ? r
n
1 ? K
' d r , T <
40
M
.
xy„ P
w
wM.'
xF. s ^wb?ww?ia ,
a
v •' L?jy, is , R t'* t M ?' " ' ",1h rh-?µy `
a,
` » ^
neer guffaw
Deep hydric f atu BS Fn r W a r t^"? , .. `^ 1 ' "` 9 r *? r fi
(,18) ,* {? -{ ^I.? .'? lw3"s?,# ,rte fi»;. .dr +•,r •?, ?"•'_
Transitional zones
.P'^ M ^ A M y v q? _ ?? 'aP '''M
Rd
Upland - no hydric
features within sanple i W V y r
f ^
PrcjW Am
m s yM
Rain Gap
AI
Groundwater ?s« "? w ?? ?r i? x z a r ?@ i ^ F." p "y _ ' w
level recorder 4 N?L y T t" K` x
.Surface water
t
level recorder
T.
2=1 Aenal Imagery
This mp s rota MWicb" r+ "W4 A' a ,ir
de keeftL Sod fsshsas are spproedmrle. si, ?? ~t
Map 5-1. Little River/J-Bar 500 0 5W Feet
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Scale: V = 500' BLUE
Hydric Features and Monitoring Equipment March 2005
o
o .?
a a
0
a
$, a
m
y
'b
b
• • •

O
O rp
C 1
3 ?
C
j
n ?
s?
0
a
0
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Counly North Carolina Afarch 2005
® 6. Stream and Wetland Reference Studies
Reference Stream
To utilize reference channels for geometric design of the Little River / J-Bar project, or any other stream project,
several conditions must be met:
1) The project watershed must match the hydrologic character of the reference watershed to a significant
degree (including boundary conditions).
2) The reference watershed and site must be stable and have been so for a significant time period.
3) The project watershed must be stable, have been so for a significant time period, and will continue to be so
for the design life of the project.
4) The project site parameters must match the reference site parameters to a significant degree (bank
vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc).
This project is located in a sand dominated and high water table system. When working on these type of
systems, several additional factors must be considered:
1) Vegetation is a primary development force and cannot be replicated until many years after site construction.
2) Surface water runoff is not the single forcing variable driving stage.
3) Water table interaction affects energy slope.
4) Water table interaction affects stage return intervals.
5) Backwater conditions affects stage return intervals.
® 6) The temporal length of a given stage event is important.
7) The bankfull event in many (if not most) eastern such streams is much less than 1.5 years.
8) The bankfull event is not correlated to a single return interval.
9) Effective discharge is not equivalent to bankfull discharge in sand bed streams.
10) The bankfull event is generally not equivalent to channel forming flow.
Using the above outlined conditions and factors as guides, the following parameters were developed as
minimum requirements for a reference stream to be considered at this site:
1) The reference stream must be stable and have been so for at least the previous 20 years.
2) The reference stream watershed must be stable and have been so for at least the previous 20 years.
3) The reference site water table depth-duration frequency must be within 15% of the project site frequency.
4) The contributing watershed must be between 110 and 147 acres (±15% of the project watershed size at
original extents).
5) The surface water runoff response relative to volume and flow rate must be within 15% of the project site
during low water table antecedent moisture conditions.
6) The surface water runoff response relative to volume and flow rate must be within 15% of the project site
during high water table antecedent moisture conditions.
7) The watershed land use distribution must be within 15% of the project watershed.
3) The downstream boundary must be directly connected to a watershed of between 93 and 125 square miles
(t15% of the downstream connected watershed sizes).
9) The reference site bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, and bed material can be
duplicated to within 15% at the project site.
Page 19 of 66
Little Ritter /J-Bur Streams cmd 11'ethinds - Resioralion Plan Report
Moore Counll° North Carolina hfarch 2005
® No reference stream has been found to meet these required minimum parameters. A search was performed in the
Cape Fear River basin for similar systems. It is unlikely that such a reference stream exists. However, a
longitudinal survey was performed in Channel A to provide comparative design information.
The channel was determined to have a Rosgen classification of C5. The longitudinal slope of the stream is 0.002
ft/ft. Stream bankfull depth varies from approximately 0.38 feet to 0.54 feet deep and width ranges between 5.5
feet and 14.9 feet. Channel dimension varies from 2.81 feet to 8.06 square feet. The stream substrate is fine
sand. The reference did not meet all of the above criteria and therefore was not used in the design process
(Appendix E Reference Stream Data).
Applying the DiGeM and TauDEM software applications to local available topographic data, 300+ potential
watersheds were automatically delineated based on area. These watersheds were then ranked based on soil
composition and average slope relative to the site central site hillslope watershed (Channel B). From this
ranking, the 50 highest ranked watersheds which were defined at or near the edge of river floodplains of
approximately the same magnitude of Little River were selected. Twenty two of these sites which were
accessible and best matched the character of the site watershed were visited to assess and measure cross-section
information (Appendix E). This information was then used to assist in the site channel design process.
Without a strong reference site, more focus has been placed on applying the analytical methodology of stream
design in combination with the reference, or analog methodology. The analytical methodology is based on the
application of physically-based mathematical models of natural phenomena to the project site and wetland. It is
not dependent on data sets external to the project. The methodology is the primary one used by the US Army
Corps of Engineers and the US Geological Survey. For a full description of the analytical methodology as well
as the analog and empirical methodologies, see Section 8 of this report.
Page 20 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and l i'ellands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore Couniv North Carolina Afarch 2005

Tghle 6-1 Reference Stream Mornhological Data
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average

Drainage Area, DA (s mi) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) 138
Stream Type (Rosgen) - - C5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 2.8 8.1 4.5
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 5.5 14.9 9.1
ankfull Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 8.9 20.5 14.3
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a (ft) 182 710 446
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 33.1 47.7 40.4
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.8 1.9 1.9
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.7 1.0 0.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bander Length, Lm ft 36 57 47
Gander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.1
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 5 25 16
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft - - 1.8
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 25 14
Gander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft - - 0.5
Sinuosity, K 1.00 1.12 1.06
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002
16 mm - - -
35 mm - - -
50 (mm) - - 0.14
84 (mm) - - 0.49
95 (mm) - - 1.40
Page 21 of 66
Little River /J-Bur Streams and Wetlands - Resloralion Plun Report
Moore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
Reference Wetland Background
The reference wetland site search was first limited to the Sandhills region of the Cape Fear River Basin. A GIS
search was conducted based on desired characteristics derived from the project site. These included watershed
size and hydrologic characteristics. Several potential sites were identified on surrounding private land. These
initial site searches identified an acceptable reference wetland system (Map 5-2). The project site and the
reference site were assessed to determine baseline similarities to ensure hydrologic and physiographic
consistency. Both sites are within the same 14-digit Hydrologic Unit.
The reference wetland site was investigated to document the sites hydrology, soils, vegetation, topography. The
reference wetland is located adjacent to the site on the southern side of the Little River (Map 6-1). It fits the
qualifications for an appropriate reference because it has similar hydrologic influences that the site will have
when it is constructed. It is a bottomland hardwood community that is similar in its watershed land use and its
hydrologic relationship with the Little River.
River stage data was obtained upstream and downstream of the site at four separate locations. Overbank channel
data was also obtained at the site. From this, associated stage-discharge information, statistical analysis, and
surface water hydraulics analysis, the water level stage of any location within the Little River floodplain
between Long Point Road (upstream) and Lake Bay Road (downstream) could be determined. This provided a
more robust information set and associated procedure than a focus on monitoring of just the reference site across
the River channel from the project area.
Reference Wetland Vegetation
40 The reference wetland is a bottomland hardwood forest. Plots were sampled along transacts perpendicular to the
Little River. The dominant species is swectgum. Other canopy species include American holly (Ilex opaca),
water oak, red maple, and loblolly pine. The midstory contains American holly, sweetgum, and horsesugar
(Symplocos tinctoria). The dominant vines are greenbrier and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Understory
species include cane grass Arundinaria gigantea, American holly, and horsesugar. In wetter areas, understory
vegetation was sparse. Tile average basal area is 192.5 felac.
The vegetation in the area adjacent to the project site was also sampled. It is also a bottomland hardwood forest
although it appears to be more mature as the amount of loblolly pine and sweetgum is significantly lower.
Dominant species are laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and green ash (Fraxinus penusylvanica). Other canopy
species found are water oak, willow oak, maple and American holly. The average basal area is 180 ff/ac.
Reference Wetland Soils
Soils on the reference site were assessed in November 2003. Soil descriptions were completed at each sample
location and a sample was taken for analysis. These samples were analyzed by the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture Soil Testing Lab (Appendix D Reference Site Soil Test Report). The average topsoil pH is 4.6
(average BS = 22%). Similar to onsite conditions, the reference site is limited in phosphorus, potassium and
magnesium. The reference site primarily consists of Bibb soils with a small portion of Kalmia soils. A
description of Bibb and Kalmia soils can be found in Section 5 of this report.

Pabc 22 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Reporl
Moore C011171y North Carolina March 2005
Table 6-2 Reference Wetland Soil Hydraulic Properties (USDA-NRCS Moore Count Soil Survey)
Parameter Bibb Soil Scrie Kalmia Soil Seric

Permeability 0.6 in/hr - 2 in/hr 0-70 inches 0.6 in/hr - 2 in/hr 12-37 inches
Moist Bulk Density 1.45 /cc - 1.75 g/cc (12-70 inches 1.40 cc - 1.60 g/cc (12-37 inches
Prganic Matter 1 % - 3 °/ 0.5%-20/1
lassification Ty is Fluva uents (taxadjunct Ty is Ha ludult
7. Wetland Plan
Background
The wetland development will involve excavating specific areas of the site and forming berms along defined
alignments. Excavated ditches will also be plugged. This will be undertaken to facilitate the required duration
and frequency of inundation relative to project goals. Native vegetation will be planted in all areas.
The stream construction, in combination with site excavation, ditch plugging, and berm formation, will raise the
average site water table and provide extended surface water flow during and after flood events. Due to their
hydrologic and functional interconnectivity, it is necessary to develop the stream and wetland plans for the site
concurrently. The wetland plan has been prepared to develop wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetative
communities.
9 Hydrologic Development
The primary mechanism for soil saturation and associated hydric soil development at the site is continuous
periods of floodplain inundation by River flows. This type of water input dominantly defines the nature of
riparian wetland water budgets. Thus, hillslope watershed flow inputs to the site floodplain are minor relative to
the River inputs. The hillslope inputs are only significant relative to the fringe/seep wetland areas at the
floodplain edge. As these inputs are controlled by hillslope watershed land use and the project will reduce
subsurface drainage at the slope toe, these areas were not quantitatively analyzed as such would provide
insignificant value relative to the overall project goals. Likewise, dry fringe affects due to excavated ditches are
greatly dampened by River flooding and backwater affects. As such, these were assessed to be insignificant
relative to the overall project goals. Quantitative analysis was not undertaken for such given the expected
associated additional cost.
The proposed earthwork design is based on two independent analysis techniques. One technique is based on
statistical analysis of stream flow data from multiple sites in the Sandhills hydrophysiographic region. The other
technique is based on landscape analysis of hydric soil features from boring logs at the site. Two independent
techniques were employed to provide a quantitative comparison in the design analysis procedure.
The statistical analysis technique included many subcomponents. Gaged watersheds were located in the
Sandhills hydrophysiographic region within North Carolina and South Carolina. Relative similarity of these
watersheds to the Little River watershed (defined at the site) was then determined. Fourteen watersheds were
determined to be significantly similar in character to the site watershed for analysis application (Table 7-1).
C7
Page 23 of 66
Little River /J-Rar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore County North Carolina March 2005
r?
U
El
Table 7-1 Sandhills Gaged Watersheds Selected for Analvsis
SGS Station Watershed Size Station Location
# s mi

213228795 0.1 Jordan Creek near Silver Hill
2102908 7. Flat Creek near Invemes
2148300 40. Colonel Creek near Leesbur
2132320 83.3 Big Shoe Hcel Creek near Laurinbur
2135300 9 Sca e Ore Swam near Bisho vill
2130900 108 Black Creek near McBe
2133500 183 Drowning Creek near Hoffman
2172500 198 South Fork Edisto near Montmorenc'
2104500 29 Rockfish Creek near Hope Mill
2103000 348 Little River at Manchestc
133624 365 Lumber River near Maxtor
103500 45 Little River at Linde
173500 683 North Fork Edisto at Oran *ebur
173000 72 South Fork Edisto near Denmar
Gage data from applicable watersheds were obtained and reformatted for utilization with a statistical analysis
software application developed for this procedure. In simplified terms, the software application determines the
years during which a specific flow is continually equaled or exceeded for a given number of days. Two
inundation scenarios were analyzed: 12 days during at least half of all years and 23 days during at least half of
all years. The threshold for jurisdictional wetland conditions at the site is approximately 12 days (minimum
period within the growing season of March 23 to November 11) continuous exceedance during at least half of
all years. The design condition for the site is approximately 23 days continuous exceedance during at least half
of full sampling years. This corresponds to the upper range of inundation for jurisdictional status.
A hydraulic model was developed for Little River between Long Point Road and Lake Bay Road. This was
accomplished utilizing the HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis stem) hydraulic model,
obtained elevation data, developed Land Use /Land Cover information, and collected River flow data. From this
model, a stage-discharge relationship was derived for the site (Figure 7-1). The hydraulic model and associated
procedure provided a more robust information set than a focus on monitoring of just the reference site across the
River channel from the project area.
The flow frequency response of a given sized watershed relative to another watershed of the same size can vary
considerably, even within the same hydrophysiographic region and with similar Land Use /Land Cover.
Application of flow frequency response information from one watershed to another watershed would, therefore,
not seem to follow. The relationship of stage change to flow variation, however, provides insight as to how this
can reasonably be accomplished.
As indicated in Figure 7-1, relatively large flow differences along the River floodplain produce relatively small
stage differences. This is typical of flow along well-developed flood plains. As such, a given absolute error in
flow estimation at the site will generally result in a relatively insignificant stage estimation error.
Page 24 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and I {'ellands - Resloralion Plan Report
Aloore Counly North Carolina March 2005
Figure 7-1 River/Flood lain Stage-Discharge (Elevation-Flow) Relationship at Site
222.0 -- - - -- - --
221.9
221.8
_ 221.7
S221.6
c
m 221.5
W 221.4
221.3-
221.2
221.1
221.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Flow (cfs)
Frequency of inundation is the primary factor for assessment of soil saturation and associated hydric soil
development at the site. A quantitative understanding of this provides a basis for determination of site elevation
corresponding to jurisdictional wetland status. Linking flow-frequency to stage-discharge allows development
of an inundation-frequency relationship for the site. A continuous flow period analysis was therefore undertaken
for the 14 selected gages. The results of this analysis is presented in Table 7-2 and Figure 7-2.
T:ihlf- 7-7 Minimum C'nntinumns Flow within Growing Season during Half or More Samnling Years
SGS Station Watershed Size Station Location Minimum Flow
12 Da s or More Minimum Flo
23 Days or More
# s mi (cfs (cfs

213228795 0.1 Jordan Creek near Silver Hil 0.1 0.1
2102908 7. Flat Creek near Invernes 11. 10.
2148300 40. Colonel Creek near Lecsbur 37. 25.
2132320 83.3 Big Shoe Heel Creek near Laurinbur 115 88.1
2135300 9 Sca e Ore Swam near Bisho vill 133 101
2130900 108 Black Creek near McBe 211 15
2133500 183 Drowning Creek near Hoffman 361 173
2172500 198 South Fork Edisto near Montmorencl 27 215
2104500 29 Rockfish Creek near Hope Mill 33 258
2103000 348 Little River at Mancheste 65 38
133624 365 Lumber River near Maxtor 56 431
103500 459 Little River at Linde 72 48
173500 683 North Fork Edisto at Orangebur 85 69
173000 72 South Fork Edisto near Denmar 82 63
Page 25 of 66
Little Ritter /J-Bar Dreams and Wetlands - Restorniion Plan Report
Afoore County North Carolina Afarch 2005

As a side note, this utilization of flow rate to ascertain an associated stage is generally the inverse of the
procedure which applies regional flow relationships to stream channel design. The strength of the relationship
for wetland inundation analysis is the weakness of the relationship for stream flow analysis: small stage
® differences resulting in large flow differences. Such limits or prevents the use of regional flow relationships to
stream channel design.
The landscape analysis was a more direct procedure. Multiple soil borings were taken at the site and hydric
feature information recorded. The elevation of these features was then determined. From this, the relative depth
to hydric features across the site was determined.
The two techniques corresponded very well. Much better, in fact, than was expected. The landscape analysis
related considerable variability of hydric feature elevation relative to ground surface, ground slope, soil texture,
and channel locations. The data was, however, a direct indicator of site soil water conditions. The statistical
analysis related consistent hydric feature elevation relative to the Little River floodplain channel alignment. The
data was, however, an indirect indicator of site soil water conditions. The results from the two analysis
techniques were meshed to develop the overall site earthwork and elevations. The overall approach has resulted
in a high degree of procedure confidence.
Frequency of inundation varies by site elevation. Beyond surface hydraulic analysis, this variation was
addressed by applying subsurface Dupuit flow from the northern hillslopes across the site to the Little River
channel. This application was verified with hydric feature elevation data. Thus, the wetland surface elevation
decreases generally from the hillslope toe to the River channel. Proposed surface lowering in areas designated
for excavation extends to approximately 0.6 ft.
From the hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, it was determined that most of the site exhibits jurisdictional wetland
status. The site exhibits significantly more hydric soils than are indicated by the Soil Survey information.
Pagc 26 of 66
Lillle River /J-Bur Slrecnns and WeAcinds - Resloralion Plan Report
Moore Counll° North Carolina Afurch 2005
Facilitation of wetland hydrologic conditions is critical to successful wetland development at the site. The goals
of the hydrologic components are to meet the US Army Corps of Engineers hydrologic criterion and to develop
an appropriate hydrologic character which supports the wetland community. Implementing the proposed stream
channels, plugging the existing ditches, and constructing the proposed berms will facilitate development of the
desired hydrologic character.
The proposed stream channels will be fully reconnected to the floodplain. Excavated ditches will be plugged at
appropriate locations with the remaining ditch sections left as vernal pools.
The combination of these with influxes of surface water from the stream and surrounding soil water interflow
will constrain hydrologic drainage and improve water table conditions. Raising the elevation of the stream beds
will also reconnect the stream with its natural floodplain, providing regular influx of surface water to the
wetland. The modification of surface water hydroperiod will improve overall site biological, chemical, and
physical conditions which support wetland vegetation and hydric soil development. This modification will also
enhance pollutant removal characteristics of the floodplain.
In the wetland areas, a mixture of grading, channel plugs, and berms will be used to manipulate and enhance the
hydrology of the site. Following stream channel construction, ditch plugs will be installed to redirect waters into
the new stream and to prevent short circuiting. Berms will be used along the proposed streams and across the
floodplain to promote wetland storage, flushing, and to prevent preferential drainage.
Vegetation Community Restoration
The project area will be planted entirely with native, noninvasive vegetation. Planting densities throughout the
wetland will be 400 stems per acre. The project are is divided into three planting zones: buffer/fringe,
floodplain, and channel corridor. Table 7-3 lists the proposed species for each zone. The buffer/fringe is located
along the northern boundary of the conservation easement. It serves as a transition zone between the adjacent
floodplain and uplands and contains a diverse variety of forbs, shrubs, and trees. The floodplain zone also
contains a diverse mix of forbs, shrubs, and trees. This is the largest zone and encompasses most of the active
wetland development areas. The species are those found in different stages of successional forest that precede a
typical bottomland hardwood forest. These successional species are more likely to survive than climax species
as they grow well in full sun and are often competitive species. The third zone will be planted in the stream
channel corridor. Live stake shrubs, live stake trees, and a seed mix will help stabilize the banks. Outside of the
banks a mix of riparian species including forbs and trees will be planted.
Page 27 of 66
Little River /J-liar Streams and Welhmds - Resloralion Plan Report
]Moore Coirirly North Carolina Alarch 2005
Table 7-3 Proposed Species Composition
Type Group Scientific Nam Common Nam

Seed Mix - Forbs Buffer/Fringe Aster s ectabili ShoN aste
Chamaecrista fasciculat Showy quail ea
Glandularia canadensis Rose mock vervai
Helianthus aimmu Common sunflowe
Monarda did nl Scarlet bee-ball
Rudbeckia hirt Blacke ed susa
Salvia azure Blue sag
Salvia lyrat Common sag
Salvia s lender Scarlet sag
S ml h otrichum cords oliun Common blue aste
loodplain Ascle is tuberos Butterfly milkwee
Ba tisia australi Wild blue indi
Chamaecrista fasciculat ShoNvy quail c
Echinacea laevi at Smooth purple coneflowe
Echinacea ur ure Purple coneflowe
verbena hastat Swam verben
hannel Corridor Eu atorium maculatun Joe e wee
Impatiens ca ensi Touch-me-no
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal flowc
Monarch unctat Coastal bee-bat
Saururus cernuu Lizard tai
Chamaecrista asciculat Shop uail e
Seed Mix - Grasses Channel Corridor Panicum dichotomi orlai Fall anic ras
Panicum vir atim Switch ras
Schizach rium sco ariun Little blueste
Sor hastlzlnl nutans Indian ras
Bare Root Shrubs Buffer/Fringe Clethra alai oli Sweet e erbus
Ga lussacia dumos Dwarf huckleberry
Ga lussacia rondos Hucklebe
Ilex coriace Sweet gallberry
Morus rube Mulbe
Persea borbonl Red bay
Prunus an rusts oli Chicksaw lu
Vaccinium co mbosim Highbush blueberry
Vaccinium crassifolium Creeping blueberry
loodplain Amelanchier canadensis Juneberry
Castanea pumil Chinquapin
Ce halanthus occidentals Buttonbus
C rilla racenli for Tit'
Ilex labr Bitter allbe
Kabnia an usti oli Lamb-kit
Page 28 of 66
Lillle River /J-Bur Sireants and IVellands - Resloralion Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
Kabnia hirsut Sandhill laurel
Leucothoe axillaris Coastal do -hobbl
L onia lucid Fetterbus
Morella cerifer Wax myrtl
Persea alustris Swam bay
Rosa alustris Swam ros
Sambucus canadensis Elderbe
Vaccinium arboreu» Sparkleberry
are Root Trees Buffer/Fringe Aralia spinos Devil's walking stic
Asin ina trilob Paw- at
Cornus orid Flowering do woo
Dios ros vir inlanC Persimmo
flex o ac American holly
Liriodendron tuli i er Tulip o la
Magnolia grandi or Southern ma noli
Primus americans American plum
Primus an usti oli Chickasaw plum
Ouercus lauri olio Laurel oak
Minus american American el
loodplain Celtis laevi at Su arbe
Chamae aris thwides Atlantic white ceda
Juni erus vir inian Eastern red ceda
Magnolia vir inian Sweet ba
Taxodium distichun Bald cypress
hannel Corridor Betula ni r River birc
Outside Banks Chamaec • aris th oide Atlantic white ceda
Cornus amomun Silky do woo
Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly ba
Magnolia vlrginian Sweet bay
Pinus serotin Pond in
Salix ni r Black willow
Taxodium distichun Bald cypress
Live Stake Shrubs Channel Corridor Ce halanthus occidentals Buttonbus
On Banks Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
Morella ceri er Wax myrtle
Live Stake Trees Channel Corridor Betula ni r River birch
On Banks Cornus amonuat Silky do woo
Gordonia lasianthus Loblolly ba
Magnolia vir inian Sweet ba
Salix ni r Black willo
Page 29 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
Soils Development
Soils investigation found that natural wetland floodplain soils exist on most of the site. However, activities
associated with forestry practices have lead to compaction, reduction of organic matter, and the alteration of
proper wetland chemical conditions in these soils. Soil preparation activities on the site will include minimal
grading work. The entire site will be tilled or scarified to a depth of at least 6". Grading activities will be
managed to maintain an appropriate A horizon (topsoil) in all wetland areas. If grading is likely to require
excavation below existing A horizons or reduce the depth significantly, topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled
for later replacement. Soil amendments will be kept to a minimum, but may include broadcast fertilizer
application, some targeted fertilizer application, and possibly some organic matter addition.
Proper construction management will be critical to soils preparation and to avoid adverse impacts at the site.
Traffic of heavy construction equipment must be limited to avoid compaction. Management must also ensure
that tillage practices are completed correctly and to the specified extent. The manager must ensure that erosion
control practices are followed to prevent the loss of topsoil from the site. Soil testing for bulk density,
chemistry, and other parameters may be needed during the construction process to ensure that soil conditions
will be meet project requirements.
C]

Page 30 of 66

w
0
a
'?y??? ?yf?yy5 (? W y +yy
y
lry'?7
1A
'";? ? ?"?; r Y!• ,?.{, K ! yCl ? --. ' V 1? t'??? ?. .mac 1 T+5f ? ? . S, S
07
K5
r..
4
q?" .d ?? " ?v? v. ? r^y-T .? .Y., '" a 1 W SF ? J•,f °'R? 2f '" tv S
i ? t c
;Yr 'tr
f - .f
k.
, . X41. '? ?a. 4'C ? *.,.. a w?u p.. - ??r? >??t+ .i? ???„,y ??,,+I?'' Y?y ??`?y, ?r.,, •• ? ,, "? -?4 '??
J pia' $'? '"•?•?i .1?" 'r` .',# 11 .!?"!#! ?4 4 0. r.''R
AA,
w?t
v w. :r r
4w '0
t
??• # ?r M 9 .a[a ...1 a
Wetland Creation
A'T
Wetland Enhancement
EXlsting Channel
Proposed stream
h ? :? i ? 7 ?... ? ,cdr f .?.' a ? ? ? "? ? T.' 'a "w• a w' ?
f ) t ents
structures.,,?
Curtain Log
Log Weir
?? ` • ' • ?'+ "': kk+` s:- ?` (Rod Wads -see plan set)
" ?+ r '? f '?^'? ? ?' . ' ' ' ' , ^` ° F$9CtnCnt BOWWary
Map 7-1. Little River/J-Bar aoo F 4W Feel
St„J
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Scale: 1 R = 400' BLUE.f..A.......
Restoration Plan Man:h ?
Dille River /J-Bar Sireams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Repor7
Moore County Norlh Carolina Afarch 2005
• 8. Stream Plan
Stream System Design Approach Discussion
In the United States, most ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration efforts focusing on streams and wetlands
have been unsuccessful. Many reasons have been given for these failures, with the lack of detailed hydrologic
and hydraulic investigation, modeling, and design being generally the most common cause. To be successful,
ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration efforts (as with any planning and design effort) require various
methodologies to be employed dependent upon the individual type and character of the specific project.
Stream design methodologies can generally be separated into three categories: 1) Analog; 2) Empirical; 3)
Analytical. Each of these methodologies has strengths and weaknesses. As such, various aspects of each
methodology may be employed in any given project.
Analog Methodology
The Analog methodology is typified by the reference reach method popularized by Dave Rosgen of Wildland
Hydrology and is the most simplistic of the three methodologies. The Analog methodology is based on the
logical and statistical inference that if two systems are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be
alike in other respects. In this methodology, sets of geometric and hydraulic parameters are measured relative to
flow rate return intervals. This information is then applied to the design of the system.
For a project to be successful using this methodology, several considerations must be met: 1) the project
® watershed matches the hydrologic character of the reference watershed(s) to a significant degree; 2) the site and
reach parameters must match the reference site(s) to a significant degree (bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank
slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc); 3) The reference watershed(s) and site(s) must be stable and have
been so for a significant time period; 4) The project watershed must be stable, have been so for a significant
time period, and continue to be so for the design life of the project. If these conditions are not met, this
methodology is not applicable for project design.
As such, this methodology is generally not applicable to projects in urbanizing watersheds, watersheds which
may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life, watersheds where agricultural
practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, watersheds where reservoirs may be
constructed or removed, and various instances of watershed change. This method is generally suitable for sites
at which the hydrologic response of the contributing watershed is significantly stable and will remain such for
the intended lifetime of the project.
Empirical Methodology
As the name of this methodology suggests, the Empirical methodology is based on the application of statistically
derived parameters from large datasets and intensive system studies. This methodology is somewhat similar to
the analog method in that both methodologies are based on sets of measured data. The main difference is that
the Empirical methodology utilizes much larger, refined, and more focused datasets than does the Analog
methodology. A secondary difference is that the Empirical methodology often utilizes mean annual flow rate as
the primary design parameter whereas the Analog methodology generally employs the bankfull flow rate as the
11
Page 32 of 66
Linle Rimer /J-Bar Slrecnns and lVeNnndr - Reslorcrlion Plan Rcpor7
Moore County North Carolina A1cnrch 2005
® primary design parameter, with the consideration that the bankfull flow is the channel forming discharge. The
Empirical methodology is typified by the regime reach method.
As with the Analog methodology, for a project to be successful using the Empirical methodology, several
considerations must be met: 1) specific project watershed response parameters of the project watershed must
match specific watershed response parameters of the dataset watersheds to a significant degree; 2) specific
project site and reach parameters must match specific parameters of the dataset sites and reaches to a significant
degree (bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc); 3) during the data
collection period, the dataset watersheds, sites, and reaches must be equivalently stable or varying as the project
watershed, site, and reach and continue to be so for the design life of the project (equal to, or less than, the data
collection period if varying). If these conditions are not met, this methodology is not applicable for project
design.
With the proper dataset and considerable understanding of this dataset, watershed hydrology, and fluvial
geomorphology, it is potentially possible to apply the Empirical methodology to projects in urbanizing
watersheds, watersheds which may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life,
watersheds where agricultural practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, and
watersheds where reservoirs may be constructed or removed, and various instances of watershed change. This
however, is generally well beyond the limits of available datasets as well as the statistical validity of such
extrapolations. Again as with the Analog methodology, this method is generally suitable for sites at which the
hydrologic response of the contributing watershed is significantly stable and will remain such for the intended
lifetime of the project.
0 Analytical Methodology
The Analytical methodology is based on the application of physically based mathematical models of natural
phenomena to the project site and watershed. This methodology is quite different from the Analog and
Empirical methodologies as no dependence is placed on datasets external from the project. Temporally and
spatially distributed phenomena may also be addressed with this methodology, as opposed to Analog and
Empirical methodologies. The Analytical methodology is typified by the system simulation method and is the
primary methodology employed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Geological Survey.
To successfully employ the Analytical methodology, two considerations must be met: 1) the designer must be
able to adequately mathematically describe the relevant primary natural phenomena within the system; 2)
adequate environmental parameters must be available to drive the mathematical model of the system. If these
conditions are not met, this methodology is not applicable for project design.
The Analytical methodology is the most flexible and robust of the three methodologies presented and the only
one that can be used to design and analyze the system for specific project functions such as pollutant removal,
flood attenuation, and habitat development. This methodology can be applied to projects in urbanizing
watersheds, watersheds which may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life,
watersheds where agricultural practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, watersheds
where reservoirs may be constructed or removed, and other various instances of watershed change as well as
significantly stable watersheds.
Past 33 of 66
Little River /J-13w- Streams cmd Wellnnds - Restoration Plan Re port
Moore Comity North Carolina Afarch 2005
is Project Analysis and Design Approach
The J-Bar / Little River stream and wetland project is located in the Sandhills of North Carolina. The Sandhills
is one of ten distinct hydrophysiographic regions in the state. These are the Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont,
Triassic Basin, Sandhills, Southern Highlands, Southern Inner Coastal Plain, Northern Coastal Plain, Southern
Outer Coastal Plain, Tidewater, and Barrier Islands regions. Individual regions vary from other regions with
regards to base flow, infiltration, heat flux, evapotranspiration, runoff response, and various other hydrologic
phenomena. Compared with most other hydrophyisographic regions in the state, relatively little surface water
flow and stream stage data is available for the Sandhills region.
Undeveloped watersheds in the Sandhills region are typified by moderate to high infiltration potential sandy soil
systems with moderate to high relief. This results in relatively high stream base flows and highly buffered
precipitation runoff response. This is in contrast to much of the Piedmont region (bordering the Sandhills region
to the West) which is typified by low to moderate infltration potential clayey soil systems with moderate to high
relief. This results in much lower stream base flows and much less precipitation runoff response buffering.
When developing the analysis and design approach, the system location, project goals, and available project
timeline were particularly taken into consideration. A hybrid analysis and design approach was developed for
the project that utilized aspects of the Analog (reference reach) and Empirical (regime reach) methodologies
with the Analytical (system simulation) approach at the core. The approach developed involves a combination
of stream design and hydraulic analysis techniques. The specific methods used included natural channel design,
sandbed stream design methods, and other stable channel engineering methods. The approach also included
integration of advanced watershed hydrologic and stream hydraulic modeling, utilizing the continuous
AnnAGNPS (Annualized Agricultural Nonpoint Source) simulation model and the GSTARS (Generalized
Sediment Transport for Alluvial River) hydraulic model to aid in the analysis. A few of the main sources
detailing these methods are referenced at the end of this section. Although fairly involved and detailed as well as
modified to account for site parameters as the project progressed, the general analysis and design approach
employed is as follows:
1) Estimate watershed, stream, and wetland response using relatively simple models and methods
2) Simulate continuous watershed response using AnnAGNPS
3) Employ GSTARS for channel hydraulics and sediment transport analysis
4) Set bankfull elevation at floodplain elevation
5) Raise/lower bankf ill/berm elevations and modify channel parameters and floodplain elevations as needed
and reanalyze
Restoration Potential
The project site has excellent potential for a high quality stream restoration project. Located in a broad valley,
the site provides adequate room to utilize a full range of belt width and meander forms. The significant
floodplain available also means that floodprone area requirements will be easily achieved. There is no adjacent
development that would restrict the design. The combination of these allows for reestablishing new stream
channels near their original elevation and reconnecting them with their historical floodplains.
Although this site has many advantages, their are several distinct challenges with a project of this type. Because
the design requires changing the channel bed elevations, special attention must be paid to structure design and
Page 34 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Sirecnns and Wellands - Reslorulion Plan Report
Afoore County North Carolina March 2005
installations to prevent the possibility of headcuts (downstream) and channel incision (upstream). Another
challenge to this project was developing a design for a sandbed stream system. Common natural channel design
procedures employed in North Carolina may have application to gravel bed streams, with higher slopes and
lower water tables, but have limited applicability in sand dominated and high water table systems.
Stream Dimensional Design
The reference analysis found average bankf ill widths of 3.9 feet (Appendix E). Most side slopes are supported
by dense vegetation on the channel banks including overhanging trees. Tree roots were prominent in the channel
banks. Due to the sandy, non-cohesive soils in the area, steep bank angles would not be stable without dense
vegetative root mass. This vegetative support will take years to develop and the proposed stream will have to be
constructed to remain stable independent of such devices. As a result, the restored stream will be designed to
remain stable based on its geometry and a limited amount of vegetative cover and protection. The result is a
stream with a larger cross-sectional area and sideslopes with a flatter, more stable repose angle (Tables 8-1
through 8-3).
Flatter slopes, sandy soils, and high water tables create very different hydrologic system dynamics in the
Sandhills than in the piedmont and mountain regions. The interaction between streams and high water tables in
these areas affects stage return intervals and flooding frequency. Vegetation serves as a primary stream genesis
development force. These factors complicate the relationship between bankfull flow and channel forming flow.
The stream design is likely divergent from typical templates for piedmont and mountain streams. Proposed
stream channel cross sectional areas are larger than the reference channels due to sandy material and the absence
of vegetation. The size of the project dictates that flow rates and sediment loads will change along the length of
the stream. Therefore, the stream parameters will vary from upstream to downstream. The channel dimensions
will be balanced to maintain water depths that remain near the surface for lengthy periods during the year
without excessive drainage while providing for adequate sediment transport. The channel capacity (geometry
and slope) was designed to encourage overbank flow at frequent return intervals promoting extended flooding
and storage in the wetland. The balance between adequate sediment transport to prevent excessive deposition,
nonexcessive sideslope repose to prevent bank failure, and nonexcessive depth to prevent overdrainage of the
site was the primary challenge of design.
Initial dimensional designs were driven by bankfull flow rate determinations. Peak flow rate and sediment
inflow were calculated using AnnAGNPS and 20 years of weather data (Appendix F).
Using the model results and engineering judgment, initial dimensions were chosen for further analysis and
testing with the final pattern and profile designs. The base width of the design channels will range from 2 feet to
3 feet. Sideslopes range from 3:1 to 2.5:1 (H:V) and will be protected with erosion control fabric. The bankfull
depths will be the set to approximately 1.6 feet, with some sedimentation expected that will reduce this depth
over time. Design top widths will range from 9.8 feet to 12.8 feet. This will create an average width to depth
ratios of 6 ft/ft to 7.9 ft/ft which is expected to change as woody vegetation grows and alters cross-sections.
Although this ratio is lower than at the reference site, it is consistent with data presented by various research
projects.
Page 35 of 66
Little River /J-Bur Streams and Rellands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
v

Tnhle S-1 Stream Mornhnlnnical Data - Channel A
Parameter Existing Reference Pro osed
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Drainage Area, DA (s mi 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) - - 1726 - - 138 - - 2301
Stream Type (Ros en) E5 C5 C5 E5 C5 C5 E5 E5 E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 2.8 8.1 4.5 2.8 8.1 4.5 11.8 13.8 12.8
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 5.5 14.9 9.1 5.5 14.9 9.1 12.8 12.8 12.8
ankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 8.9 20.5 14.3 8.9 20.5 14.3 - - 7.8
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a (ft) 182 710 446 182 710 446 182 710 446
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 33.1 47.7 40.4 33.1 47.7 40.4 14.3 55.7 35.0
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bander Length, Lm (ft) 36 57 47 36 57 47 57 150 103
Bander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) - - 5.1 - - 5.1 4.5 11.7 8.1
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 5 25 16 - - 25 25 50 36
Re ratio, Re/Wbkf ft/ft - - 1.8 - - 2.7 2.0 3.9 2.9
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 25 14 3 6 5 8 70 30
Bander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft - - 1.5 - - 0.5 0.7 5.5 2.4
Sinuosity, K 1.00 1.12 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.32 1.32
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.014 0.005
16 mm - - - - - - - -
35 mm - - - - - - - -
50 (mm) - - 0.14 - - 0.14 - - 0.14
84 (mm) - - 0.49 - - 0.49 - - 0.49
95 (mm) - - 1.40 - - 1.40 - - 1.40
Page 36 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Phm Report
Rfoore County North Carolina March 2005
La J
n
11-1
Table 8-2 Stream Mornbolonical Data - Channel B
Parameter Existing Reference Pro osed
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Drainage Area, DA (s mi) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Stream Length (ft) - - 2707 - - 138 - - 2514
Stream Type (Rosgen) - - E5 E5 C5 C5 E5 E5 E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf s ft 0.9 38.4 15.5 2.8 8.1 4.5 11.8 13.8 12.8
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 2.6 12 6.8 5.5 14.9 9.1 12.8 12.8 12.8
ankfull Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 3.2 2.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) - - 3.0 8.9 20.5 14.3 - - 7.8
Width Floodprone Area, Wf a (ft) 182 700 441 182 710 446 182 700 441
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf (ft/ft - - 65.2 33.1 47.7 40.4 14.3 54.9 35.0
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.4 3.2 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.0 - - 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.4 3.2 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length, Lm ft 34 133 71 36 57 47 82 150 115
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft - - 10.5 - - 5.1 6.5 11.8 9.0
Radius of Curvature, Re ft 5 36 16.4 - - 25 25 50 40
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf ft/ft 2.1 3.0 2.4 - - 2.7 1.9 3.9 3.1
Belt Width, Wblt ft 25 50 38 3 6 5 10 53 28
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft/ft - - 5.5 - - 0.5 0.8 4.1 2.2
Sinuosity, K 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.30
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.040 0.009
16 mm - - 0.33 - - - - - 0.33
35 mm - - 0.48 - - - - - 0.48
50 (mm) - - 0.57 - - 0.14 - - 0.57
84 (mm) - - 1.39 - - 0.49 - - 1.39
95 (mm) - - 1.89 - - 1.40 - - 1.89
Page 37 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams w7d i{'ellnnds - Restorulion Plan Report
Afoore County North Carolina Afarch 2005
L„"
Table 8-3 Stream Morphological Data - Channel C
Parameter Existing Reference Pro osed
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.04 0.04
Stream Length (ft) - - 1530 - - 138 - - 2497
Stream Type (Rosgen) - - E5 E5 C5 C5 E5 E5 E5
ankfull Cross-sectional Area, Abkf (s ft 0 34 14.3 2.8 8.1 4.5 8.8 10.3 9.5
ankfull Width, Wbkf ft 3.5 6.4 5.3 5.5 14.9 9.1 9.8 9.8 9.8
ankfull Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0 5.3 2.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) - - 2.0 8.9 20.5 14.3 - - 6.0
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a (ft) 45 512 278.5 182 710 446 45 512 278.5
-
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf ft/ft 12.8 80.0 52.5 33.1 47.7 40.4 4.6 52.5 28.5
7
Max Depth bkf, Dmax ft 0.0 5.3 2.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.0 - - 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob ft 0.0 5.3 2.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.6
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length, Lm ft * * * 36 57 47 89 173 125
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft * * * - - 5.1 9.2 17.7 12.8
Radius of Curvature, Re ft * * * - - 25 25 50 40
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft) * * * - - 2.7 2.6 5.1 4.1
Belt Width, Wblt ft 3 10 7 3 6 5 12 83 41
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft 0.8 1.6 1.2 - - 0.5 1.2 8.5 4.2
Sinuosity, K 1.06 1.19 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft 0.001 0.020 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.062 0.017
16 mm - - - - - - - - -
35 mm - - - - - - - - -
50 (mm) - - - - - 0.14 - - -
84 (mm) - - - - - 0.49 - - -
95 (mm) - - - - - 1.40 - - -
* The existing channel is essentially straight
Page 38 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Plun Reprn7
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
® Stream Pattern Design
The existing channel has minimal natural developed meander bends for channel analysis. The reference reaches
analyzed do exhibit meanders, however, it was found that the those reaches are significantly supported by root
mass and dense streamside vegetation. The new stream must be stable for a long period of time prior until
vegetation can develop significantly enough to fully support the channel. Therefore, developed equations and
ratios were used to generate estimates for the design pattern information. The pattern design was then developed
utilizing site contours and a range of pattern values. The pattern design resulted in a restored channel length of
2,301 feet for Channel A, 2,514 feet for Channel B, and 2,497 feet for Channel C (Map 7-1).
Stream Profile Design
The flood plain slope is the major parameter driving and constraining channel slope. The on-site reference
stream average hydraulic slope is 0.002 ft/ft. This slope was used as an initial parameter during quantitative
analysis of the proposed stream channels and modified relative to this analysis and site features. Site features
influencing the profile design are primarily existing elevations and slopes, with connecting stream channels also
a significant consideration. Overly deep channels will excessively drain the surrounding area, will not exhibit
sufficient out of channel flow, will develop periodic stagnant conditions, and may be overly stressed along the
banks. Overly shallow channels may become easily blocked and reroute, resulting in a highly unstable channel
that could cause undesirable site conditions. A profile chart showing the existing channel bed, existing ground
surface, and proposed stream bed is included in the plan set.
As the restored stream will need to be stable under a variety of conditions, analysis was completed to determine
a range of stable slope possibilities. The restored stream reach slopes average 0.039 ft/ft. Morphological tables
for each of the three streams comparing the existing, reference, and design stream are included at the end of this
section.
Sediment Transport and Shear Stress
Stream analysis has been completed using a dynamic hydraulic model, GSTARS, which was developed by the
US Bureau of Reclamation. GSTARS is a numerical model for simulating the flow of water and sediment
transport in alluvial channels. GSTARS computes hydraulic forces in a manner similar to the HEC-RAS
hydraulic model, but also has the capability to complete a full sediment transport analysis based on incoming
sediment loads, shear stress, bed scour, and bank movement. This analysis was used to test the stability of the
design stream dimensions and pattern during design storms and over a long period of time. Predicted time
series, modeled with AnnAGNPS, of inflows and sediment loads have been routed through the model. This
analysis not only predicts the stability of the stream on an event basis, but also provide a test of stream response
to more naturally occurring storm shapes and frequencies.
It is especially difficult to apply tractive force methods to sand bed streams. Sediment transport in such systems
occurs regularly and stability is a delicate balance between incoming sediment load and deposition and localized
erosion and scour. In a sandy system, the potential for deposition and aegradation must be equally weighed with
the potential for erosion and degradation. Therefore, approaches to determine channel stability must utilize the
above procedures, but also incorporate additional detailed methods to assess this balance.
Pabc 39 of 66
Little Rimer /J-Bar Sir Canis and Wetlands - Restnralinn Plan Report
Moore Counly Norlh Carolina March 2005
® Both a limiting velocity and critical shear stress analysis were completed for the design stream. To improve
applicability, these calculations were initially completed for a range of possible flow rates, channel dimensions,
and slopes. The calculations were applied throughout the stream reach to account for localized slope and
meander conditions. Velocity and shear stress were calculated for a variety of storm events over the entire
stream reach using the HEC-15 (Hydraulic Engineering Circular L5) methodology (Design of Roadside
Channels with Flexible Linings). These values were compared to published thresholds. Velocity thresholds for
sandy materials typically range between 2 ft/s - 2.5 ft/s. Critical shear stress values are typically 0.01 lb/sf.
Higher velocities and shear may be allowable depending on incoming sediment supply and bank protection.
Additional protection measures such as cross vanes will also be used for grade control in potential problem
areas. Shear stress calculations can be found in Appendix F.
In-Stream Structures
In-stream structures will be used along the length of the stream to provide grade control, extra bank protection,
and encourage development of bedform features (Map 7-1). The reference analysis found some woody debris in
the reference reach. Roots from streamside trees traverse the bed and fallen trees and limbs were found
frequently along the streams. Root wads will be installed in meander bends. A variety of different log structure
designs will be used. Several typical designs are included in this document. These structures will be securely
seated and sealed using compacted sand and clay or filter fabric. Log structures may be supported with vertically
driven rootwads or other additional woody debris. Log weirs will be installed at grade.
Stream Riparian Planting Plan
The stream riparian corridor will be planted with a wetland seed mix of herbaceous and woody species for
erosion control (Table 7-3). Additional woody vegetation will be planted in the floodplain adjacent to the stream
banks (Refer to Section 7 - Vegetation Community Restoration).
Stream Design Background Information References
• Copeland, Ronald R, Dinah N McComas, Colin R Thorne, Philip J Soar, Meg M Jonas, and Jon B Fripp,
2001 Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (ERDC/CHL TR-01-28) US Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
• Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998 Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield,
VA
• Millar, R G and B J MacVicar, 1998 An analytical method for natural channel design In: Proceedings of the
ASCE Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference, Denver, CO
• Miller, D E and P B Skidmore, 2001 Natural Channel Design: How Does Rosgen Classification-Based
Design Compare with Other Methods? In: Proceedings of ASCE Wetlands/Rivcr Restoration Conference,
Reno, NV
• Pope, Benjamin F, Gary D Tasker, and Jeanne C Robbins, 2001 Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised (WRIR 01-4207) US Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC
Page 40 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
® • Rosgen, D L, 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO
• Skidmore, P B, F D Shields, M W Doyle, and D E Miller, 2001 A Categorization of Approaches to Natural
Channel Design In: Proceedings ofASCE Wetlands/River Restoration Conference, Reno, NV
• Thorne, Colin R and Philip J Soar, 2001 Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers (ERDC/CHL
CR-01-1) US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
• Weaver, J Curtis and Benjamin F Pope, 2001 Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected
Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998 (WRIR 01-4094) US Geological
Survey, Raleigh, NC

n
Page 41 of 66
Little River /J-Rur Sirewns and Walumis - Restoration Plum Rcpni7
Afoore COIO71v North C'urolinu Afcnrch 2005
0 9. Design Details (Typical)
STREAM CHANNELS (SECTION AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
CHANNEL A & CHANNEL B
Erosion Control Blanket
?
Compacted Berm North American Green SC15CBN
Height: 0.5' Anchor vertically in 0.5' deep trench at 1.5'
Width: 3.5' beyond edge of berm
Sideslopes: 3:1 Anchor 15' bonkword in 1.5' deep trench at
channel bottom toe
- - - - - - - 12.75' to_Center of Berm at Bank Tog Stage - - - - - - -'
N/? - - - - - -2-25,_' 4t Flood PIo'n _'o5.r. - - - - - - - / // `
Varies `1.00' t?o, n^ 5' typical) ?/\ i?'X\
CHANNEL C
Erosion Control Blankct
Page 42 of 66
Little River /J-13or Streams and Welkinth - Resloralion Plan Report
Moore ('owav North Carolina Alurch 2005
LOG WEIR STRUCTURE (FACE AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
FACE

1/2 Timber Moth I
Anchor wing timbers with 3/4"
diameter metal pins at 1/6,
3/6, and 5/6 along the
timber centerline through each
timber layer
Bank Top Stage
I
Bank Top Stage
L
1/2 Timber Width /
Anchor wing timbers with 3/4'
diameter metal pins at 1/6,
2/6, 3/6, 4/6, and 5/6 along
the timber centerline through
each timber layer
Page 43 of 66
Lithe River /J-Bar Sh•eanis cmd Wedwids - Reslot-alioN Pluia Repnr!
Afoore Courtly Norlh Carolina Afareh 2005
EXISTING CHANNEL PLUG (SECTIONS)
(N.T.S.)
Twice Channel Top Width
CROSS CHANNEL SECTION
FII
0.5'
Channel Top Width I ??I T
% \r_x:sl!nq Sw{ace
Erosion Control Blanket
North American Green SC150BN
Anchor vertically in 0.5' deep trench at
edge of berm and channel bottom fill
slope toe
LONGITUDINAL CHANNEL SECTION
3.0'
Channel
Page 44 of 66
Little River /J-liar Streams and f t'Ctlamds - Resloratiom Plan Repor!
Moore C'o:mly North C'arolinu Afurch 2005
FLOOD PLAIN BERM
(N.T.S.)
Erosion Control Blanket
North American Green SC15013N
An chor vertically in 0.5' deep trench beyond
toe of berm fiil slope toe and weir side edges
CROSS BERM SECTION
i.0- Weir
Top Depth: 0.5-
Bottom Widths: 4.0'
Sideslopes: 3:1
0.5'
Flood Plain Surface
.1 Hv d.0' -I
ROOT WAD STRUCTURE (FACE AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
15'
FACE
Edge of root mass to extend
above flood plain stage
_ Flood Plain Stacy9
1/2 Bank Top
Page 45 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Resloration Plan Rcpa7
Moore Counly North Carolina hfarch 2005
® 10. Wetland Post-Construction Performance Criteria
Hydrology
A total of seven continuous water level recorders are planned for monitoring the hydrology of the wetland area
(Map 12-1). A few of the existing recorders will remain in the same location while a few will be relocated so
that appropriate coverage of each wetland type may be achieved. Recorders will be programmed to initially
record water table data on an hourly basis. If water table changes are not found to occur rapidly, the recorders
may be reprogrammed to record at longer intervals. Water level data will be compared with previous data
recorded at the reference site to determine if the water table changes after restoration. The restoration site should
meet US Army Corps of Engineers wetland hydrology requirements.
Vegetation
Success for the vegetative plantings will be determined by the establishment of ten permanent plots (10 meter X
10 meter) and sampling within these plots (Map 12-1). The plots will be randomly placed in each vegetation
community type (channel corridor, buffer/fringe and floodplain). Data from each plot pertaining to species
composition, presence of volunteer or invasive species, percent survival, and percent ground cover will be
collected. An 80% survival rate of planted vegetation will be considered successful at the end of the first year. A
minimum of 320 trees/acre should be present at the end of the fifth year of monitoring.
Soils
As most of the soils at the site are already considered hydric, no monitoring or success criteria is proposed for
soils. Wetland soil development success will be based on data obtained from the site soil water level recorders.
11. Stream Post-Construction Performance Criteria
Geomorphology
Channel cross-sections, profile, pattern, and materials will be assessed. One cross-section will be established
approximately every 500 feet along each new channel. The designed stream lengths total 7,312 feet and 15
permanent cross sections will be established (Map 12-1). At each cross section the width/depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, and low bank height ratio will be measured and compared with the designed stream
geomorphology (the as-builts) for dimension and profile. The channels are expected to grow more narrow over
time as woody vegetation is established. Photo reference points will be established at each cross section.
Longitudinal profiles will be checked for sinuosity, meander width ratio, radius of curvature and compared with
the post construction as-builts. Grab samples will be collected to determine the established d50 and d85.
Vegetation
Success will be considered from the establishment of the wetland seed mix along the stream banks and an 80%
survival rate of planted vegetation in the floodplain at the end of the first year.
Page 46 of 66
993° Lb oSuJ 0
E
'.tolouiluoo luapuodaput uu Aq stuoX .tnoj Iuuotltppu uu aoj pa.toltuow
oq Iltm laafold age, 'awt; sigj ju opuw aq Iltm suot;ou tutpauza.t loj suot;upuawwooa.t Cud '.tuz)A uopotulsuoo-;sod
lslg oqj jo puo oqj ju utu.ti?ojd luowoouuqug wajsXsoog oqj of palltwgns oq Iltm poda.z fuuopuow d .I -ZI duW
uo poluool st suoilmol fold uotJuJa53n puu `z)fvO `XoAins 5ui.toliuow posodo.td oql jo duw d 'pot.tod 2ut.toltuow
agj .tano swoons joafo.td jo p.tooa.t u futltdutoo .toj slutod Awi ju pz)gstiqujso oq Iltm suotjuls ologd luouuuuod
'awt?
stq; It! panowa.t oq lithk uotJu1330n [Cpoom anisunui Cud '.tanoo puno12 luatogjns puu A4tltqujs .toj pouiwuxa oq
lltm s5nld ga;tp oql, 'pagstlqujsa st uotlujafan /Cpoom su awtJ ]ano mo.r.tuu 31Ow m012 of paloadxo a.tu slauuugo
agy 'stalawund u2tsop wua.ns of uosuudwoo loj puu juowdolanap wua.tls outuuajap of Q-ZI duW) Iauuugo
wua.tls aqj 3uolu paA;)Alns oq Iltm suotloas-ssoto uaaIj13 'apuw oq lltm suotjunluna lu.tau35 puu suotItpuoo
3upstxa .toj p Xzwns aq llthk wua.us agj uotjujuawaldwt loofo.td jo .tuoX Is.tg oql jo pua aqj luoM 'luntnans
juooiod puu `satoads antsunw .to .taalunlon Jo aouaso id `uotjtsodwoa satoads of 2ututupad polaalloa aq Iltm u;up
gold goua utgltM •louuugo goua 3o auoz .topt.uoo Iauuugo ogj ut jold ouo isuol ju futpnlout `arts loofo.td oqj sso.rou
slold juouuw.tod uol ut possossu oq lpm uotju;a2an 'paltdwoo puu popuolumop oq lltm ujup o5ug .tolum IIoS
'si?nld goltp oql jo uotltpuoo oqj puu c4tltqujs wua.t;s lutauoi `satnjon is pallulsut aql jo uotltpuoo `sNuuq 2utpo.to
jo xmmoid `suotltpuoo alts lu.toua5 .toj uotloadsut lunstn uJO ;stsuoo lllm Itstn goug '.tuoX uoilon.usuoo-Isod
ls.tg oqj 5ut.znp .tajjuaiagi ,?l.tauunb puu sgjuow aolgl;s.tg agj .to3 gluow u aouo polol!uow oq litm alts oqj
uuU ul.IoaluoLV uog3naasu03-Isod 'Zi
Soot rl.zrr yV mplo.roD rlldoN dlu"(0,3.roo1lr
!soday ur71d uow-olsau - spuvli? 11 puv sumvalS ?r?g-f a?n??I vl!!17
•
•
•
R-
S
7 -A
40 M?
r.
al, e ?
r
?a r ,y
?4 LJ
S ?e •'
'? y?"iaa
x ".
a Vegetation Plot
Wetland Creation * Water Level Recorder
•o
00
00
0

? Wetland Enherx?etr?ent * Well
c a + ,
s ^? M Proposed Stream
Ali
t
R
G
gnmen
s ain
age
Easement Boundary
Cross Section

Map 12-1. Little River/J-Bar 400 ° MMOO
Fed
MMMEg 40°

Stream and Wetland R
estoratio
n Project , nod
\ awr
Monitoring Plan Scale: 1"= 4W
Mamh 2005 `"f""""""
r
o
? rt
3
yam. C
O
x
a ?
O
a L
f
n s
O
O
b
b
O
L]
E

Little River /J-Bar Streams and 11'ellnnds - Restoration Plnn Report
Lfoore ComNV North Curolina March 2005
APPENDIX A
SITE SOIL TEST REPORT
Page 49 of 66
1(J
U
O
Vi
O
C;1

CJ
NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reed' Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Report No: 05202
BLUE Land Plater Infrastructure C I!„ ..I, i
I1::[i1r ;?;:•: i

?` 1j • ??
ozl Test Roho
a1: r, S ERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Moore Count
Agronomist Commcnts: I I ''
Field Information 1 lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lune N NOs KO Mg Cu Zn 8 h1n See Note
I t: C;

Test Results
Soil Class H,1116 t'J/V CEC BSh Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% h1g,'? AM-1 h1n-AI (1)h1n-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SSJ Na-N NH-N Na
'.lilt c!1 1 l ?+l! II 1r, r, I,' !c
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N 1:05 KO h1g Cu Zn 8 AM See Note
1(';'C1 I;, c;
Test Results
Soil Class N.M l,'/V CEC BS ','j Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca';O' h1g;L 1.1n-I h1n-AI (1)h1n-Al (2) Zn-l Zn-Al Cu-1 S-i SS-I t.a-N Nk-N Na
i.!;i l lf) 111 ;?? 7i;ll )r; / :7`°, 1l??. ItL lr ;' 1 ?' C1
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop bfo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N YOs KO Mg Cu Zn 8 Aln See Note

Test Results
Soil Class Hb1,j IV/V CEC BS;L Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca ,',6 h1g 5 Mn-1 h1n-Al (1) h1n-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-I Na-N Nh-N Na

Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lune N 11W KO Mg Cu Zn 8 Mn See Note
N.', C;ti, 1',I

Test Results
Soil Class HAI;„ l':/V CEC BSS Ac pN P-1 K-1 Cah1g;" Mn-I Mn-AI (1) h1n-AI (2) Zn-l Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 Na-N NH-N Na

L
a
y
tJ
.7

a

c?
v:
v,
0
c?

NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reed Crock Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Gro,.:cr: BLVII Report No: 05202 Pq 2
Field Information A lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
;;C
C
1;
I? Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year
l•I C
11
! I Lune
1 dl N kUs KU
`!; /i1 i?;;
(' i
J A',g Cu
!. Zn
;; B Mn See Note
I l
:?
?t i?
'
: ,i?,...,.,s;
;;it
)I[:! C1 u
,
, ?
Test Results
Soil Class Hi,11o IVN CEC BSZ Ac pH P-1 K-1 C, V% A1gi5 Afn-I Afn-AI (1)Afn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I 54 SS-1 Na-N NFA-N Na
'9 (1Ili 11(1 :3?' 73(1 "i(! !ii f; Ti H(, it(' Il :,i „. it i) 0l
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Afo Yr T/A Crop or Ycar Lime N N'05 KU A1g Cu Zn B Afn See Note

Test Results
Soil Class HNU 171V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 CaZ Afg,l? Afn-1 ?,fn-Al (I)A1n-AI (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 N2-N NFk-N Na

Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Afo Yr 1/A Crop or Year Lune N I,Us kU A1g Cu Zn B Afn See Note

Test Results
Soil Class H,4fi? WIV CEC BSZ Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% AlIZ Afn-I Afn-AI (i)Afn-AI (2) Zn-I M AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 Na-N NH-N Na
.!a. !'?!I 1 iI? 7.?? 1'. [I 71 .! (', 13 (; ?!? 11 I1 yj R(1
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop A',o Yr T/A Crop or Year Urnc N ICUs KU Afg Cu Zn B Mn See No to

Test Results
Soil Class H1l1,'?6 IV/V CEC M Ac pH P-1 K-1 Cain Afg% Lfn-1 Afn-AI (I)Afn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 Na-N Nn-N Na
,: Q.Q

N

ti
L
i
O?
b
r
n,
i
n
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Resloration Plan Reporl
Moore County Norlh Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page 52 of 66
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005

L'
•
Photo 2. Culvert under soil road at Channel B (3/2003)
Photo 6. Little River in easement (10/2002)
Page 53 of 66
Photo 4. Channel B (3/2003)
Photo 1. Project area looking southwest (3/2003)
Photo 3. Existing onsite vegetation (3/2003)
Photo 5. Bottomland hardwood forest near wetland
reference site (11/2003)
,R J
- E,
Lithe River 1J-Bc7r Simons cord Wellands - Resloralion Plan Report
Afoore County Norlh Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX C
SITE WETLAND AND STREAM DATA
Page 54 of 66
•
v
0
a
0
Site Stream Bed Particle Size Analyses
Sieve Numbers
100318 4 6 10 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
80
60
V
C
LL
c
40
a
20
0
e
s
4
IWC
Stream A
Stream B - lower
ti
Stream B - upper
0
20
•
.L
40
a
.fl
Q
N
M
O
U
60
v
Q
CL
80
100
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
Sand Silt or Clay
Fine Coarse Medium Fine
n
n ?
z
} b
n
0
i
?J
r
b
3
Ll
228.0
227.0
226.0
225.0
co 224.0
0
0
z 223.0
c
0
222.0
w
221.0
220.0
219.0
218.0
a:
0
c
a
El
Water Level Elevation
Site Gages
R a •'', `mo`d <w ?? ?.?,?; ??""""`:.? • '° ?='`W.6,?????? ,,? ""'.,,=.`'e..?.?„V! ? ?'? ?"?ti.
• tl
?' . y
% V 17
J
"
1
`+? •? '? ?'? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? rk`" ? ?..,?..,?'? • ?.? ? ?. 1;4',,x' ?' `? ?, f ? w? ? y i y ?
0
- WL0001
- WL0002
- WL0004
WL0005
- WL0007
- WL0008
- WL0009
13-Sep-03 01-Nov-03 20-Dec-03 07-Feb-04 27-Mar-04 15-May-04
}
a

C
t=

Little Rimer /J-Bur Streams and iVeflands - Restoration Plan Report
Moore County North Carolina March 2005
C.'
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE SITE SOIL TEST REPORT
E

Page 57 of 66

a
v:
a
0
a

0
NCDA Aqronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Report No: 12983
BLUE Land Water Infrastructure

......
oil e RA9 r
17r'ls?;ir, S ERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Moore Count
Agronomist Comments: t t ;
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop ,1o r I IA Crop or Year Lune N 1105 K0 Mg Cu Zn B hfn See Note
ili
/II'AC.; 1)
.
Test Results
Soil Class Hh1 `6 WIV CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 CaY MgZ hfn-1 hfn-AI (1)Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-l SS-1 f,,a-N NH-N Na
.lili C`.!! 1 itt i 1 "tl ; .. ; I 1? I; 1!IL i!! i' tl ,- 1(: +! CC
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Simple No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N 1,105 KO h1g Cu Zn B hfn See Note
111 t`1; ;z... Ci.U 11
7 0 C;:
Test Results
Soil Class 11,1115 GVV CEC BS 1'0,' Ac pH P-1 K-1 CaSG Mg G hfn-I hfn-AI (1)hfn-Al (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-1 5-1 554 Na-N h7-i-N Na
l1 1/0 /0 ! 71 1 L' (I (,
Field Information _ Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lune N Y05 K0 Mg Cu Zn B hfn See Note

IC c(.
Test Results
Soil Class Hh1 , IV/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg95 h1n-1 hfn-AI (1)Mn-AI (1) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-I NCB-N NFi-N Na
1_ll ;'i.!I iI I/ i4 7', „ 1C4. tall I1 1'. t Il ?'ti (.1
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lune N N05 K'0 h1g Cu Zn B hfn See Note

Test Results
Soil Class HAIZ IVN CEC BSZ Ac pH P-1 K-1 CaY h1gZ hfn-1 Mn-AI (1)hfn-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 Na-N NH-N Na
1.1111 l Gl 11.. h'. ?', fl " ? ? 1 1 ' ?:! , - 11 1f:.1; i 1 ,". ' 7 l?: 4r, (11
}r
v
i
?p
v
? N
b
0
•
rJ
n
n
c

NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road Raleigh. NC 27607-6465 [phone] Gro-.:er: BLVII Report No: 12983 Pq 2
Field Information Applied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T1A Crop or Year Lime
7f I:! C;; y' N NOs ho Mg Cu Zn 0 Mn Sce Note
Test Results
Soil Class Mb11? IJ1V CEC BSZ Ac pH P-1 K-1 Cal; Mg';6
`.':IJ l (;;i Ci;J 12.0 0 71 ; I; R1n-l hfn-Al (1)P,1n-Al (2) Zn-I Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 Na-N NH-N Na
?? 1R is 1 i (! 1

r-
i
U
7
Z
n
i
y
z
7-
C
tJ

ti
L-1
C-.
?tl
Little Rimer /J-Bar Streams and Wetlands - Restoration Plan Report
Afoore CounlY North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX E
REFERENCE STREAM DATA
Page 60 of 66
,J
C

c
c?
1003r 8
90
80
t
P
tJ 70
ic
i
c
0
U
U
a
60
50

E
0
10
20
7
d
30 `
0
0
U
.r
C
0
U
0
40 a
50
40' 1 60
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
Sand Silt or Clay
Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Reference Stream Bed Particle Size Analysis
Sieve Numbers
4 6 10 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
n
y -.
Z
b
N
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Resloralion Plan Report
Moore County Norlh Carolina March 2005
n
11 E
n
Reference Reaches - Cross-Section Data
Reach Width Depth Are
# ft ft s

3.1 0. 1.
1 3. 0. 1.8
3.3 0. 1.
301 3. 0. 2.
15 2. 0. 2.1
2. 0. 2.1
10 3. 0. 2.3
4.1 0. 2.
3.3 0. 2.5
17 3. 0. 2.
11 4. 0. 2.
14 3.1 1. 3.1
16 4. 0. 3.1
13 4.3 0. 3.
3.3 1. 3.3
12 4.1 0. 3.
4. 0. 3.
8 5. 0. 3.
18 5.3 0. 3.
19 4.5 1. 4.5
0 6. 1. 6.
1 5.3 1. 8.3

Minimum 2.8 0. 1.8
Median 3.3 0. 2.
Mean 3. 0. 3.
Maximum 6. 1. 8.3
Page 62 of 66
Little River /J-Bur Streams and Wetlands - Restoralion Plcm Repa9
Moore Counly North Carolina March 2005
APPENDIX F
STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN DATA
Page 63 of 66
• s s
20-Year Western NNIaterslied Peal: Flow Simulation
35
30
25
u '70
0
L
15 .
u
10
5
0
00
v?
0
o,
i
I
20
v
t
C
?. b
n^
y --
r .i C.

20-Year Eastern Watershed Peal: Flow Simulation
8
7
G-
5
c.-
u
o 4
L-
G, 3 _
?i
? ? ? 11 i ? III i ?? ff
? III
0. Ll
00 05 10
Time (yr)
U
O
'I
- yy
R

?0
} r.
y
z
O ?
v ^.
b
a
Little River /J-Bar Streams and Wellands - Restoration Phis Report
Moore Counly North Carolina March 2005
is Channel Shear Stress Analysis
Stream A and Stream B
Flow Width Slope Depth Velocity Stress
Bas Side Shea
cfs (ft) (ft/ft ft (fps) (lb/so
3. 3. 0.5 2.1 0.2
10 3. 3. 0.75 2.55 0.4
0 3. 3. 1.0 3.0 0.5
0 3. 3. 1.2 3.4 0.71
0 3. 3. 1.4 3.6 0.81
Stream C
C
0
Flow Width Slope Depth Velocity Stress
Bas Side Shea
cfs ft ft/ft ft (fps) lb/s
2. 2.5 0.63 2.23 0.35
10 2. 2.5 0.8 2.6 0.4
0 2. 2.5 1.23 3.2 0.68
0 2. 2.5 1.4 3.58 0.8
0 2. 2.5 1.6 3.85 0.93
Page 66 of 66