20041591 Ver 1_Complete File_20040929

off.- ?Sq k

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
April 14, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200400731

APR 2 0 2005
WETLANDS MID STORMWATEER Mr. Todd Miller

North Carolina Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, North Carolina 28570
Dear Mr. Miller:
In accordance with the North Carolina Coastal Federation's complete written request of
September 10, 2004 and the ensuing administrative record, enclosed are two copies of a permit
to impact, both permanently and temporarily, an approximate total of 3.6 acres of Section 404
wetlands and waters and to install a low rock weir structure within Section 10 navigable waters
to facilitate the restoration of approximately 111 acres of prior converted (pc) farmland in Phase
II, located within a +4,000-acre restoration project, known as North River Farms Wetland
Restoration Project, adjacent to Deep Creek and the North River, near Bettie and Otway,
Carteret County, North Carolina.
You should acknowledge that you accept the terms and conditions of the enclosed permit by
signing and dating each copy in the spaces provided ("Permittee" on page 3). Your signature, as
permittee, indicates that, as consideration for the issuance of this permit, you voluntarily accept
and agree to comply with all of the terms and conditions of this permit. All pages of both copies
of the signed permit with drawings should then be returned to this office for final authorization.
A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
After the permit is authorized in this office, the original copy will be returned to you; the
duplicate copy will be permanently retained in this office. Should you have any questions or
comments, please contact Mr. Mickey Sugg, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, at (910) 251-
4811.
Sincerely,
S. Kenneth Jolly
Chief, Regulatory Division
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosures):
North Carolina State University
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
Attn: Mike Burchell
Campus Box 7625
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7625
Mr. Doug Huggett
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
ivision of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Action ID 200400731)
In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1341 (d), all conditions of the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality 401 Certification and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management CAMA
Major Permit are incorporated as part of the Department of the Army permit, and attached for
your convenience. Therefore, they are not listed as special conditions. The following Special
Conditions will be added to the permit.
Work Limits
1) All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
attached plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be
approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
2) Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this
permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land-clearing activities shall take place at any time in
the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not
authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
3) Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land-clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns
within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
Related Laws
4) All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
5) All necessary precautions and measures will be implemented so that any activity will
not kill, injure, capture, pursue, harass, or otherwise harm any protected federally listed species.
While accomplishing the authorized work, if the permittee discovers or observes a damaged or
hurt listed endangered or threatened species, the District Engineer will be immediately notified
so that required coordination can be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
6) This Department of the Army permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal,
State or local authorizations required by law.
Project Maintenance
7) The permittee shall advise the Corps in writing at least two weeks prior to beginning
the work authorized by this permit and again upon completion of the work authorized by this
permit.
8) The contractors name, phone number, and address, including a field contact name and
number, will be submitted to the Wilmington District prior to any work
9) Any fill material placed in waters or wetlands, not generated from within the
authorized project boundaries, must come from an upland source and will be clean and free of
any pollutants except in trace quantities.
10) The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide
each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this
project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be
available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project
11) The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary
to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the
permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the use of logging mats while operating
heavy equipment, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate devices around
all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the immediate
stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additional precautions must be taken to prevent sediment
from entering into adjacent waters and wetlands during the placement of fill material into the
field ditches and while excavating a key slot for the low rock weir and flashboard riser
structures. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A
Article 4).
12) In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for:
a. Damages to the permitted projector uses thereof as a result of other permitted or
unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future
Federal activities initiated on behalf of the general public.
c. Damages to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the
authorized activity.
d. Design and construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
2
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of .
this permit.
13) The.applicant must provide a copy of each annual monitoring report as it is
completed.
Fnfnreement
14) Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
15) A representative of the Corps of Engineers will periodically and randomly inspect the
work for compliance with these conditions. Deviations from these procedures may result in
cessation of work until the problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the Corps:
3
USGS Quadrangle Map
USGS Williston Quadrangle
-, ?'.r"r5• -.,_-?F» . ?" •R ?? ?? `y??:• I ? - a ?I,i r n ? Fr m, yjn, + Y
-s _ w- •-' ' fw-1Y?Ii .i. A _= P - sarx.Mrrs _. r a w
^ ?'h- r .L Tj _G !k.E h -
Phase II Area
r, Ta d ?x ?? n
ZVI,
arl. ?' - A lA.. ? Y •JI-1 C yM .V?. .S'°?r ..
h ? r'+- .s ?•.?? - _`.: ?? s _.,?y? •' -,? Ir .a- -..? ? '.ti r ? ?, ^ ? }-T''`{?4aw,?d,?, '?_?,,. F u +?y? ?',
_p y t
.h i 9 r
v y??y},;, .I. .M Y+ 'a+. a, r•.-_'.=s- , _ ,x L k '?-- "'" ?1.,;. * = r .$-. _ -=rte ?" _ - -'.a- .. 'w
^?-mot Z _ !ry 's. _ ? - - F.' ;: `O ? -S• y ^•" ,_ <'hh.?
,
zt t .,LFx- .?^^ p
f y? rT ?+ls'
------------
R I MOO,
BOWS
.t r•,. .?,w - air -? ?. ., • rt ??. n
nm 6 ?a ?" •, N b r
} . - ,a •' y Woodville 0=6 a '„ u
_x= u n
-4. 4"
07
p n r
r
.01 P
'mow Nr_ . • •
am:
?Tt
%
N
North River `??--
Stream and Wetlands Restoration NCSU
Biological and Agricultural Campus Box 7637
Phase 11 Engineering Raleigh, NC 27695
yew-Deus r?rttoer? xo rns . eeu me cox OH ISjunoo ja.zo-java co
,BuWaun,Kug 7ncnlgnou V Ioafo.zd uoTIs.101seg stuaaj aoAtg 'qj•aoM
",D tvoN zoa SNOIZI INOD -ONUSIX21 .-i
N w
oil
I I I I lip, I I Ilk I I I"
f
JF 772 9
m
3 R 9 y y 3 3 7'.
.? 3 ?• •g r
,a h m 3 ,a 3 .y ..? • 9
?? e •?
A
t•
?, y ? e •3 .7 •y ? ?
a c 3
.a g A a 7 ?` .a
a ? o
3 3 3 .•? .y 9 •' € .
A ,a ,7 ,9 y ?c?
e Y .7 ? 7 . ? X y.
?. y
a W ?
7 .y . a
.011
a 3e r ,a •a a ? 3
? ? .A ? ? •y . A3 •a
3 •a ® i ?a ..
•a
x
7i ^ . . . s . ? . 3
ay . 3 . r
lo ,y q ,a
7? •., A A .a . . . 1
v
I
a 3 a a . ,a
y ? a
16
,a
.a
?. ? ? •x 3 3
3 ?a ?
3 3 7 S A ?
c
3 ,a' a. a
a • ? a •a .a . • a
AAU-V LB VOLL71)M IIMS 'amrrs . A29A X08 AC1li ? YOGI Isjunoo }aaajasz)
Bu4caauIBug jvcnjtnoaa6v jaafoad uot?ioaolsag suia8d aae??I 1qjaoK
PIN
PUD JVOZOOpaag
ns3m L LLo 1( SNOIZIGNOD aasOdO?Id CQ
n
i I +x I o®I I•©®??®??;
JIM! Nif floc
R
1? -I

c:)
%
\?y- \ .t _, f '.'^'_•G'?- 1 h i. .'r Y ++ +4+ } Y+ Y +++++±f F++++
+ + a + n?+ t
+ 1 1 -T
\ \ \ k + + i + + + + + i 4 + 'h i' +
+ 4+ ,
\ \ \ \ y , •,+'` -? •. \. ..} I AFL .r + .4 + T"T .+ F?,'1 q,---= r 1 ) 1
\ \ \ \ \ \ - r ^-4-3a +--r?m•Y° r?€'?: .=:i'"- I - + t -I +?+ i-r-i??r Y. 1 : 1
-'rt_Z w\ 1 t r 1• 1- + + 4 1, + + A+ ? + + + ' + I- + + + + +,
F 1
\ '\ \ \ •.`l?'?\ -qp` + '1. + h+.l. + F i. a1. 1+++4+++ i + x + + + + + It
\ + + + F + + +h r • /
p 4 .1 It
-
\ \ \.` I i + + + +1 ?.
i ++4 F--+ - --
1 i 1 ll + •1? 4 ++
+ + •h + r + i• + +
Yeti ?. r + i• +• + + .
+ +w + aa i. }y + . s ?'?
QP
-f - )I` a
A
Nil
1 6 1 \
Li \
? r
1
r 1
a
r
a ?f
? ? r

_ JOafOaa UOT 18IOIBag BQIIBd JOATH 1qjJ0M a
,6uacaauz,Bug pv.cngynap.4B6'
slivila(I
a
I
'F
a a ? a i a a ?
a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a
a a a -? a a a a a
a a a a a a a a

J
D

W a a a a a a a a a
3 a a a -? a a a a a a
Y a a a a a a a a a
U a a a a a a a a a a

a a a a a a a a a a
'ma'r
O ? ` r
q
7
A
m
Ptt
x

I

Eg o a?
ra
FIE
-fill a
r $
13.
e
8 ctriv?e?a6oio^e?lr^fr d ri ris
I
9 ><
w i
do
?S
? e

4

N
Z
O
F
W
N
W
O
U
w
N
v
?a n
E
All
fill 2
1°E
g? $ jjg
w
e n $ O
E j 2
,dill ae 11 a ° z
Y

w
s
W
o
0-

+r5
a
'
t Y Y ,q?

g
da
i
d ?
r ?
r
k,.
Permit Class
NEW
Permit Number
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
21-05
Coastal Resources Commission
LL mit
for
RECEIVED
FEB 9 - 2005
X Major Development in an Area of Environment T Y
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 1U8L =q . OFQ
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to N.C. Coastal Federation, 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean), Newport, NC 28570
Authorizing development in Carteret County at adi, North River, SW corner of Open
Ground Farms , as requested in the permittee's application dated 9/10/04, including
attached workplan drawings (3) dated 1-3 of 3 all dated 7/04
This permit, issued on February 07, 2005 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Restoration Activities
1) In order to, protect juvenile shrimp and finfish populations, no excavation within any area of Spartina
alterni, flora shall be permitted between March I" and July 31" of any year without the prior approval of
the Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
2) The depth of excavation of all creeks and channels shall not exceed the depth of connecting waters.
3) No excavation or filling sEd f take place at any time in any vegetated wetlands, coastal marsh or
surrounding waters outside of the alignment of the fill area indicated on the workplan drawings.
4) The temporary placement or double handling of fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands is not
authorized.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2008
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Ch S. Jones, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. Signature of Permittee

November 8, 2004
O-v ?pG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek P.E., Director
Uh-_ -SAC 4 Division o? Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Todd Miller
NC Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24
Newport, NC 28570
Dear Mr. Miller:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
ECEdVIED
NOV 0 9 2004
G LTOny
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality
Certification and Additional Conditions
Restore approximately 111 acres of prior
converted cropland to a wetland/stream
system at North River Farms in the
Straits Township
DWQ Project # 041591
Carteret County
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions (WQC # 3400) to
conduct the following activity to your property at North River Farms in the Straits Township,
Carteret County. This approval allows you to:
1. Excavate/grade and fill an 111 acre site for the purpose of wetland restoration resulting
in 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of riparian
freshwater wetlands, 1900' of freshwater streams (Evans Creek), 4577' of tidal creek
(Broome's Branch), and 2118' of tidal fingers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your completed
CAMA application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on September 30, 2004.
After reviewing your application, we have determined that General Water Quality Certification
Number 3400 covers this activity. This Certification can also be found on line at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/certs.html. This Certification allows you to use your CAMA
Permit when the NC Division of Coastal Management issues it. Please keep in mind that there
maybe additional Federal, State or Local regulations applicable to your project, such as (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations and Coastal Stormwater. In addition, this approval will expire when the
accompanying CAMA Permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
N hC l
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper ki co Ind
;Vatzavlly
Page Two
Mr. Todd Miller
NC Coastal Federation
DWQ Project # 041591
November 8, 2004
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your completed
CAMA Major Permit application received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
10, 2004. If you change or modify your project, you must notify the Division (DWQ) in
writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or
in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in
the attached certification and the additional conditions listed below:
1. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to this office and a copy to the 401 Oversight/Express Review
Permitting Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC, 27699-1650;
2. No excavation and no waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands,
waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the CAMA
Major Application. All construction activities, including the design, installation,
operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules
occur. All sediment and erosion control measures shall be removed after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project;
3. In order to ensure that violations of state water quality standards do not occur outside of
the construction area, during the construction of the streams, tidal marshes, tidal fingers
and the filling of ditches, turbidity must be monitored with a turbidity meter at least twice
a day for the stream projects and during any discharge of turbidity into "waters" for the
other areas. The site will need to be inspected after each rain event for discharges as
required by the NCG 010000. A written record of the turbidity monitoring to include the
monitoring site locations and areas of turbidity occurrence. These records need to
include date, time of day, tidal information (if applicable), locations of sites and the
NTUs of each sample. If at any time the turbidity units exceed the 25 NTU water quality
standard (or background level if higher than 25 NTU) work in that area must stop until
conditions are more favorable and this office should also be contacted;
4. Wetland and stream monitoring shall be conducted as described in the project description
included with the project application (based on the Monitoring Plan for NCWRP) and, a
report of the monitoring will be due to this office with two copies to the Central office by
the 15th of December for 5 years after the project is completed.
Please notify this Office at the number listed on the next page if any problem arises
during the construction of the project that may affect water quality.
Page Three
Mr. Todd Miller
NC Coastal Federation
DWQ Project # 041591
November 8, 2004
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-
6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the DWQ Permit #041591 under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Joanne Steenhuis or Noelle Lutheran at
910-395-3900.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Attachments: GC # 3400
Certificate of Completion
NCG 010000
cc: Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office - Henry Wicker
401 Oversite/Express Permitting Unit - Cyndi Karoly
CAMA Morehead - Doug Huggett
CAMA Morehead - Mark Hardeman
NCSU Biological and Ag Engineering - Michael R. Burchell II
WiRO
Permit Class Permit Number
NEW 21-05
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA o ?} -1 Sa k
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
'Vermit
for DENR • WX1I
rt tsv?Fd i li
WETLANDS AND STORM, *i (E'
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to N.C. Coastal Federation, 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean), Newport, NC 28570
Authorizing development in Carteret County at adi, North River, SW corner of Open
Ground Farms , as requested in the permittee's application dated 9/10/04, including
attached workplan drawings (3), dated 1-3 of 3 all dated 7/04
This permit, issued on February 07, 2005 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Restoration Activities
1) In order to protect juvenile shrimp and finfish populations, no excavation within any area of Spartina
alterniflora shall be permitted between March I" and July 31S` of any year without the prior approval of
the Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
2) The depth of excavation of all creeks and channels shall not exceed the depth of connecting waters.
3) No excavation or filling shall take place at any time in any vegetated wetlands, coastal marsh or
surrounding waters outside of the alignment of the fill area indicated on the workplan drawings.
4) The temporary placement or double handling of fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands is not
authorized.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2008
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DENR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Ch S. Jones, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
N.C. Coastal Federation
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Permit #21-05
Page 2 of 3
NOTE: An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be required for this project. If such approval
has yet to be obtained, this plan must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of
any land disturbing activity. Submit this plan to the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Land Quality Section, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405.
5) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to
ensure that eroded materials do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses or properties (e.g. silt fence,
diversion swales or berms, etc.).
Water Quality
6) The N.C. Division of Water Quality approved this project under General Water Quality Certification
No. 3400 (DWQ Project No. 041591), which was issued on 11/8/04. Any violation of the permit
approved by the DWQ shall be considered a violation of this CAMA permit.
7) The permitted activity shall be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside of the area of construction or construction-related discharge. Increases such that the
turbidity in the waterbody is 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes are not considered significant.
General
8) Post-construction monitoring shall be done in accordance with the plan outlined in the project narrative
submitted as a part of the CAMA permit application. Individual monitoring reports shall be submitted
to the Division of Coastal Management within 60 days of the completion of each distinct monitoring
event. Monitoring shall proceed until the permittee receives written concurrence from the Division of
Coastal Management that the site is functioning as expected, and that no additional monitoring events
are necessary.
9) To ensure that no off-site sedimentation occurs, the rock check dams and sediment fences shall be
installed in accordance with the attached workplan drawings.
10) The rock material used for the check dams shall be free from loose dirt or any pollutant, and shall be of a
size sufficient to prevent its movement from the site by wave or current action.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required. Including but not limited to an Individual
Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
NOTE: The permittee is strongly encouraged to stage the construction of the authorized project in such a
manner so that the amount of area undergoing disturbance at any one time is the minimum
necessary.
NOTE: The permittee and/or his contractor is urged to meet with a representative of the Division prior to
project initiation.
N.C. Coastal Federation Permit #21-05
Page 3 of 3
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
NOTE: Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit.
Contact a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any
such activity for this determination. The permittee is further advised that many non-water
dependent activities are not authorized within 30 feet of the normal high water level.
OF WA7F9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
6 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
_co
> r-y Alan W. Klimek P.E., Director
p r Division o{ Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 8, 2004
r=?L?D?IC? p
D
Mr. Todd Miller NOV 1 6 2004
NC Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 DENR - WATER QUALITY
Newport, NC 28570 WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality
Certification and Additional Conditions
Restore approximately 111 acres of prior
converted cropland to a wetland/stream
system at North River Farms in the
Straits Township
DWQ Project # 041591
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Miller:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions (WQC # 3400) to
conduct the following activity to your property at North River Farms in the Straits Township,
Carteret County. This approval allows you to:
1. Excavate/grade and fill an 111 acre site for the purpose of wetland restoration resulting
in 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of riparian
freshwater wetlands, 1900' of freshwater streams (Evans Creek), 4577' of tidal creek
(Broome's Branch), and 2118' of tidal fingers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your completed
CAMA application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on September 30, 2004.
After reviewing your application, we have determined that General Water Quality Certification
Number 3400 covers this activity. This Certification can also be found on line at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/certs.htni1. This Certification allows you to use your CAMA
Permit when the NC Division of Coastal Management issues it. Please keep in mind that there
may be additional Federal, State or Local regulations applicable to your project, such as (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations and Coastal Stormwater. In addition, this approval will expire when the
accompanying CAMA Permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper NofthCarolina
naturally
Page Two
Mr. Todd Miller
NC Coastal Federation
DWQ Project # 041591
November 8, 2004
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your completed
CAMA Major Permit application received by the Division of Coastal Management on September
10, 2004. If you change or modify your project, you must notify the Division (DWQ) in
writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or
in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in
the attached certification and the additional conditions listed below:
1. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to this office and a copy to the 401 Oversight/Express Review
Permitting Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC, 27699-1650;
2. No excavation and no waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands,
waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the CAMA
Major Application. All construction activities, including the design, installation,
operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules
occur.. All sediment and erosion control measures shall be removed after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project;
In order to ensure that violations of state water quality standards do not occur outside of
the construction area, during the construction of the streams, tidal marshes, tidal fingers
and the filling of ditches, turbidity must be monitored with a turbidity meter at least twice
a day for the stream projects and during any discharge of turbidity into "waters" for the
other areas. The site will need to be inspected after each rain event for discharges as
required by the NCG 010000. A written record of the turbidity monitoring to include the
monitoring site locations and areas of turbidity occurrence. These records need to
include date, time of day, tidal information (if applicable), locations of sites and the
NTUs of each sample. If at any time the turbidity units exceed the 25 NTU water quality
standard (or background level if higher than 25 NTU) work in that area must stop until
conditions are more favorable and this office should also be contacted;
4. Wetland and stream monitoring shall be conducted as described in the project description
included with the project application (based on the Monitoring Plan for NCWRP) and, a
report of the monitoring will be due to this office with two copies to the Central office by
the 15th of December for 5 years after the project is completed.
Please notify this Office at the number listed on the next page if any problem arises
during the construction of the project that may affect water quality.
Page Three
Mr. Todd Miller
NC Coastal Federation
DWQ Project # 041591
November 8, 2004
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-
6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the DWQ Permit #041591 under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Joanne Steenhuis or Noelle Lutheran at
910-395-3900.
Sincerely,

Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
x, Division of Water Quality
Attachments: GC # 3400
Certificate of Completion
NCG 010000
cc: Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office - Henry Wicker
401 Oversite/Express Permitting Unit - Cyndi Karoly
CAMA Morehead - Doug Huggett
CAMA Morehead - Mark Hardeman
NCSU Biological and Ag Engineering - Michael R. Burchell II
WiRO
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: J. Steenhuis
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: R Shiver
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLA14D STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NC Coastal Federation : North River Farms County Carteret
Project Number 04 1591 County2
Recvd From DCM Region Wilmington
Received Date 9/29/04 Recvd By Region
Project Type wetland / stream restoration
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
LAMA 4040 Y O N F--F7-1-3 5 -1 SASH rHQW 30,504. 2.50 r
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N Recommendation: 0 Issue (9 Issue/fond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
l M
D
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY O CT 1 8 2004
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers DENR - WA
Post Office Box WETLAJftA10ST0FW
PAWN
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 200400731 October 12, 2004
The North Carolina Coastal Federation, c/o: Todd Miller, 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean),
Newport, North Carolina 28570, at [phone], has applied for a Department of the Army
(DA) Permit to IMPACT, BOTH PERMANENTLY AND TEMPORARILY, AN
APPROXIMATE TOTAL OF 3.6 ACRES OF SECTION 404 WETLANDS AND WATERS
AND TO INSTALL A LOW ROCK, SHEET PILING WEIR STRUCTURE WITHIN SECTION
10 NAVIGABLE WATERS TO FACILITATE THE RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY
111 ACRES OF PRIOR CONVERTED (PC) FARMLAND. The proposed work is Phase H of
the +4,000-acre restoration project, known as North River Farms Wetland Restoration Project,
adjacent to Deep Creek and the North River, near Otway Community, Carteret County, North
Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
field observations made by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. The stated purpose of the
restoration project is to reconvert PC farmland back to jurisdictional wetlands and waters in order
to treat surrounding agricultural drainage within Open Grounds Farm. The restoration is
expected to improve water quality to Deep Creek and the headwaters of the North River by
dissipating energy from storm water, enhancing water storage, and removing, or treating,
nutrients, bacteria, and sediment originating from upstream farmland. Other values expected
from the project are the creation of wildlife habitat, both freshwater and saltwater.
Proposed plan involves the restoration of 111 acres within the 123-acre tract. Restoration
features include 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of
riparian freshwater wetlands, 1,900 feet of freshwater stream, 4,577 feet of tidal creeks, and
2,118 feet of (2) tidal fingers. In order to restore hydrology and to divert water into the tract, the
majority of the interior field ditches will be backfilled to proper grade and two separate water
control structures will be installed. The first control structure will be placed within the main
North-South drainage canal, which is located along the western boundary of the tract, and will be
located approximately 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. At this location, the canal has
a mean water line of 1.1-feet, a mean low of 0.6-feet, and a mean high of 2.6-feet. The water
control weir will consist of a sheet piling being driven down to a 1.0-ft elevation across the canal
and key-holed into the banks of the canal. In order to aid marine life passage, rock riprap will be
placed on both sides of the sheet piling at a proper slope to provide ease in passage. This weir
structure will redirect a portion of the main canal's flow into the western side of the 123-acre
placed on both sides of the sheet piling at a proper slope to provide ease in passage. This weir
structure will redirect a portion of the main canal's flow into the western side of the 123-acre
tract. Along the eastern bank of the canal and approximately 150 north, or upstream, of the weir,
a meandering channel will be excavated into the farmland and will extend approximately 3,277
linear feet in an eastwardly and southerly direction connecting into Deep Creek. This channel,
known as Broome's Branch, is a proposed tidal creek, classifying mostly as a Priority II
restoration, and will contain a coastal marsh floodplain totaling approximately 300 feet wide.
The second water control structure will comprise of a flashboard riser along the roadside
ditch bordering the northern boundary of the project site. This riser structure is located
approximately 225 feet east of an existing water control structure, in the northeast corner of the
tract, and will capture and divert water onto the site from the existing sub-main canal, interior
field ditches, and farmland on Open Ground Farms. Water diverted through this riser will flow
through a proposed excavated channel known as Evan's Creek. Evan's Creek will meander for
approximately 3,200 linear feet and connect into Broome's Branch, approximately 1,000 feet
north of the confluence with Broome's Branch and Deep Creek. The first 1,900 linear feet of
Evan's Creek will be fresh water with an excavated floodplain averaging 100 feet on either side
of the channel. This section of the stream will involve some Priority I restoration, but is mostly
classified as a Priority II restoration. Around the 1,900 linear foot point, the creek will transition
into a tidal flow and run for approximately 1,300 linear feet before it's confluence with Broome's
Branch. At this intersection, approximately 25 acres of coastal wetlands will be created.
At Broome's/Evan's Creek final reach or confluence with Deep Creek, the project area is
currently a tidally influenced system and there is approximately 1.0 acre of coastal wetlands
where the final reach of Broome's/Evan's Creek will pass through. Several alternatives were
evaluated in order to efficiently manage this environmentally sensitive area, and to reduce
impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The following are the (4) design alternatives, with
Alternative 4 being the preferred option (See attachment for further details). It should be noted
that Alternative 4 is the most expensive alternative, but the applicant proposes that it is the most
stable option with the less long-term environment affects.
1) Alternative 1-Allow overland flow through the marsh area.
2) Alternative 2- Connect stream flow to existing ditch.
3) Alternative 3- Connect stream flow to existing ditch after widening.
4) Alternative 4 (Preferred)- Stable channel construction through existing marsh.
In addition to Broome's and Evan's Creeks, two smaller tidal fingers will be created and
encompass approximately 2,118 linear feet. These tidal fingers will be positioned south of, and
parallel to, Evan's Creek, and will connect to existing tidal interior farm ditches. The excavated
fingers will contain an approximate 200-foot wide floodplain, totaling 10 acres of coastal marsh.
2
Planted vegetation for the tidal brackish areas of Broome's, Evan's, and the two finger
creeks will include the cordgrass spp. (Spartina alterniflora, s. patens, and s. cynosuroides), and
black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) at the lowest and mid-elevations adjacent to and in the
floodplains of the creeks. Along the upper reach of Broome's Creek and in the floodplain
transition areas, dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), groundsel
tree (Baccharis halmifolia), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) will be planted. Bald cypress
(Taxodium disticum), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyoides) will be planted above the transition areas. For the freshwater floodplain of Evan's
Creek, plantings will occur at three elevation points: lowest, mid-, and high elevations. The
lowest elevation will consist of soft stem bulrush (Scirpus validus), three square bulrush (Scirpus
americanus), and arrow arum (Peltandra virginica). Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense) and soft
rush (Juncus effusus) will be planted in the mid-elevations while woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus)
will be established in the highest elevations of the floodplain.
Within the 53 acres of bottomland forest, all non jurisdictional field ditches will be
backfilled and field crowns will be removed. The areas will be planted with swamp blackgum or
tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), and green ash (Fraxinus Pennsylvania). Other design features concentrated in the
restoration of the 53 acres of bottomlands will be the creation of shallow depressions, which
simulate tree falls.
Wetland impacts from this project will mainly occur where the created creeks and fingers
connect to existing ditches and Deep Creek. Approximately 1.1 acre of tidal marsh will be
temporarily impacted, and the majority of these impacts are concentrated at the terminal or
connection points of all created creeks and fingers. Other impacts will be incurred when
floodplains are excavated to convert approximately 2.5 acres of freshwater wetlands to tidal
marsh.
The entire project site will be monitored in the fall for a period of 3-5 years. Post-
construction monitoring will determine the success of the wetland restoration, the stability of the
created creeks, and the evaluation of water quality improvements and stream health.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this determination to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for their review and concurrence. This proposal
shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina General Statute 113-
3
229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned submerged land
under North Carolina General Statute 143-341 (4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-12 by the North
Carolina Department of Administration and the North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land Quality
Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant to the State
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any required State or
local authorization and/or certification are denied. No DA permit will be issued until a State
coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are
encouraged to furnish comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly
to the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The District Engineer's initial
determination is that the proposed project would not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity
will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public
interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be
balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a
4
concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects of it. Among those
are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural
values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (according to Executive
Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized would not comply with the
Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and
any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to decide whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such
materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260, on or before
October 22, 2004, Attention: Mr. John Domey.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Attention: Mickey T. Sugg, until 4:15 p.m., November 10, 2004. Question can be
directed to Mr. Sugg at [phone], Wilmington Regulatory Field Office.
5
DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The area northeast of North River, near Beaufort, North Carolina has been extensively
drained and converted to cropland. This cropland is in close proximity to North River and
its tributaries, and it is in close proximity to sensitive estuarine environments. Shellfish
harvesting in North River and the surrounding estuaries (Bogue and Core Sounds) is
restricted due water quality problems. This is primarily due to fecal contamination, but
nonpoint source nutrient and sediment pollution has also contributed to water quality
concerns and degradation of shellfish and juvenile fish habitat.
In an effort to improve the water quality in North River and other surrounding sensitive
bodies of water, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) was awarded a grant
from. the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to purchase over 4000 acres of North
River Farms. An additional 2000 acres of that farm has been purchased by other entities.
Through this acquisition, the farmland will be removed from agricultural production and
converted back to wetlands, which were once thought to thrive there. The expectation is
that removing this land from agricultural production and subsequently converting it back
to its historical state will improve the quality of the waters downstream of the farm.
To date, 250 acres of the farm have been restored to wetlands in Phase I of this effort.
While the Phase I restoration is important to water quality and habitat restoration, it does
not directly address the potential problems associated with drainage water originating
from neighboring Open Grounds Farms (OGF) to the north. Agricultural drainage from
OGF is conveyed by large drainage canals through North River Farms and into Deep
Creek, a tributary of North River.
2.0 LOCATION INFORMATION
The site is located at North River Farms, a 6000+ acre farm in Carteret County, North
Carolina. This site was drained and cleared for intense agricultural. production during the
1970s.The NCCF recently purchased a portion of the farm (over 4000 acres) through a
grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The NCCF is
pursuing phased stream and wetland restoration opportunities throughout the property
during the next 10 years. Projects on the site are being implemented and funded through a
variety of private and public sources. A parcel of artificially drained farmland,
approximately 123 acres, is available for this phase of the restoration, known as Phase II.
The site is located in the White Oak river basin, DWQ subbasin 03-05-04. The North
River is listed as a Shellfish Area (SA) and a High Quality Water (HQW). The site can be
found on the Williston USGS Quadrangle. Figure 1 is a general location map for the site
and Figure 2 indicates the site location on the USGS Quad Map.
Location Map
Phase II
Enhancement Area
SR1163
Phase II
Main Site
Open Grounds Farms
US-70
SR1300
N
North River
Stream and Wetlands Restoration
Phase II

NCSU
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering
Campus Box 7637
Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone; 919.515.2675
USGS Quadrangle Map
• 1 ?, c b
USGS Williston Quadrangle
410-4
12
-+•?,-µ^- w `?rr?:.?,a a ,r,. ah.i' -.." _ - -- 't? rd
Phase II Area
_ - _ ? ...h '?'•r-+,?- a ,. ? ? '•i^ ? "'?r"t:;?? '"•?,'r?S °. Y°"
•,?1=.? _ r: v? • ? '1.. A -.r,. .ry' ?, ? ? - _".ri, _ „y,'. -f5-• -Y:,... rl' ??•:?t??. .r; t,? ?.-r,?P'.,r?.-M ?,?
?? A ?' ?Jlv .i??.,#?..`."°.? ?•,rL- ? ? ., n .y * .?.xF .i-` '«`^' +?''{9 ?l?•'n?b. ? ;? ;d
•' a ?=? -?-y a^?i '?'? ._ ,a„ - :?- ,?, - ?"¢ ` .:.`?- .r?- _ ? ?L. ~ •,?r• ? d?-?7- w ??- ,? - y ' ? rL ° J?'.`' '???'; ?'??' gyn.. f. ? ? ( . ?
AS-
.r ,
f•'.? - !4. •; ?l. y,_ ? ? ? ?4^ .b? ? r ?!_' ?yy, d. R ''??{ ,_? +'•u?.? ?"S .K J. • .. ?.
I
s M ? Q
My^, -i'
4:- 4
11
k' v
,I
?? 7{ rFr, ? t ? +'I r
.k - ors t Y -
E
Bowe
1[ ° MS. `"yz ! "11',;x. s ••" y • '' n 4:
y° ,Z-? iy A'? 1?? ?.wVUV•+IMRlCZI 4 ayp
Jh - "'?.,-??° s'4. Lys ? ;S.`M,?. NN • 4? ?? ? /? .
_-_?? ,?,.°.!.- 1 5 fit, ? • • • .sR+;4!?,iyi •,
• ?? ,n-'' p 6 p4 • • . BMW 9
04
N
North River wcsu
Stream and Wetlands Restoration Biological and Agricultural Campus Box 7637
Phase 11 Engineering Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone: [phone]
The main entrance to North River Farms is located on US-70 in Carteret County. Travel
east on US-70 from New Bern into Havelock. Turn left onto NC-101 in Havelock.
Follow NC-101 for approximately 15 miles and turn left onto SRI 163 (Laurel Road).
Follow SRI 163 until it ends and turn right onto SRI 300 (Merrimon Road). Travel
approximately 2 miles and turn left onto US-70. Cross over North River and Ward's
Creek, through the town of Otway, and past SRI 332 (Harkers Island Road) before
reaching the entrance to the farm on the left. The farm is marked with a yellow "North
River Farms" sign and has a gate that requires a key.
3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase II of this project will restore approximately 111 acres of North River Farms
between the southeastern corner of OGF and Deep 'Creek to a system including tidal
marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian wetland, and hardwood wetland. The site currently
consists almost entirely of artificially drained farm fields that were recently in
agricultural production. The main Phase II area is bordered to the west by a major
drainage canal that carries water from the Phase I site and from OGF. The northern
boundary of the Phase U site is formed by a dirt road and drainage ditch, which provide
access to the Phase I and Phase II areas. The southern boundary consists of drainage
ditches and canals, which collect drainage from various parts of the site. The eastern
boundary of the Phase H site is formed by a block of the Phase I restoration (bottomland
hardwood wetland) and a roadside ditch (see Sheet 1 of 3 - Existing Conditions).
The Phase II area is generally flat with some field crowning to promote surface drainage.
The highest elevation exceeds 8 feet near the northeastern corner. The lowest elevations,
around 2.6 feet, exist in the southernmost region and in the northwest corner near the
main north-south canal draining from OGF. The majority of the site is between 3.5 and
4.5 feet in elevation. Standard field ditches (-80 cm deep) transect the site from north to
south at 100-meter intervals. A total of nine field ditches drain the Phase II area.
Field surface water (ditches) and field groundwater exhibit some tidal influence and
brackish marsh and shrub/scrub vegetation can be found growing along the ditch banks.
Several areas along the southern border of the Phase II area were abandoned from
agricultural production due to field wetness, unacceptable frequency of flooding, or tidal
influence problems (brackish water flooding crops). A large area in the southeast portion
of the site has developed as a transitional shrub/scrub marsh and several areas are well
populated with pines. Several areas of lower elevation in the southern areas of the Phase
II site are currently well populated with brackish marsh vegetation. These lower areas of
brackish marsh result from the low elevation and close proximity to tidally influenced
drainage ditches (influenced by Deep Creek.). Background monitoring in the tidally
influenced drainage canals and ditches has indicated a mean water level of 1.1 ft
elevation.
This wetland restoration design is unique in that it combines bottomland hardwood
wetlands with a tidal creek and a freshwater stream. Restoration features will include 53
4
acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of riparian
freshwater wetlands, 1900 R of freshwater stream (Evans' Creek), 4577 ft of tidal creek
(Broome's Branch), and 2118 ft of tidal fingers. The design creates an enhanced stream
and wetland corridor for treating agricultural drainage. A portion of drainage water from
OGF, currently transported by a network of ditches and canals, will be diverted across the
available landscape into a system of restored streams designed to include significant
floodplain wetlands. The riparian area will include depressions, vegetation, and woody
debris that can dissipate energy,. enhance water storage, and create habitat. Surface and
subsurface drainage will be re-connected in the landscape. The restored system will
convey drainage water across the land area to the natural drainage system downstream,
dampening peak discharge and offering treatment of the runoff (nutrients, sediment, and
bacteria) before it reaches the estuary.
The 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest will be constructed using techniques that
were successful in the Phase I wetland restoration. These areas, located outside of the
stream corridor and riparian floodplains, will provide additional habitat diversity and
water storage. Field ditches will be filled in the areas outside of any jurisdictional
wetlands (rather than just plugged as in Phase I), field crowns will be removed, and trees
will be planted in. these areas. As in Phase I, shallow depressions (which may develop
into small open water areas). and simulated treefalls will be constructed.
The stream component of this wetland restoration will form the cornerstone of the
project. The stream systems are designed to transport agricultural drainage water from
neighboring farmland through the North River wetland system, instead of through an
existing drainage canal that empties directly into Deep Creek. The locations of these
streams are based on historical aerial photography. Dimension, pattern, and profile of the
streams are based on reference stream reaches near the site. DRAINMOD and HEC-RAS
modeling was used to estimate drainage expected from OGF and subsequent flow
through the proposed streams. Impacts on OGF farming operations were also quantified
using HEC-RAS modeling. The stream design will include an extensive riparian wetland
system (tidal and freshwater). During high flow events the wetland system will provide
water storage and nutrient, sediment and bacterial treatment of drainage before it flows to
sensitive shellfishing waters of North River.
Evans' Creek will transport fresh drainage water from a sub-main canal from OGF
southwest and will connect with the tidally influenced Broome's Branch. Drainage water
will flow through a new flashboard riser installed in the sub-main canal east of an
existing structure. Areas 100 ft on either side of the stream will be excavated to serve as
a floodplain. This portion of the project will involve some Priority II restoration, but will
mostly be classified as Priority I. The floodplain of the upper 1900 ft reach of the stream
will consist of freshwater riparian wetlands. During large rainfall events, water will
overflow the banks of Evans' Creek into the riparian area, increasing the potential of
reducing nutrient, sediment, and bacteria. This freshwater system will transition to a tidal
system as it nears Broome's Branch. The riparian area associated with all tidal streams is
tidal marsh.
Broome's Branch will be connected to the main North-South drainage canal flowing from
OGF. A low rock weir will be installed in the existing canal to divert water into
Broome's Branch. This structure is essential to raise the elevation of the water in the
canal during low-flow conditions to elevations that will allow water to enter Broome's
Branch. Extensive HEC-RAS modeling has indicated that installation of the weir at 1.0 ft
elevation will minimally reduce drainage from OGF at low flow conditions. At higher
flows, drainage capacity for OGF will increase, because Broome's Branch will act as an
additional drainage outlet. The low rock weir structure will be constructed of sheet pile,
with a rock ramp on either side. This rock will support the sheetpile and ease passage of
shellfish and anadromous fish. Additionally, Broome's Branch will serve as an
alternative passageway and habitat for migrating species. Most of Broome's Branch will
be classified as Priority II restoration. This type of restoration involves reconnecting the
stream to a floodplain at a new elevation. Near Deep Creek, however, no floodplain
excavation will be necessary due to low surface elevations, and therefore Broome's
Branch will utilize Priority I restoration in this area. Elevations of the stream channel and
the floodplain in the Broome's Branch system will be lower than the upper reaches of
Evans' Creek since it is designed as a tidal system that supports brackish marsh
vegetation. Approximately 25 acres of tidal marsh will be created near Broome's Branch
and the lower reach of Evans' Creek. Several hummocks will also be constructed in'the
tidal marsh to more accurately represent tidal marshes in Carteret County.
Two tidal fingers will also be constructed east of the stream systems. Both of these
connect to tidally influenced ditches, and divert tidal water into areas that will be lowered
to < 3.0 ft elevation. This will create an additional 10 acres of tidal marsh, a very valuable
ecosystem in this landscape setting.
The site is currently being monitored for background water quality and hydrology data.
4.0 WETLAND AREA DISTURBED
This project will substantially increase the area of brackish marsh and freshwater
wetlands. Most of the areas that will be created require no disturbance of existing
freshwater wetlands or tidal marsh. However, the project calls for conversion of 2.5
acres of freshwater wetlands covered by Section 404 to tidal marsh and temporary
impacts to 1.1 acres of CAMA marsh.
All freshwater wetland conversions are in an effort to connect proposed tidal marshes to
existing CAMA tidal marsh. These areas include (see Sheet 2 of 3 - Proposed
Conditions):
1. The southern riparian area along the first 800 ft of Broome's Branch
2. East of ditch 3 near the convergence of Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek
3. Along Broome's Branch between station 2700-3100 ft
4. Near the tidal fingers
Due to tidal influence, ditches 1-5 support small areas of tidal marsh. They support
vegetation such as saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina
6
patens), but there are also areas of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and saltmarsh
bulrush (Scirpus robustus). These areas are isolated from the prior-converted farmlands
by ridges with elevations between 6-18 inches higher. These ridges support shrub-scrub
vegetation communities. By lowering the elevation of these freshwater wetland areas, the
existing CAMA marsh could be connected to the proposed tidal marsh. This will create a
more stable ecosystem and increase acreage of tidal marsh created. These tidal marshes
are more important ecologically in this watershed than the non-tidal wetlands, due to the
proximity of the Phase H restoration site to the estuary. These areas will potentially
support larger populations of shellfish and juvenile finfish, which are important to the
health of the estuary and to the fisheries population. No net loss of wetlands will occur
during this conversion.
The 1.1 acres of CAMA wetland disturbance will be temporary and will occur during
construction of the lower sections of Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek and the tidal
fingers. The most significant area is near where Broome's Branch joins Deep Creek. An
alternatives analysis was performed to evaluate whether encroachment into this CAMA
marsh was necessary. The final 300-400 feet of the designed stream corridor passes
through a small tidal marsh area as it joins Deep Creek In this area, elevations are
between 1.8 and 2.5 ft. Marsh vegetation such as Spartina patens, Spartina alternaflora,
Juncus roemerianus, Scirpus robustus, and Distichlis spicata have been observed in an
area of approximately 1 acre that the final reach of the designed stream must pass
through. This area is tidally inundated daily because Deep Creek is connected with an
existing farm drainage ditch that borders this area to the east. The following are three
design alternatives for managing this sensitive environmental area, including the
proposed design (Alternative 4).
Alternative 1- Allow overland flow through the marsh area
This alternative would allow the combined flows of Evans' Creek and Broome's
Branch to flow overland for 300 ft through the existing marsh to Deep Creek. This
would be the most inexpensive option and would have the least initial impact on the
marsh area. The combined flow would form a series of natural channels through the area
as it progresses towards Deep Creek and produce additional sediment load to Deep
Creek. Surveys of the existing marsh area revealed several deep head-cuts from existing
overland flow around the marsh, demonstrating the production of excessive sediment and
vegetative loss that these cuts produce. In addition, the final reach of the design stream
would not immediately be connected with Deep Creek, and therefore could not serve to
transport brackish water upstream to support tidal marsh vegetation or allow passage of
fmfsh and shellfish.
Alternative 2 - Connect stream flow to existing ditch
Alternative 2 would connect the combined flows of Evans' Creek and Broome's
Branch to an existing field ditch on the eastern side of the marsh (Ditch 4), which is
currently connected to Deep Creek. The flow .would bypass the marsh before emptying
into Deep Creek. The field ditch is narrower than the channel proposed to convey the
combined flow from Open Grounds Farm. This is also an inexpensive alternative, but
excessive scour and bank erosion would be probable with this ditch's current dimensions.
7
An unstable canal or stream can be a source of sediment and particulate phosphorus.
House (House and Warwick, 1998) reported within-reach particulate phosphorus gains,
attributed to bank erosion and surface runoff from adjacent land. In addition, the ditch is
restricted to regular flooding only on the west side into the current marsh area; excavated
material from the ditch construction/maintenance is piled to an elevation of
approximately 4 ft on the eastern side. This limits the extent of tidal marsh development
and also increases the potential for the higher, eastern bank to undercut, producing
sediment. As the ditch receives additional flow, it will attempt to achieve a stable channel
form, which is sinuous rather than linear. As sinuosity develops, the ditch will most
likely cut into the marsh, resulting in additional sediment loss to Deep Creek.
Alternative 3 - Connect stream flow to existing ditch after widening
. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, but the ditch would be widened to
accommodate additional flow from Evans' Creek and Broome's Branch. Widening the.
ditch with a backhoe would require stockpiling of vegetation for replanting after
construction of this section. However, even the widened section of existing ditch would
begin to achieve stability by becoming more sinuous, and thus encroaching into the
marsh. This would result in long-term sediment loss. similar to that in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 - Stable channel construction through existing marsh
The design calls for the stream to be constructed with a sinuous pattern through
300 ft of marsh area before it connects with Deep Creek. Prior to construction, marsh
vegetation growing on areas to be disturbed will be harvested and stockpiled in a nearby.
moist area. Channel excavation will be managed. to minimize impacts to the existing
marsh. Channel excavation will begin on the downstream side near Deep Creek, and
progress northward out of the marsh area. Logging mats will facilitate transportation of
heavy equipment. Excavated material will be transported from the marsh along the same
path as the channel cut, to minimize disturbance. Following channel construction, the
banks will be stabilized with erosion control mats and root wads and the stockpiled marsh
vegetation will be planted on the channel edge immediately.
The result will be a stable stream section with access to a floodplain on both sides
rather than one side. Currently, the ditch is restricted on its eastern side by excavated
ditch material, and regular flooding only occurs on the west side of the ditch. By
implementing the proposed design, the tidal stream will moved further west into the
center of the marsh, increasing the potential for a greater area to be regularly inundated
with brackish water. This increased area alone will mitigate the initial loss of marsh due
to channel construction. More importantly, the stream section designed through the
marsh will also be more stable and resistant to sediment loss than if the water from
Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek are left to overland flow through the marsh, or if
they are connected to the existing ditch bordering the marsh.
Construction of the tidal fingers that will transport brackish water into new areas within
the Phase II restoration area will also require temporary CAMA marsh impacts in the
areas where they will be connected to the tidally influenced ditches. Construction
methods will be similar to those described as Broome's Branch connects with Deep
Creek (Alternative 4).
No net loss of CAMA wetlands will occur. Any loss would be easily mitigated by the
acreage of CAMA marsh created with this design.
5.0 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN
From Carteret County soils map (NRCS), the following soils are present on the Phase II
restoration site (Figure 3):
Deloss (De)
The predominate soil series in the proposed Phase II restoration site is the Deloss
fine sandy loam. This soil series extends through the central sections of the restoration
site. The Deloss series are very poorly drained soils typically found in low marine and
stream terraces. The Deloss soil is used mainly as woodland. Typical tree species
include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine (Pinus serotina), water oak (Quercus
nigra), willow oak.(Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), red
maple (Acer rubrum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipfera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua), and baldcypress (Taxodium distichum)
are dominant. In depressional areas where water ponds, the hardwoods are dominant.
Trees grow well, but wetness increases seedling mortality. Common understory plants
include redbay (Persea borbonia), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana),
bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), Virginia chainfem (Woodwardia virginica),
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison-ivy (Rhus radicans), sweetleaf
(Symplocos tinctoria), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), honeysuckle
(Lonicera sp.), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Leon (Ln)
Areas the eastern and westernmost sections of the site include Leon sand, which is
poorly drained. It is typically found in low ridges, flats and upland depressional areas, as
well as in low marine terraces and on islands. As the Deloss soil, the Leon soils are used
primarily for woodland. Loblolly (Pinus taeda), longleaf (Pinus palustris), and pond
pine (Pinus serotina) are dominant. However, scattered water oak (Quercus nigra),
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum) can also be found growing on
this soil. Common understory plants are threeawn grass (Aristida sp.), blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), bitter
gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), turkey oak (Quercus laevis),
redbay (Persea borbonia) and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana).
Tomotley (Tm)
The Northeastern portion of the proposed restoration site consists of Tomotley
fine sandy loam, a poorly drained soil typically located on broad flats and in depressions
9
in low marine and stream terraces. In woodland areas predominant tree species are
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Typical understory species include redbay (Persea
borbonia), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea),
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), huckleberry (Gaylussacia
sp.), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), blueberry (Yaccinium sp.), Virginia chainfern
(Woodwardia virginica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison-ivy (Rhus
radicans), sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Hoboken muck (BE)
The extreme south central portion of the proposed Phase II restoration site, near
Deep Creek, is comprised of Hoboken muck. This soil is very poorly drained, is located
in marshes adjacent to rivers, creeks, sounds, and bays in Carteret County. Its elevation
is :generally less than 2 ft, so it is frequently flooded. Native vegetation is adapted to
extreme wetness, periodic flooding, and salt exposure. Common plants include black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), big cordgrass (Spartina cynsuroides), sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicense), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), eastern baccharis (Baccharis
halimifolia), seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus
robustus), glasswort (Salicornia sp.), marshelder (Iva frutescens), Atlantic-white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), and saltwort (Batis maritime).
The following-are a list of herbaceous and woody vegetation that are to be planted in the
bottomland hardwood wetland, the freshwater riparian wetlands, and the brackish marsh.
Herbaceous vegetation will be planted on 3 ft x 3 ft spacing, while trees will be planted at
435 stems/acre.
10
The following species of vegetation are proposed along Broome's Branch and in the
lower reach of Evans' Creek:
Brackish Marsh (salinity 0.5 to 18 ppt)
Elevation Species
Lowest elevation adjacent to stream
Mid elevation
High marsh
Occasional shrubs
Trees
Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass)
Juncus roemerianus (black needle rush)
Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass)
Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass)
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle)
Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel tree)
Hibiscus moscheutos (rose mallow)
Sabal minor (palmetto)
Taxodium disticum (bald cypress)
Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo)
Chamaecyparis thyoides (Atlantic white
cedar)
12
The following species of vegetation are proposed along the upper reaches of Evans'
Creek:
Freshwater Marsh (salinity < 0.5 ypt)
Elevation Species
Lowest elevation Scirpus validus (soft stem bulrush)
Scirpus americanus (three square)
Peltandra virginica (arrow arum)
Mid elevation Cladium jamaicense (saw grass)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
High elevation
Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass)
Shrubs and trees Same as brackish marsh with additional tree
species such as
Nyssa sylvatica (swamp blackgum or tupelo)
Quercus lyrata (overcup oak)
Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
13
The following tree species are suggested for the bottomland hardwood/swamp wetland
areas:
Taxodium disticum (bald cypress), Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo), Nyssa sylvatica
(swamp blackgum or tupelo), Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) Quercus michauxii (swamp
chestnut oak) Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Quercus nigra (water oak), Quercus
pagoda (cherry bark oak), Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak), Persea palustris (swamp bay),
Pinus palustris (longleaf pine).
6.0 POST CONSTRUCTION MONIOTRING
Post construction monitoring will consist of three areas:
1. Success of wetland restoration
2. Stream stability
3. Evaluation of water quality improvements and stream health
A monitoring procedure has been developed based on the document "Draft Vegetation
Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration Projects"
provided by the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). This plan will
meet the requirements for determining the mitigation success of the Phase H restoration.
The plan for this site includes components for monitoring the restored stream reaches and
wetland areas. Initial inspections of the site should commence immediately following
construction and planting completion and occur regularly until the full monitoring plan
can be implemented. The full monitoring regimen should begin in the fall of the year and
should be repeated each year for 3-5 years. Visual inspection of the site should occur at
least once per year in addition to the full monitoring visit. A Monitoring Report should be
published and updated annually. The report should include the results of collected data,
the status of the site for meeting the site success criteria, and any suggestions for
mitigating areas not meeting requirements.
Further monitoring will be implemented by NCSU for research purposes. This
monitoring will involve a detailed investigation of water quality, hydrology, hydraulics,
soils, and vegetation in the Phase H area. Research activities will involve regular visits to
the site by university students and faculty.
6.1 Wetland Monitoring
As described in the "Draft Vegetation Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and
Wetland Restoration Projects" document, plots are proposed for recording vegetation
density and survivability in the restored freshwater wetland areas. Plots are proposed in
various areas to represent the range of conditions and treatments. The total number of
plots will be determined based on the final planting and community plan for the site. The
plots in freshwater wetland areas will be 10 meters x 10 meters, with nested plots of 5
meters x 5 meters and 1 meter x 1 meter. All trees will be counted, identified, and
14
measured for diameter breast height (dbh) throughout the entire plot. Shrub data will be
recorded in the nested 5-meter plot and herbaceous material estimated in the 1-meter plot.
Although plots cannot be set up in every area of the site, the entire site should be visited
to make observations on the health and development of various areas.
Also as described in the NCWRP Monitoring Plan, transects are proposed for vegetative
monitoring in brackish marsh areas. Transects will be positioned perpendicular to the
tidal creek (Broome's Branch) and will continue up slope to the freshwater wetland areas
or the borders of the site. Plots will be located along the transect for stem counts and
survival of marsh species. The plots will be 1 meter x 1 meter and all species will be
counted within each plot. A range and estimate of stem heights will also be recorded. The
exact number of transects and plots in each transect will be determined based on the final
planting plan for the site. It is estimated that at least one transect will be located on each
side of the tidal creek at an interval less than 1000 feet. Each transect will likely have at
least three plots in the lower marsh and at least one in upper marsh areas.
Further wetland monitoring will be completed to support research efforts at the site.
Detailed research will include the investigation of hydrologic and soil response to the
restoration activities. Background water table data has been collected since March of
2003. ' If needed, water table information from these same wells may be analyzed to
determine if hydrologic criteria for wetlands is satisfied after construction. Because this
site is located in the temperate coastal plain, soil temperature data may be needed to
augment growing season determination at the site. Other potential research investigations
are being developed and may be implemented at the site.
6.2 Stream Monitoring
The stream monitoring setup will also be designed based on the NCWRP Monitoring
Plan guidance. The proposed plan includes locating permanent cross sections at regular
intervals along all sections of restored stream on the site. The cross sections will be
surveyed annually to determine if any dimensional adjustments are occurring. Where
possible, cross sections will be targeted to assess the progression of geomorphic features.
The annual survey will also include acquisition of longitudinal profile and pattern data to
further assess the stability of the stream reaches. Vegetation surveys will also be
conducted on the bank and in riparian areas.
Photographic reference points should be installed in the stream and wetland areas of the
site. Comparing photos taken during each monitoring visit will provide a visual record of
site development. Other photographs should record any areas of concern throughout the
site. These photos will help determine the extent of any problems and identify potential
corrective actions.
6.3 Water Quality Enhancement
One of the goals for this restoration is to enhance the water quality of Deep Creek and
ultimately North River. Therefore, water, quality in Broome's Branch, Evans Creek, and
15
Deep Creek will be monitored. Flow and water quality will be monitored upstream and
downstream in both Broome's Creek and Evans' Creek before they converge and flow
into Deep Creek. Additionally, flow and water quality will be monitored as the
constructed stream system enters Deep Creek. Flow and water quality have been
measured in the main canal from Open Grounds Farm that flows into Deep Creek since
March 2003, and will continue after the Phase II restoration. This sampling scheme will
provide information into water quality enhancement as a result of wetland/stream
restoration.
Automatic water samplers will be used to collect samples, which will be analyzed for
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment. A percentage of the samples will be used for fecal
coliform bacteria counts. Flow measuring devices will be employed at these sampling
stations to help determine the contaminant loads entering and exiting the restoration site.
In addition, macroinvertebrate surveys may be employed to evaluate how long it takes the
new streams to accumulate these organisms.
7.0 EXPECTED RESULTS
The Phase II restoration has been designed to reduce nutrient, sediment, and bacterial
loads entering North River. To estimate and compare the total nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction/attenuation that may occur by routing the'predicted portions of OGF drainage
water through the proposed streams, first the background water quality data collected on
the site was reviewed. Automatic water samplers collect daily samples during low tide at
the location where Broome's Branch will begin (on the main North-South canal), and at
the outlet of the reference wetland.
Reviewing the available water quality data from February 2003 - February 2004 reveals
that the drainage water that will be routed through Broome's Branch contains elevated
nitrogen concentrations compared to the nitrogen concentrations monitored at the
reference wetland outlet. The mean nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and total nitrogen (TN =
TKN+NO3-N) concentrations were 0.3 and 2.6 mg/L respectively, in the main canal. The
mean NO3-N and TN concentrations. for the same time period were only 0.04 and 1.3
mg/L at the reference wetland outlet.
Reviewing the background data also reveals that the drainage water that will be routed
through Broome's Branch contains elevated phosphorus concentrations compared to the
phosphorus concentrations monitored at the reference wetland outlet. The mean total
phosphorus (TP) concentration from Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2004 was 0.4 mg/L in the main
canal and only 0.1 mg/L at the reference outlet. Similarly average suspended solids (SS),
or sediment concentration was 70.6 mg/L over Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2004 and only 16.1
mg/L for the same time period at the reference outlet.
Literature was reviewed to determine the amount of nutrient and sediment reduction that
could be expected as drainage travels through a drainage canal versus when drainage
travels through the proposed stream and wetland system. There is a large range of
16
nutrient/sediment reductions (or increases) reported and results vary due to location,
drainage characteristics, seasons, years, variability in distribution of inflows, etc.
Findings from literature review:
• In a dissertation literature review, it was reported that nitrogen retention in
agricultural streams and canals can range from 5-60% of the gross load (Birgand,
2000). Over 14 months, Birgand measured 3% retention of TN, 10% retention of
TP, and 10% of TSS in an agricultural canal (1125 meters long) in the coastal
plain of NC.
• A Maryland study (Jordan et al., 2003) of a restored wetland receiving highly
variable amounts of agricultural drainage (ag area:wetland area = 10.8:1) found
annual removal of nutrients to vary each year of the 2 year study. During the first
year, 59% of TP and 38% of TN was removed. During the second year, no
significant removal of TN or TP was measured. Over the entire study, the
wetland removed 52% of N03, but no significant removal of sediment or other
forms of N or P was measured.
• Two New Zealand constructed wetlands (1-2% of drainage area) received
subsurface drainage from grazed pasture land and were effective at removing
nutrients (Tanner et al., 2003). For the 2 sites, 56 and 33% of TN was reduced
through each site, respectively. A 3-month evaluation reported a 78% N03
reduction, -a 96% TN reduction, and an 80% DRP (dissolved reactive phosphorus)
based on a mass balance for one of the wetlands.
• In Illinois, constructed wetlands receiving tile drainage reduced overall N03 load
to downstream surface waters by -38% in a 3 yr study (Kovacic et al., 2000):
These wetlands were not shown to be a significant source or sink of P.
• Additionally, a riparian buffer acts as a filter for removing sediment/particulate
and sediment-bound nutrients (particularly phosphorus, P) from surface runoff
moving across them (Daniels and Gilliam, 1996; Gilliam et al., 1999).
• Osborne and Kovacic (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993) summarized results from a
variety of riparian buffer studies, citing the buffers' ability to remove 50-85% of
total P, on a long-term basis.
The mean nutrient and sediment concentrations for the current MD01 record (location
where Broome's Branch will begin) were used to estimate load inputs for Broome's
Branch, Evans' Creek, and the existing canals. Using BEC-RAS predictions for the
distribution of flows between existing and proposed streams and the nutrient and
sediment concentrations listed above, nutrient and sediment loads were estimated for
each theoretical storm, for each stream or canal.
The performance of the proposed system was evaluated for this application in a general
way - based on percent reductions in load. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention
in drainage canals are those from research in eastern North Carolina (Birgand, 2000).
Birgand (2000), measured 3% reduction in TN, 10% reduction in TP, and 10% reduction
in sediment over 14 months. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention expected in the
proposed stream/wetland system are conservative estimates based on other literature
reviewed. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention in the stream/wetland system are
17
30% retention of TN, N03, TP, and sediment. These estimates were used to compare the
treatment of nutrients and sediment by the existing conditions (i.e. drainage water
flowing through the canal system to Deep Creek) and the proposed system (i.e. existing
canals plus proposed streams/wetland). These percentages were used to reduce the
estimated mass load (kg) of nutrient or sediment for each reach and a mass load reduction
per storm was calculated for each reach.
To estimate the flow needed to calculate nutrient and sediment removal for the existing
and proposed conditions, a network including the existing drainage canals and the
proposed stream system was produced for hydraulic analysis using HEC-RAS. A series
of steady flow analyses were used to predict the proportion of flow that will be diverted
into each proposed stream for the 2-, 5-, and 10-yr theoretical storm hydrographs.
Modeling and predictions will continue in order to quantify these influences on the
proposed system's ability to treat nutrients and sediment. Ultimately, the proposed
system will be evaluated based on longterm drainage inflows estimated using
DRAE\ MOD (Skaggs, 1980).
Based on the stream dimensions, slope, and structures designed to divert the drainage
water, the HEC-RAS model predicts Broome's Branch will carry 16% of the 2-yr storm,
17% of the 5-yr storm, and 21% of the 10-yr storm. The model also predicts Evans'
Creek will carry 60% of the 2-yr storm, 48% of the 5-yr storm, and 43% of the 10-yr
storm.
Table 1. Percentage values used to estimate overall reduction in gross nutrient and
sediment load for each canal/stream (same values used for all storm sizes).
Reduction percentages used same for all design storms that were evaluated
TN Reduction N03-N Reduction TP Reduction SS Reduction
Main Canal, Existing Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Main..Canal, Proposed Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Broome's Branch, Proposed Conditions 30% 30% 30% 30%
East-West Canal, Existing Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
East-West, Proposed Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Evans' Creek, Proposed Conditions 30% 30% 30% 30%
Nutrient loads in and out of the existing canals and the proposed system were calculated.
In order to summarize the amount of nutrient or sediment treated by the existing canals
compared to the proposed system, percent change in mass load was calculated. The
following calculation was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for
Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek separately.
In all instances, the proposed conditions (existing canals, plus proposed streams) result in
lower sediment or nutrient exported downstream in the outflow. To quantify the
difference in load reduction due to the proposed conditions compared to the existing
conditions a percent difference was calculated.
18
The results indicate that the proposed conditions will reduce sediment and nutrient loads
continuing downstream more than the existing canals alone (Table 2). For instance, for.
the 2-yr storm event, the proposed conditions at Broome's Branch may reduce the TN
load 4% more than the existing canal and the proposed conditions at Evans' Creek may
reduce the TN load by 17% more than the existing canal alone.
Table 2. Percent reduction of nutrient or sediment load from stream inflow to
outflow for existing and proposed conditions for various storms.
% by which proposed conditions reduce loads more than
existing conditions
(LOexisting - LOproposed) / LOexisting
TN N03 TP SS
2-yr Main Canal + Broome 's Branch, Proposed 4% 4% 4% 4%
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
17%
17%
13%
13%
5-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 5% 5% 4% 4%
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
13%
13%
11%
11 %o
10-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 6% 6% 5% 5%
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
12%
12%
10%
10%
The percentage of marsh and riparian wetland to drainage area is 8%, or a 13:1 ratio of
proposed drainage area to treatment area. Including the hardwood wetland that will be
created, the percentage of restored wetland area to drainage area is 15%, or a 7:1 ratio of
proposed drainage area to wetland area. Significant nutrient and sediment treatment :has
been measured in wetlands that only represent 1-2% of the catchment area (Tanner et al.,
2003). For a smaller ratio of drainage area to wetland, more nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction in the drainage water can be expected (Lilly). Lilly suggests a ratio of
agricultural drainage area to wetland buffer area of 15:1 to achieve water quality
improvement.
Even though there is no animal production on the surrounding agricultural land, fecal
coliform (FC) levels found in drainage water from OGF are elevated (based on
background data collected by colleagues). This fecal bacteria is believed to be
contributing to the degradation of downstream shellfish and fisheries. Agricultural
drainage networks do not provide adequate time for inactivation of FC due to relative
short hydraulic retention time of water in the canals. The sediments in drainage canals
may even serve as a reservoir of fecal microbes (Jamieson et al., 2003).
It is possible to reduce FC levels by spreading drainage out over a larger area. Spreading
the water out can reduce the survival of such bacteria by increasing its exposure to solar
radiation and less ideal environmental conditions (Burkhardt III et al., 2000; Ontkean et
19
al., 2003). Additionally, FC have been shown to be associated with particulate matter,
which can be trapped by a riparian buffer or floodplain (Ontkean et al., 2003). A
Canadian study observed lower FC numbers in outflow from a wetland, compared to the
inflow (Ontkean et al., 2003). These studies indicate that the proposed stream and
wetland system that utilizes an extensive floodplain will likewise treat fecal bacteria in
the source drainage water, providing a direct improvement to downstream water quality.
References
Birgand, F., 2000. Quantification and modeling of in-stream processes in agricultural
canals of the. lower coastal plain. Ph.D. Dissertation Thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 469 pp.
Burkhardt III, W., Calci, K.R., Watkins, W.D., Rippey, S.R. and Chirtel, S.J., 2000.
Inactivation of indicator microorganisms in estuarine waters. Water Resources,
34(8): 2207-2214.
Daniels, R.B. and Gilliam, J.W., 1096. Sediment and Chemical Load Reduction by Grass
and Riparian Filters. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(1): 246-251.
Gilliam,'J.W., Baker, J.L. and Reddy, K.R., 1999. Ch. 24. Water Quality Effects on
Drainage in Humid Regions., Agricultural Drainage, Agronomy Monograph No.
.38. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil
.Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 801-830.
House, W.A. and Warwick, M.S., 1998. A mass-balance approach to quantifying the
improtance of in-stream processes during nutrient transport in a large river
catchement. The Science of the Total Environment, 210/211: 139-152.
Jamieson, R.C., Gordon, R.J., Tattrie, S.C. and Stratton, G.W., 2003. Sources and
Persistence of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in a Rural Watershed. Water Quality
Research Journal of Canada, 38(1): 33-47.
Jordan, T.E., Whigham, D.F., Hofinockel, K.H. and. Pittek, M.A., 2003. Nutrient and
sediment removal by a restored wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 32:.1534-1547.
Kovacic, D.A., David, M.B., Gentry, L.E., Starks, K.M. and Cooke, R.A., 2000.
Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands in Reducing Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Export from Agricultural Tile Drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29(4).
Lilly, J.P., Soil Facts: Agriculture and Coastal Water Quality, North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service, AG-439-10.
Ontkean, G.R., Chanasyk, D.S., Riemersma, S., Bennett, D.R. and Brunen, J.M., 2003.
Enhanced Prairie Wetland Effects on Surface Water Quality in Crowfoot Creek,
Alberta. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 38(2): 335-359.
Osborne, L.L. and Kovacic, D.A., 1993. Riparian Vegetated Buffer Strips in Water-
.Quality Restoration and Stream Management. Freshwater Biology., 29: 243-258.
Skaggs, R.W., 1980. A water management model for artificially drained soils. Technical
Bulletin No. 276. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.: 54.
Tanner, C., Nguyen, M. and Sukias, J., 2003. Using constructed wetlands to treat
subsurface drainage from intensively grazed dairy pastures in New Zealand.
Water Science and Technology, 48(5): 207-213.
20
AM-Dow tIRI R MM RMS,.. AM DDQ =9
BwuseugB,o? 1?o•tn1?na 8?r
PUD tD.C10010yg
ns?N
-------

L ON 1-4uno3 19talae3
joafoad uoneaolsag stia.=ej daArj I,aoH

sNoijuaN0o f)NIZSIXa m
w
p

A
lip

11 ill
11111 111kilil

?
s
III I. II I ?
?

x x ? •a .? a s

( F P '
a
P
F
A F .,
F
'.?

p A F
A ,7 ? v i .? R ? R
V
x ? A ,?
-.4 A
A g
F;
?

•'
'
A'
.g ?
F F F ,J h ,7 ? 7 .g
•a 3
i .?
P F F
7 •? i ,o A p
•? Cipa
a A 7 ? .g ? s ,g R A P
s ,g
P P 1 }I • A
s F .g

A F p ? P F

F
i
g •7 --- ---? r- •a a • .a . ,a . 4
i
•i
•g
•
•
A 1 4 4

F A
n

'
Ism
F
f
i

It,
11 yew,-Mo VMrWM NAM MIT . &w. Moe Inc ON 'Sjunoo jaaolaso i Co
suWsu},9u,7 pvc7Wad Jo9foad u01118aoIsag SILUXO3 aaeJ8 1[naoH ' 0
rZ4
pua 1001B01g6
nsom I P? i L L S'IIvZaQ co
I
-^---?-? -.--
a io
Fv-
?r
0 a a
O
J
m
pi
% sit
d

it a I
4 P
list °
1
z
1 5,
?g 4

f
f?
?~V CC
a
d
E ?? 9 S At
fit 8
a fig' ?
ig -S
s $ -S
fit fill
a w
11 8L a n
.3 01
z f
Ia
Ij
3
w
a
a?

Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200400731
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
September 30, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Dear Mr. Dorney:
D
'IT 0 4 2004
DENR _ WA7?R
T DSMDSTORA TER RUCH
t? 50"-
Enclosed 11 i \iI1K \1\
is the application of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, c/o: Todd Miller, 3609
Highway 24 (Ocean), Newport, North Carolina 28570, for a Department of the Army (DA)
Permit to impact, both permanently and temporarily, an approximate total of 3.6 acres of Section
404 wetlands and waters and to install a low rock, sheet piling weir structure within Section 10
navigable waters to facilitate the restoration of approximately 111 acres of prior converted (pc)
farmland. The proposed work is Phase U of the +4,000-acre restoration project, known as North
River Farms Wetland Restoration Project, adjacent to Deep Creek and the North River, near
Otway Community, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid request for certification in
accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water
quality certification may be required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A
Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the certification has been obtained or
waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after receipt of a request for
certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on the request
by November 29, 2004, the District Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Please contact me at [phone], if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
7?
Mickey Sugg
Project Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
151-B Hestron Plaza, NC Hwy 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Form DCM-MP-1
r APPLICATION, RECEIVED
(To be completed by all applicants) SEP 13 2004
REGULATORY
b. City, town, community or lai*fW FLO. OFQ
Straits Township, NC
1. APPLICANT
c. Street address or secondary road number
Highway 70
a. Landowner: -
Name North Carolina Coastal Federation d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
Address 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
City Newport State NC creek, sound, bay) North River, Deep Creek
Zip 28570 Day Phone (252) 393 - 8185
Fax (252) 393 - 7508
b. Authorized Agent:
North Carolina State University - Biological
Name and Agricultural Engineering
Address Campus Box 7625
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27695-7625 Day Phone [phone]
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Restoration of approximately 111 acres of prior
converted cropland to a wetland/stream system
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New Work
Fax [phone]
c. Project name (if any) North River Farms Wetland
Restoration - Phase II
NOM Perrrdl will be issued in name of landm mer(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Carteret
C. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages.
Please see attached pages
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-I
4. --LAND AND. WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 123 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A - Farmland
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL 1 - 7 ft
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Predominately Deloss fine sandy loam with areas of Leon
sand and Temotley fine sandy loam
e. Vegetation on tract Agricultural crops (corn, soybeans)
in restoration area with outlying areas of loblloly pine/salt
scrub an salt mars vegetation
f. Man-made features now on tract Drainage ditches
and canals, dirt roads, and bridge over drainac
cana s
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Not currently zoned by Carteret County
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
No facility on site
n.. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial /commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.) Surface runoff -
diversion and reduction of agricultural drainage currently
flowing indite es and canals from within the existing
watersnea
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
No potable drinking water supply on site
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. ' If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
L Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
j•
Has a professional
done for the tract?
If yes, by whom?
archaeological assessment been
Yes X No
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes No
Coastal (marsh) X Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? X
(Attach documentation, if available)
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by II" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
Form DCM,-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name Open Grounds Farm (attn:Gabriele Onoratol
Address P.O. Box Drawer B Beaufort, N.C. 28516
Phone (2b2) 128 - 2212
Name Weverhauser (attn: Howard I Pnr.P)
Address P.O. Box 1391 New Bern. N.C. 28563-1391
Phone (252) 633 - 7286
Name
Address
Phone
• A Pest of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan - CA-03126 Isa g-ri to
DWQ/NC Coastal Federation on 25 November 2002
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
2a v
This is the 0 day of 54
Print Name Todd Miller - NC Coastal Federation
Signature -72ix
Landowner or Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
Y DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
X DCM MP-3 Upland Development
X DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
iut a me project mvoives me expenaiture of public
funds or use of public land's, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
To the best of our knowledge, this project does not require the submission of a signed
AEC hazard notice or a statement of compliance with the NCEPA
Revised 03M
Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
EtdsWv Project
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other*
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)
Length Width Depth Depth
8595 ft 0-200 ft N/A F=0-2.5 ft
S=2-4.5 ft
`Includes stream and floodplain
features
F = Fooodplain
S= Streams
t
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 3500
b. Type of material to be excavated A and B horizon of
primarily Deloss fine sandy loam
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? X Yes No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards 85,000
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area No disposal area - soil to be used
for filling drainage ditches and surface contouring. Open
roun s arm requests topsoil to increase land elevations.
b. Dimensions of disposal area Areas where excavated
material are to be used in construction are variable in size.
Ditches are normally 4 ft deep x.8 ft wide
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes No
If yes, where? Soil will be distributed on the
restoration site and possibly Open Grounds Farm, so
no maintenance wni De necessary.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-2
i w
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes X No
If Yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION N/A
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If Yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill
(2) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
d. Maximum distance waterw rd of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
a.
How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? FrnGinn rnntrnl mate nnri
vegetation establishment on the stream banks. Near
(Source of information)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes X No
b.
Deep Creek, a series of rock check dams and sediment
ence will be constructed. A floating turbidity curtain will
l e in eep ree .
What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
Backhoe
c. Will wetlands be cr;,ssed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetlands Restoration - Phase II
Applicant Name
T!`
Signature
Date
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-3
UPLAND
DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or
structures proposed 0
b
Number of lots or parcels 0
c. Density (give the number of residential units and the
units per acre) 0
d. Size of area to be graded, filled or disturbed
including roads, ditches, etc. 111 acres
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? Yes X No
If yes, date submitted
f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete) to be used for paved surfaces.
None proposed
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development
Permit may also require a Stormwater Certification.
Has a site development plan been submitted to the
Division of Environmental Management for review?
Yes X No
If yes, date submitted Note: No impervious surfaces
proposed - see cover letter requesting. exempion
i. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
N/A
j. Have the facilities described in Item i. above
received state or local approval? N/A
(Anach appropriate documauation)
k. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial /commercial effluent,
"wash down" and residential discharges).
This wetland/stream restoration will discharge surface
runoff and agricultural drainage into Deep Creek, which
flows into the North River, at a volume no greater t an
existing practices.
1. Describe proposed drinking water supply source
(e.g. well, community, public system, etc.)
None proposed
m. Will water be impounded? Yes X No
If yes, how many acres?
n. If the project is a oceanfront development, when
was the lot(s) platted and recorded? /A
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetland Restoration - Phase 11
g. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
MHW or NWL, or within 575 feet in the case of an
Outstanding Resource Water, to be covered by
impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as
pavement, buildings, rooftops, or to be used for
vehicular driveways or parking. 0 %
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
-62% a
Date
Revised 03195
Form, DCM-MP4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application which relate to
this proposed project.
a. Dock(s) and/or Pier(s)
(1) _ Commercial -Community _ Private
(2) Number 0
(3) Length
(4) Width
(5) Finger Piers Yes No
(i) Number 0
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
(6) Platform(s) Yes No
(i) Number 0
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
(7) Number of slips proposed 0
(8) Proximity of structure to adjacent riparian
property lines
(9) Width of water body
(10) Water depth at waterward end of pier at
MLW or NWL
?. Boathouse (including covered lifts)
(1) 0 Commercial 0 Private
(2) Length
(3) Width
C.
Groin (e.g_ wood, sheetpile, etc.)
(1) Number 0
(2) Length(s)
d. Breakwater (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.) N/A
(1) Length
(2) Average distance from MHW, NWL or
wetlands
(3) Maximum distance beyond MHW, NWL or
wetlands
e. Mooring buoys
(1) _ Commercial -Community _, Private
(2) Number 0
(3) Description of buoy
(Color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
(4) Width of water body
(5) Distance buoy(s) to be placed beyond
shoreline
f. Mooring structure (boatlift, mooring pilings, etc.)
(1) _ Commercial -Community _ Private
(2) Number 0
(3) Length
(4) Width
g. Other (Give complete description)
al Low sheetile/rock weir in drainage canal to divert
drainage water into tidal creek (EL = 1.0 ft)
b) Flashboard riser/culvert to divert drainage water into
freshwater sream invert = 3.5 tt)
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetlands Restoration - Phase II
Appli t or Project Name
Signature
Cv, ?rd?
Date
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
1
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
1. BRIDGES NSA
a. Publ is Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
g. Length of proposed bridge
h. Width of proposed bridge
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes No
If yes, explain
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes No
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-5
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
Sub-main drainage canal of Open Grounds Farm
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
Circular, constructed of corrugated aluminum and
connected to flashboard riser structure.
d. Will proposed culvert replace _ an existing bridge?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert 78 ft.
g. Width of proposed culvert 3 ft dia.
h.' Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MW or NWL 5.4 ft.
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
X Yes No
If yes, explain Will divert and transmit drainage water from
Open Grounds Farm into the freshwater stream system
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes X No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs Other Wetlands
If yes,.
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 78 ft.
(2) Width of area to be excavated 6 ft.
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 81 removed for installation 61 1 iced for
backfill = net 20 excavated
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
To be used for filling nearby drainage ditches
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Ditches generally 4 ft deep x 8 ft wide
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
X Yes No
if no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(b) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal WedaMs - SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 20 ft
(2) Width of area to be filled 8 ft
(3) Purpose of fill Plug ditches to enhance wetland
hydrology
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
c. Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Sediment fences around
excavation site for culvert
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or -hydraulic
dredge)? Backhoe
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetlands Restoration - Phase II
Applicant or Project Name
/ "?/ c
Signature
r - C v Z-C)oy
Date
Revised 03195
DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The area northeast of North River, near Beaufort, North Carolina has been extensively
drained and converted to cropland. This cropland is in close proximity to North River and
its tributaries, and it is in close proximity to sensitive estuarine environments. Shellfish
harvesting in North River and the surrounding estuaries (Bogue and Core Sounds) is
restricted due water quality problems. This is primarily due to fecal contamination, but
nonpoint source nutrient and sediment pollution has also contributed to water quality
concerns and degradation of shellfish and juvenile fish habitat.
In an effort to improve the water quality in North River and other surrounding sensitive
bodies of water, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) was awarded a grant
from, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to purchase over 4000 acres of North
River Farms. An additional 2000 acres of that farm has been purchased by other entities.
Through this acquisition, the farmland will be removed from agricultural production and
converted back to wetlands, which were once thought to thrive there. The expectation is
that removing this land from agricultural production and subsequently converting it back
to its historical state will improve the quality of the waters downstream of the farm.
To date, 250 acres of the farm have been restored to wetlands in Phase I of this effort.
While the Phase I restoration is important to water quality and habitat restoration, it does
not directly address the potential problems associated with drainage water originating
from neighboring Open Grounds Farms (OGF) to the north. Agricultural drainage from
OGF is conveyed by large drainage canals through North River Farms and into Deep
Creek, a tributary of North River.
2.0 LOCATION INFORMATION
The site is located at North River Farms, a 6000+ acre farm in Carteret County, North
Carolina. This site was drained and cleared for intense agricultural production during the
1970s.The NCCF recently purchased a portion of the farm (over 4000 acres) through a
grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The NCCF is
pursuing phased stream and wetland restoration opportunities throughout the property
during the next 10 years. Projects on the site are being implemented and funded through a
variety of private and public sources. A parcel of artificially drained farmland,
approximately 123 acres, is available for this phase of the restoration, known as Phase H.
The site is located in the White Oak river basin, DWQ subbasin 03-05-04. The North
River is listed as a Shellfish Area (SA) and a High Quality Water (HQW). The site can be
found on the Williston USGS Quadrangle. Figure 1 is a general location map for the site
and Figure 2 indicates the site location on the USGS Quad Map.
USGS Quadrangle Map
?,, ??- "'-= USGS Williston Quadrangle
,n ,y' ' b ,rs k p
h_-J1A -'?1}_ .?? '? ' _ acf. b .uAR ysr A"MP.nn m..?aa??sacl liw- ca
- ?....-..... ss>:••>raas?o a;s-:rasa -s---
- _ --, -, W Phase II Area
x6 i
w "a' i, ti ? +ti• r4 +!'• ?... ` R ?• `., -i7`• 'k ,4'm" rbr ¢„?'.s'? 9' '
'- gyp' .r .+._ ii ^. i!- ^ =?L- _ ,/. ?`. •:.yV _ , .dl... ;?, Y ,,,. +! ..t s ,?{ , tl `?"..
.• .n- _ A ,., ?" - 4F !i ..•?Y+ .v,_ 'iti _ - # n' __•`?',`ys. "` .'? ??.R+?.y' .f? '?'-q7,- ?uv i.}.'4 !Al
{G'=ice: A ?` ./y ry.' -•? ? ?. hx ?? 1!. _ . ."'+4 ? r? +.y.. ,. '' .:,. rr ? '?'..'... - K ?.YJ'.
+?•,9
'Ar
__ - ?• .: M ??,.. ? ?'^?.. ,yam..
A'!!'y:.+?. ?- w . "' _` ..A .w .•,-. , t iL•. •L?t•. -.t!+_. .:, rir m ?-?'Yr?...,:. tiY .. ,?, - -.
,_:..><_ -_ - ..•3 ^..b ='•M`s .:e •.i w ?r^'r. ?.. ..r? s_ ?v. ?• ..yl^ ? _ ,?, ,u ?._•-. ?„"? '4 ?p. rh,.-t.
74
/ _ ' ' }.- .t - .?.'..-r ?,,. ra - ^ r' ti • sa'V. - ..+F. t:'• ".., n K _ N .?.
_-.., ., . - r ?e - r 4. r^r!•., ?p 6.a?o> .yam ? ten, _.•..j?._ ?... e? ? a, Atr J
?A
. .tea,., >v ? ?t
_ ,„ t• r N d 0
4I p
41 44
.. _ a; a yac ' 4?.
K
&:
_ .rr J
!?? +? . +-- lie
S r,
4A - xs .- ?- 8 '. a b
ti• B? n N
Aar&
- P '• '1 n
%
r-- '? . p
? • , u
M n4 . BMn .9•
• _ 4
? - '?" t. . awl ?. b • N
N
North River '-''--
Stream and Wetlands Restoration NcsU
Biological and Agricultural Campus Box 7637
Phase 11 Engineering Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone: [phone]
The main entrance to North River Farms is located on US-70 in Carteret County. Travel
east on US-70 from New Bern into Havelock. Turn left onto NC-101 in Havelock.
Follow NC-101 for approximately 15 miles and turn left onto SRI 163 (Laurel Road).
Follow SRI 163 until it ends and turn right onto SRI 300 (Merrimon Road). Travel
approximately 2 miles and turn left onto US-70. Cross over North River and Ward's
Creek, through the town of Otway, and past SR1332 (Harkers Island Road) before
reaching the entrance to the farm on the left. The farm is marked with a yellow "North
River Farms" sign and has a gate that requires a key.
3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase II of this project will restore approximately 111 acres of North River Farms
between the southeastern corner of OGF and Deep Creek to a system including tidal
marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian wetland, and hardwood wetland. The site currently
consists almost entirely of artificially drained farm fields that were recently in
agricultural production. The main Phase II area is bordered to the west by a major
drainage canal that carries water from the Phase I site and from OGF. The northern
boundary of the Phase II site is formed by a dirt road and drainage ditch, which provide
access to the Phase I and Phase II areas. The southern boundary consists of drainage
ditches and canals, which collect drainage from various parts of the site. The eastern
boundary of the Phase II site is formed by a block of the Phase I restoration (bottomland
hardwood wetland) and a roadside ditch (see Sheet 1 of 3 - Existing Conditions).
The Phase II area is generally flat with some field crowning to promote surface drainage.
The highest elevation exceeds 8 feet near the northeastern corner. The lowest elevations,
around 2.6 feet, exist in the southernmost region and in the northwest corner near the
main north-south canal draining from OGF. The majority of the site is between 3.5 and
4.5 feet in elevation. Standard field ditches (-80 cm deep) transect the site from north to
south at 100-meter intervals. A total of nine field ditches drain the Phase 1I area.
Field surface water (ditches) and field groundwater exhibit some tidal influence and
brackish marsh and shrub/scrub vegetation can be found growing along the ditch banks.
Several areas along the southern border of the Phase II area were abandoned from
agricultural production due to field wetness, unacceptable frequency of flooding, or tidal
influence problems (brackish water flooding crops). A large area in the southeast portion
of the site has developed as a transitional shrub/scrub marsh and several areas are well
populated with pines. Several areas of lower elevation in the southern areas of the Phase
II site are currently well populated with brackish marsh vegetation. These lower areas of
brackish marsh result from the low elevation and close proximity to tidally influenced
drainage ditches (influenced by Deep Creek.). Background monitoring in the tidally
influenced drainage canals and ditches has indicated a mean water level of 1.1 ft
elevation.
This wetland restoration design is unique in that it combines bottomland hardwood
wetlands with a tidal creek and a freshwater stream. Restoration features will include 53
4
acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of riparian
freshwater wetlands, 1900 ft of freshwater stream (Evans' Creek), 4577 ft of tidal creek
(Broome's Branch), and 2118 ft of tidal fingers. The design creates an enhanced stream
and wetland corridor for treating agricultural drainage. A portion of drainage water from
OGF, currently transported by a network of ditches and canals, will be diverted across the
available landscape into a system of restored streams designed to include significant
floodplain wetlands. The riparian area will include depressions, vegetation, and woody
debris that can dissipate energy, enhance water storage, and create habitat. Surface and
subsurface drainage will be re-connected in the landscape. The restored system will
convey drainage water across the land area to the natural drainage system downstream,
dampening peak discharge and offering treatment of the runoff (nutrients, sediment, and
bacteria) before it reaches the estuary.
The 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest will be constructed using techniques that
were successful in the Phase I wetland restoration. These areas, located outside of the
stream corridor and riparian floodplains, will provide additional habitat diversity and
water storage. Field ditches will be filled in the areas outside of any jurisdictional
wetlands (rather than just plugged as in Phase I), field crowns will be removed, and trees
will be planted in these areas. As in Phase I, shallow depressions (which may develop
into small open water areas) and simulated treefalls will be constructed.
The stream component of this wetland restoration will form the cornerstone of the
project. The stream systems are designed to transport agricultural drainage water from
neighboring farmland through the North River wetland system, instead of through an
existing drainage canal that empties directly into Deep Creek. The locations of these
streams are based on historical aerial photography. Dimension, pattern, and profile of the
streams are based on reference stream reaches near the site. DRAINMOD and HEC-RAS
modeling was used to estimate drainage expected from OGF and subsequent flow
through the proposed streams. Impacts on OGF farming operations were also quantified
using HEC-RAS modeling. The stream design will include an extensive riparian wetland
system (tidal and freshwater). During high flow events the wetland system will provide
water storage and nutrient, sediment and bacterial treatment of drainage before it flows to
sensitive shellfishing waters of North River.
Evans' Creek will transport fresh drainage water from a sub-main canal from OGF
southwest and will connect with the tidally influenced Broome's Branch. Drainage water
will flow through a new flashboard riser installed in the sub-main canal east of an
existing structure. Areas 100 ft on either side of the stream will be excavated to serve as
a floodplain. This portion of the project will involve some Priority II restoration, but will
mostly be classified as Priority I. The floodplain of the upper 1900 ft reach of the stream
will consist of freshwater riparian wetlands. During large rainfall events, water will
overflow the banks of Evans' Creek into the riparian area, increasing the potential of
reducing nutrient, sediment, and bacteria. This freshwater system will transition to a tidal
system as it nears Broome's Branch. The riparian area associated with all tidal streams is
tidal marsh.
5
I
Broome's Branch will be connected to the main North-South drainage canal flowing from
OGF. A low rock weir will be installed in the existing canal to divert water into
Broome's Branch. This structure is essential to raise the elevation of the water in the
canal during low-flow conditions to elevations that will allow water to enter Broome's
Branch. Extensive HEC-RAS modeling has indicated that installation of the weir at 1.0 ft
elevation will minimally reduce drainage from OGF at low flow conditions. At higher
flows, drainage capacity for OGF will increase, because Broome's Branch will act as an
additional drainage outlet. The low rock weir structure will be constructed of sheet pile,
with a rock ramp on either side. This rock will support the sheetpile and ease passage of
shellfish and anadromous fish. Additionally, Broome's Branch will serve as an
alternative passageway and habitat for migrating species. Most of Broome's Branch will
be classified as Priority II restoration. This type of restoration involves reconnecting the
stream to a floodplain at a new elevation. Near Deep Creek, however, no floodplain
excavation will be necessary due to low surface elevations, and therefore Broome's
Branch will utilize Priority I restoration in this area. Elevations of the stream channel and
the floodplain in the Broome's Branch system will be lower than the upper reaches of
Evans' Creek since it is designed as a tidal system that supports brackish marsh
vegetation. Approximately 25 acres of tidal marsh will be created near Broome's Branch
and the lower reach of Evans' Creek. Several hummocks will also be constructed in the
tidal marsh to more accurately represent tidal marshes in Carteret County.
Two tidal fingers will also be constructed east of the stream systems. Both of these
connect to tidally influenced ditches, and divert tidal water into areas that will be lowered
to < 3.0 ft elevation. This will create an additional 10 acres of tidal marsh, a very valuable
ecosystem in this landscape setting.
The site is currently being monitored for background water quality and hydrology data.
4.0 WETLAND AREA DISTURBED
This project will substantially increase the area of brackish marsh and freshwater
wetlands. Most of the areas that will be created require no disturbance of existing
freshwater wetlands or tidal marsh. However, the project calls for conversion of 2.5
acres of freshwater wetlands covered by Section 404 to tidal marsh and temporary
impacts to 1.1 acres of CAMA marsh.
All freshwater wetland conversions are in an effort to connect proposed tidal marshes to
existing CAMA tidal marsh. These areas include (see Sheet 2 of 3 - Proposed
Conditions):
1. The southern riparian area along the first 800 ft of Broome's Branch
2. East of ditch 3 near the convergence of Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek
3. Along Broome's Branch between station 2700-3100 ft
4. Near the tidal fingers
Due to tidal influence, ditches 1-5 support small areas of tidal marsh. They support
vegetation such as saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina
6
patens), but there are also areas of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and saltmarsh
bulrush (Scirpus robustus). These areas are isolated from the prior-converted farmlands
by ridges with elevations between 6-18 inches higher. These ridges support shrub-scrub
vegetation communities. By lowering the elevation of these freshwater wetland areas, the
existing CAMA marsh could be connected to the proposed tidal marsh. This will create a
more stable ecosystem and increase acreage of tidal marsh created. These tidal marshes
are more important ecologically in this watershed than the non-tidal wetlands, due to the
proximity of the Phase II restoration site to the estuary. These areas will potentially
support larger populations of shellfish and juvenile finfish, which are important to the
health of the estuary and to the fisheries population. No net loss of wetlands will occur
during this conversion.
The 1.1 acres of CAMA wetland disturbance will be temporary and will occur during
construction of the lower sections of Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek and the tidal
fingers. The most significant area is near where Broome's Branch joins Deep Creek. An
alternatives analysis was performed to evaluate whether encroachment into this CAMA
marsh was necessary. The final 300-400 feet of the designed stream corridor passes
through a small tidal marsh area as it joins Deep Creek In this area, elevations are
between 1.8 and 2.5 ft. Marsh vegetation such as Spartina patens, Spartina alternaflora,
Juncus roemerianus, Scirpus robustus, and Distichlis spicata have been observed in an
area of approximately I acre that the final reach of the designed stream must pass
through. This area is tidally inundated daily because Deep Creek is connected with an
existing farm drainage ditch that borders this area to the east. The following are three
design alternatives for managing this sensitive environmental area, including the
proposed design (Alternative 4).
Alternative 1- Allow overland flow through the marsh area
This alternative would allow the combined flows of Evans' Creek and Broome's
Branch to flow overland for 300 ft through the existing marsh to Deep Creek. This
would be the most inexpensive option and would have the least initial impact on the
marsh area. The combined flow would form a series of natural channels through the area
as it progresses towards Deep Creek and produce additional sediment load to Deep
Creek. Surveys of the existing marsh area revealed several deep head-cuts from existing
overland flow around the marsh, demonstrating the production of excessive sediment and
vegetative loss that these cuts produce. In addition, the final reach of the design stream
would not immediately be connected with Deep Creek, and therefore could not serve to
transport brackish water upstream to support tidal marsh vegetation or allow passage of
finfish and shellfish.
Alternative 2 - Connect stream flow to existing ditch
Alternative 2 would connect the combined flows of Evans' Creek and Broome's
Branch to an existing field ditch on the eastern side of the marsh (Ditch 4), which is
currently connected to Deep Creek. The flow.would bypass the marsh before emptying
into Deep Creek. The field ditch is narrower than the channel proposed to convey the
combined flow from Open Grounds Farm. This is also an inexpensive alternative, but
excessive scour and bank erosion would be probable with this ditch's current dimensions.
An unstable canal or stream can be a source of sediment and particulate phosphorus.
House (House and Warwick, 1998) reported within-reach particulate phosphorus gains,
attributed to bank erosion and surface runoff from adjacent land. In addition, the ditch is
restricted to regular flooding only on the west side into the current marsh area; excavated
material from the ditch construction/maintenance is piled to an elevation of
approximately 4 ft on the eastern side. This limits the extent of tidal marsh development
and also increases the potential for the higher, eastern bank to undercut, producing
sediment. As the ditch receives additional flow, it will attempt to achieve a stable channel
form, which is sinuous rather than linear. As sinuosity develops, the ditch will most
likely cut into the marsh, resulting in additional sediment loss to Deep Creek.
Alternative 3 - Connect stream flow to existing ditch after widening
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, but the ditch would be widened to
accommodate additional flow from Evans' Creek and Broome's Branch. Widening the.
ditch with a backhoe would require stockpiling of vegetation for replanting after
construction of this section. However, even the widened section of existing ditch would
begin to achieve stability by becoming more sinuous, and thus encroaching into the
marsh. This would result in long-term sediment loss similar to that in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 - Stable channel construction through existing marsh
The design calls for the stream to be constructed with a sinuous pattern through
300 ft of marsh area before it connects with Deep Creek. Prior to construction, marsh
vegetation growing on areas to be disturbed will be harvested and stockpiled in a nearby
moist area. Channel excavation will be managed to minimize impacts to the existing
marsh. Channel excavation will begin on the downstream side near Deep Creek, and
progress northward out of the marsh area. Logging mats will facilitate transportation of
heavy equipment. Excavated material will be transported from the marsh along the same
path as the channel cut, to minimize disturbance. Following channel construction, the
banks will be stabilized with erosion control mats and root wads and the stockpiled marsh
vegetation will be planted on the channel edge immediately.
The result will be a stable stream section with access to a floodplain on both sides
rather than one side. Currently, the ditch is restricted on its eastern side by excavated
ditch material, and regular flooding only occurs on the west side of the ditch. By
implementing the proposed design, the tidal stream will moved further west into the
center of the marsh, increasing the potential for a greater area to be regularly inundated
with brackish water. This increased area alone will mitigate the initial loss of marsh due
to channel construction. More importantly, the stream section designed through the
marsh will also be more stable and resistant to sediment loss than if the water from
Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek are left to overland flow through the marsh, or if
they are connected to the existing ditch bordering the marsh.
Construction of the tidal fingers that will transport brackish water into new areas within
the Phase II restoration area will also require temporary CAMA marsh impacts in the
areas where they will be connected to the tidally influenced ditches. Construction
methods will be similar to those described as Broome's Branch connects with Deep
Creek (Alternative 4).
No net loss of CAMA wetlands will occur. Any loss would be easily mitigated by the
acreage of CAMA marsh created with this design.
5.0 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN
From Carteret County soils map (NRCS), the following soils are present on the Phase II
restoration site (Figure 3):
Deloss (De)
The predominate soil series in the proposed Phase II restoration site is the Deloss
fine sandy loam. This soil series extends through the central sections of the restoration
site. The Deloss series are very poorly drained soils typically found in low marine and
stream terraces. The Deloss soil is used mainly as woodland. Typical tree species
include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine (Pinus serotina), water oak (Quercus
nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), red
maple (Acer rubrum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipfera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and baldcypress (Taxodium distichum)
are dominant. In depressional areas where water ponds, the hardwoods are dominant.
Trees grow well, but wetness increases seedling mortality. Common understory plants
include redbay (Persea borbonia), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana),
bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera), blueberry (Yaccinium sp.), Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica),
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison-ivy (Rhus radicans), sweetleaf
(Symplocos tinctoria), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), honeysuckle
(Lonicera sp.), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Leon (Ln)
Areas the eastern and westernmost sections of the site include Leon sand, which is
poorly drained. It is typically found in low ridges, flats and upland depressional areas, as
well as in low marine terraces and on islands. As the Deloss soil, the Leon soils are used
primarily for woodland. Loblolly (Pinus taeda), longleaf (Pinus palustris), and pond
pine (Pinus serotina) are dominant. However, scattered water oak (Quercus nigra),
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum) can also be found growing on
this soil. Common understory plants are threeawn grass (Aristida sp.), blueberry
(Yaccinium sp.), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), bitter
gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), turkey oak (Quercus laevis),
redbay (Persea borbonia) and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana).
Tomotley (Tm)
The Northeastern portion of the proposed restoration site consists of Tomotley
fine sandy loam, a poorly drained soil typically located on broad flats and in depressions
9
in low marine and stream terraces. In woodland areas predominant tree species are
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Typical understory species include redbay (Persea
borbonia), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea),
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), huckleberry (Gaylussacia
sp.), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), Virginia chainfern
(Woodwardia virginica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison-ivy (Rhus
radicans), sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Hoboken muck (HB)
The extreme south central portion of the proposed Phase II restoration site, near
Deep Creek, is comprised of Hoboken muck. This soil is very poorly drained, is located
in marshes adjacent to rivers, creeks, sounds, and bays in Carteret County. Its elevation
is generally less than 2 ft, so it is frequently flooded. Native vegetation is adapted to
extreme wetness, periodic flooding, and salt exposure. Common plants include black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), big cordgrass (Spartina cynsuroides), sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicense), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), eastern baccharis (Baccharis
halimifolia), seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) , smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniora), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus
robustus), glasswort (Salicornia sp.), marshelder (Iva frutescens), Atlantic-white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), and saltwort (Batis maritime).
The following are a list of herbaceous and woody vegetation that are to be planted in the
bottomland hardwood wetland, the freshwater riparian wetlands, and the brackish marsh.
Herbaceous vegetation will be planted on 3 ft x 3 ft spacing, while trees will be planted at
435 stems/acre.
10
A"6 f
3 ?» F hase 11
s
V, - Wet Y. 'on site
_ x WS
Vj? r f F'_a ;"'i l F$iuSt
nx Ws 1 tlr ter
Ln
r ? Deg _ \ rc WS Aq
t ? u'..- " - f 4r
6-
?h
Deloss (fine sandy loam)
R! Tomotley (fine sandy loam)
Leon(sand)
Ln

Phase 11 Area
;
HB r ,? ?
;„• ?r

Ln
Hoboken (muck)
?y T
LL ?
4? 1?
Deep Creek

;Ap `
0 A.
t'? ly ? ?":?' S i ll
4 r x i fir ? 4

The following species of vegetation are proposed along Broome's Branch and in the
lower reach of Evans' Creek:
Brackish Marsh (salinity 0.5 to 18 ppt)
Elevation Species
Lowest elevation adjacent to stream
Mid elevation
High marsh
Occasional shrubs
Trees
Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass)
Juncus roemerianus (black needle rush)
Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass)
Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass)
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle)
Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel tree)
Hibiscus moscheutos (rose mallow)
Sabal minor (palmetto)
Taxodium disticum (bald cypress)
Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo)
Chamaecyparis thyoides (Atlantic white
cedar)
12
The following species of vegetation are proposed along the upper reaches of Evans'
Creek:
Freshwater Marsh (salinity < 0.5 ppt)
Elevation Species
Lowest elevation Scirpus validus (soft stem bulrush)
Scirpus americanus (three square)
Peltandra virginica (arrow arum)
Mid elevation Cladium jamaicense (saw grass)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
High elevation Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass)
Shrubs and trees Same as brackish marsh with additional tree
species such as
Nyssa sylvatica (swamp blackgum or tupelo)
Quercus lyrata (overcup oak)
Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
13
The following tree species are suggested for the bottomland hardwood/swamp wetland
areas:
Taxodium disticum (bald cypress), Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo), Nyssa sylvatica
(swamp blackgum or tupelo), Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) Quercus michauxii (swamp
chestnut oak) Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Quercus nigra (water oak), Quercus
pagoda (cherry bark oak), Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak), Persea palustris (swamp bay),
Pinus palustris (longleaf pine).
6.0 POST CONSTRUCTION MONIOTRING
Post construction monitoring will consist of three areas:
1. Success of wetland restoration
2. Stream stability
3. Evaluation of water quality improvements and stream health
A monitoring procedure has been developed based on the document "Draft Vegetation
Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration Projects"
provided by the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). This plan will
meet the requirements for determining the mitigation success of the Phase II restoration.
The plan for this site includes components for monitoring the restored stream reaches and
wetland areas. Initial inspections of the site should commence immediately following
construction and planting completion and occur regularly until the full monitoring plan
can be implemented. The full monitoring regimen should begin in the fall of the year and
should be repeated each year for 3-5 years. Visual inspection of the site should occur at
least once per year in addition to the full monitoring visit. A Monitoring Report should be
published and updated annually. The report should include the results of collected data,
the status of the site for meeting the site success criteria, and any suggestions for
mitigating areas not meeting requirements.
Further monitoring will be implemented by NCSU for research purposes. This
monitoring will involve a detailed investigation of water quality, hydrology, hydraulics,
soils, and vegetation in the Phase II area. Research activities will involve regular visits to
the site by university students and faculty.
6.1 Wetland Monitoring
As described in the "Draft Vegetation Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and
Wetland Restoration Projects" document, plots are proposed for recording vegetation
density and survivability in the restored freshwater wetland areas. Plots are proposed in
various areas to represent the range of conditions and treatments. The total number of
plots will be determined based on the final planting and community plan for the site. The
plots in freshwater wetland areas will be 10 meters x 10 meters, with nested plots of 5
meters x 5 meters and 1 meter x 1 meter. All trees will be counted, identified, and
14
measured for diameter breast height (dbh) throughout the entire plot. Shrub data will be
recorded in the nested 5-meter plot and herbaceous material estimated in the 1-meter plot.
Although plots cannot be set up in every area of the site, the entire site should be visited
to make observations on the health and development of various areas.
Also as described in the NCWRP Monitoring Plan, transects are proposed for vegetative
monitoring in brackish marsh areas Transects will be positioned perpendicular to the
tidal creek (Broome's Branch) and will continue up slope to the freshwater wetland areas
or the borders of the site. Plots will be located along the transect for stem counts and
survival of marsh species. The plots will be 1 meter x 1 meter and all species will be
counted within each plot. A range and estimate of stem heights will also be recorded. The
exact number of transects and plots in each transect will be determined based on the final
planting plan for the site. It is estimated that at least one transect will be located on each
side of the tidal creek at an interval less than 1000 feet. Each transect will likely have at
least three plots in the lower marsh and at least one in upper marsh areas.
Further wetland monitoring will be completed to support research efforts at the site.
Detailed research will include the investigation of hydrologic and soil response to the
restoration activities. Background water table data has been collected since March of
2003. If needed, water table information from these same wells may be analyzed to
determine if hydrologic criteria for wetlands is satisfied after construction. Because this
site is located in the temperate coastal plain, soil temperature data may be needed to
augment growing season determination at the site. Other potential research investigations
are being developed and may be implemented at the site.
6.2 Stream Monitoring
The stream monitoring setup will also be designed based on the NCWRP Monitoring
Plan guidance. The proposed plan includes locating permanent cross sections at regular
intervals along all sections of restored stream on the site. The cross sections will be
surveyed annually to determine if any dimensional adjustments are occurring. Where
possible, cross sections will be targeted to assess the progression of geomorphic features.
The annual survey will also include acquisition of longitudinal profile and pattern data to
further assess the stability of the stream reaches. Vegetation surveys will also be
conducted on the bank and in riparian areas.
Photographic reference points should be installed in the stream and wetland areas of the
site. Comparing photos taken during each monitoring visit will provide a visual record of
site development. Other photographs should record any areas of concern throughout the
site. These photos will help determine the extent of any problems and identify potential
corrective actions.
6.3 Water Quality Enhancement
One of the goals for this restoration is to enhance the water quality of Deep Creek and
ultimately North River. Therefore, water quality in Broome's Branch, Evans Creek, and
15
Deep Creek will be monitored. Flow and water quality will be monitored upstream and
downstream in both Broome's Creek and Evans' Creek before they converge and flow
into Deep Creek. Additionally, flow and water quality will be monitored as the
constructed stream system enters Deep Creek. Flow and water quality have been
measured in the main canal from Open Grounds Farm that flows into Deep Creek since
March 2003, and will continue after the Phase II restoration. This sampling scheme will
provide information into water quality enhancement as a result of wetland/stream
restoration.
Automatic water samplers will be used to collect samples, which will be analyzed for
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment. A percentage of the samples will be used for fecal
coliform bacteria counts. Flow measuring devices will be employed at these sampling
stations to help determine the contaminant loads entering and exiting the restoration site.
In addition, macroinvertebrate surveys may be employed to evaluate how long it takes the
new streams to accumulate these organisms.
7.0 EXPECTED RESULTS
The Phase II restoration has been designed to reduce nutrient, sediment, and bacterial
loads entering North River. To estimate and compare the total nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction/attenuation that may occur by routing the'predicted portions of OGF drainage
water through the proposed streams, first the background water quality data collected on
the site was reviewed. Automatic water samplers collect daily samples during low tide at
the location where Broome's Branch will begin (on the main North-South canal), and at
the outlet of the reference wetland.
Reviewing the available water quality data from February 2003 - February 2004 reveals
that the drainage water that will be routed through Broome's Branch contains elevated
nitrogen concentrations compared to the nitrogen concentrations monitored at the
reference wetland outlet. The mean nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and total nitrogen (TN
TKN+NO3-N) concentrations were 0.3 and 2.6 mg/L respectively, in the main canal. The
mean NO3-N and TN concentrations. for the same time period were only 0.04 and 1.3
mg/L at the reference wetland outlet.
Reviewing the background data also reveals that the drainage water that will be routed
through Broome's Branch contains elevated phosphorus concentrations compared to the
phosphorus concentrations monitored at the reference wetland outlet. The mean total
phosphorus (TP) concentration from Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2004 was 0.4 mg/L in the main
canal and only 0.1 mg/L at the reference outlet. Similarly average suspended solids (SS),
or sediment concentration was 70.6 mg/L over Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2004 and only 16.1
mg/L for the same time period at the reference outlet.
Literature was reviewed to determine the amount of nutrient and sediment reduction that
could be expected as drainage travels through a drainage canal versus when drainage
travels through the proposed stream and wetland system. There is a large range of
16
nutrient/sediment reductions (or increases) reported and results vary due to location,
drainage characteristics, seasons, years, variability in distribution of inflows, etc.
Findings from literature review:
• In a dissertation literature review, it was reported that nitrogen retention in
agricultural streams and canals can range from 5-60% of the gross load (Birgand,
2000). Over 14 months, Birgand measured 3% retention of TN, 10% retention of
TP, and 10% of TSS in an agricultural canal (1125 meters long) in the coastal
plain of NC.
• A Maryland study (Jordan et al., 2003) of a restored wetland receiving highly
variable amounts of agricultural drainage (ag area:wetland area = 10.8:1) found
annual removal of nutrients to vary each year of the 2 year study. During the first
year, 59% of TP and 38% of TN was removed. During the second year, no
significant removal of TN or TP was measured. Over the entire study, the
wetland removed 52% of NO3, but no significant removal of sediment or other
forms of N or P was measured.
• Two New Zealand constructed wetlands (1-2% of drainage area) received
subsurface drainage from grazed pasture land and were effective at removing
nutrients (Tanner et al., 2003). For the 2 sites, 56 and 33% of TN was reduced
through each site, respectively. A 3-month evaluation reported a 78% NO3
reduction, 'a 96% TN reduction, and an 80% DRP (dissolved reactive phosphorus)
based on a mass balance for one of the wetlands.
• In Illinois, constructed wetlands receiving tile drainage reduced overall NO3 load
to downstream surface waters by -38% in a 3 yr study (Kovacic et al., 2000).
These wetlands were not shown to be a significant source or sink of P.
• Additionally, a riparian buffer acts as a filter for removing sediment/particulate
and sediment-bound nutrients (particularly phosphorus, P) from surface runoff
moving across them (Daniels and Gilliam, 1996; Gilliam et al., 1999).
• Osborne and Kovacic (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993) summarized results from a
variety of riparian buffer studies, citing the buffers' ability to remove 50-85% of
total P, on a long-term basis.
The mean nutrient and sediment concentrations for the current MDO1 record (location
where Broome's Branch will begin) were used to estimate load inputs for Broome's
Branch, Evans' Creek, and the existing canals. Using HEC-RAS predictions for the
distribution of flows between existing and proposed streams and the nutrient and
sediment concentrations listed above, nutrient and sediment loads were estimated for
each theoretical storm, for each stream or canal.
The performance of the proposed system was evaluated for this application in a general
way - based on percent reductions in load. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention
in drainage canals are those from research in eastern North Carolina (Birgand, 2000).
Birgand (2000), measured 3% reduction in TN, 10% reduction in TP, and 10% reduction
in sediment over 14 months. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention expected in the
proposed stream/wetland system are conservative estimates based on other literature
reviewed. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention in the stream/wetland system are
17
30% retention of TN, N03, TP, and sediment. These estimates were used to compare the
treatment of nutrients and sediment by the existing conditions (i.e. drainage water
flowing through the canal system to Deep Creek) and the proposed system (i.e. existing
canals plus proposed streams/wetland). These percentages were used to reduce the
estimated mass load (kg) of nutrient or sediment for each reach and a mass load reduction
per storm was calculated for each reach.
To estimate the flow needed to calculate nutrient and sediment removal for the existing
and proposed conditions, a network including the existing drainage canals and the
proposed stream system was produced for hydraulic analysis using HEC-RAS. A series
of steady flow analyses were used to predict the proportion of flow that will be diverted
into each proposed stream for the 2-, 5-, and 10-yr theoretical storm hydrographs.
Modeling and predictions will continue in order to quantify these influences on the
proposed system's ability to treat nutrients and sediment. Ultimately, the proposed
system will be evaluated based on longterm drainage inflows estimated using
DRAWMOD (Skaggs, 1980).
Based on the stream dimensions, slope, and structures designed to divert the drainage
water, the HEC-RAS model predicts Broome's Branch will carry 16% of the 2-yr storm,
17% of the 5-yr storm, and 21% of the 10-yr storm. The model also predicts Evans'
Creek will carry 60% of the 2-yr storm, 48% of the 5-yr storm, and 43% of the 10-yr
storm.
Table 1. Percentage values used to estimate overall reduction in gross nutrient and
sediment load for each canal/stream (same values used for all storm sizes).
Reduction percentages used same for all design storms that were evaluated
TN Reduction N03-N Reduction TP Reduction SS Reduction
Main Canal, Existing Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Main Cana, Proposed Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Broome's Branch, Proposed Conditions 30% 30% 30% 30%
East-West Canal, Existing Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
East-West, Proposed Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Evans' Creek, Proposed Conditions 30% 30% 30% 30%
Nutrient loads in and out of the existing canals and the proposed system were calculated.
In order to summarize the amount of nutrient or sediment treated by the existing canals
compared to the proposed system, percent change in mass load was calculated. The
following calculation was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for
Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek separately.
In all instances, the proposed conditions (existing canals, plus proposed streams) result in
lower sediment or nutrient exported downstream in the outflow. To quantify the
difference in load reduction due to the proposed conditions compared to the existing
conditions a percent difference was calculated.
18

The results indicate that the proposed conditions will reduce sediment and nutrient loads
continuing downstream more than the existing canals alone (Table 2). For instance, for.
the 2-yr storm event, the proposed conditions at Broome's Branch may reduce the TN
load 4% more than the existing canal and the proposed conditions at Evans' Creek may
reduce the TN load by 17% more than the existing canal alone.
Table 2. Percent reduction of nutrient or sediment load from stream inflow to
outflow for existing and proposed conditions for various storms.
% by which proposed conditions reduce loads more than
existing conditions
(LOexisting - LOproposed) / LOexisting
TN N03 TP SS
2-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 4% 4% 4% 4%
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
17%
17% 13%
13%
5-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 5% 5% 4% 4%
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
13%
13% 11%
11%
10-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 6% 6% 5% 5%
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
12%
12% 10%
10%

The percentage of marsh and riparian wetland to drainage area is 8%, or a 13:1 ratio of
proposed drainage area to treatment area. Including the hardwood wetland that will be
created, the percentage of restored wetland area to drainage area is 15%, or a 7:1 ratio of
proposed drainage area to wetland area. Significant nutrient and sediment treatment :has
been measured in wetlands that only represent 1-2% of the catchment area (Tanner et al.,
2003). For a smaller ratio of drainage area to wetland, more nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction in the drainage water can be expected (Lilly). Lilly suggests a ratio of
agricultural drainage area to wetland buffer area of 15:1 to achieve water quality
improvement.
Even though there is no animal production on the surrounding agricultural land, fecal
coliform (FC) levels found in drainage water from OGF are elevated (based on
background data collected by colleagues). This fecal bacteria is believed to be
contributing to the degradation of downstream shellfish and fisheries. Agricultural
drainage networks do not provide adequate time for inactivation of FC due to relative
short hydraulic retention time of water in the canals. The sediments in drainage canals
may even serve as a reservoir of fecal microbes (Jamieson et al., 2003).
It is possible to reduce FC levels by spreading drainage out over a larger area. Spreading
the water out can reduce the survival of such bacteria by increasing its exposure to solar
radiation and less ideal environmental conditions (Burkhardt III et al., 2000; Ontkean et
19

al., 2003). Additionally, FC have been shown to be associated with particulate matter,
which can be trapped by a riparian buffer or floodplain (Ontkean et al., 2003). A
Canadian study observed lower FC numbers in outflow from a wetland, compared to the
inflow (Ontkean et al., 2003). These studies indicate that the proposed stream and
wetland system that utilizes an extensive floodplain will likewise treat fecal bacteria in
the source drainage water, providing a direct improvement to downstream water quality.
References
Birgand, F., 2000. Quantification and modeling of in-stream processes in agricultural
canals of the lower coastal plain. Ph.D. Dissertation Thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 469 pp.
Burkhardt 111, W., Calci, K.R., Watkins, W.D., Rippey, S.R. and Chirtel, S.J., 2000.
Inactivation of indicator microorganisms in estuarine waters. Water Resources,
34(8): 2207-2214.
Daniels, R.B. and Gilliam, J.W., 1996. Sediment and Chemical Load Reduction by Grass
and Riparian Filters. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(1): 246-251.
Gilliam, J.W., Baker, J.L. and Reddy, K.R., 1999. Ch. 24. Water Quality Effects on
Drainage in Humid Regions., Agricultural Drainage, Agronomy Monograph No.
38. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 801-830.
House, W.A. and Warwick, M.S., 1998. A mass-balance approach to quantifying the
improtance of in-stream processes during nutrient transport in a large river
catchement. The Science of the Total Environment, 210/211: 139-152.
Jamieson, R.C., Gordon, R.J., Tattrie, S.C. and Stratton, G.W., 2003. Sources and
Persistence of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in a Rural Watershed. Water Quality
Research Journal of Canada, 38(1): 33-47.
Jordan, T.E., Whigham, D.F., Hofinockel, K.H. and. Pittek, M.A., 2003. Nutrient and
sediment removal by a restored wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 32: 1534-1547.
Kovacic, D.A., David, M.B., Gentry, L.E., Starks, K.M. and Cooke, R.A., 2000.
Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands in Reducing Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Export from Agricultural Tile Drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29(4).
Lilly, J.P., Soil Facts: Agriculture and Coastal Water Quality, North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service, AG-439-10.
Ontkean, G.R., Chanasyk, D.S., Riemersma, S., Bennett, D.R. and Brunen, J.M., 2003.
Enhanced Prairie Wetland Effects on Surface Water Quality in Crowfoot Creek,
Alberta. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 38(2): 335-359.
Osborne, L.L. and Kovacic, D.A., 1993. Riparian Vegetated Buffer Strips in Water-
Quality Restoration and Stream Management. Freshwater Biology., 29: 243-258.
Skaggs, R.W., 1980. A water management model for artificially drained soils. Technical
Bulletin No. 276. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.: 54.
Tanner, C., Nguyen, M. and Sukias, J., 2003. Using constructed wetlands to treat
subsurface drainage from intensively grazed dairy pastures in New Zealand.
Water Science and Technology, 48(5): 207-213.
20
suuaauieul 7v-Lnl7n*ufiv [
Pup 1vo4Bopow
nsoAr 'IL
+x I a, I I©®..®??
- In
i
r _
- /

II_

a
\ \
ax Isjunoa jatxapsa
loafoad Uonvioleag Stu uLi saeig Xn40H
0
SMOI RIM00 QaSOdO?3d c\)
r
err ??
J ?V?F

--? 't + + + + rl i L + 4 \ \
'' t + + + + + i { i p + + +

?
'
\ ?' ??
\ _\ l` .
?
?( \ i r ? '--e i + _s. + +' .i_??:t? mot- ..a-.-? e- + ± _-_
-+
t
+_ A
F
r
i•

\
\ ,- i + + 1
+ + +? } + +
+ K f }
t{.
VIM
+
{)
+

\\
\
\
\ __?\.. _ ?
.
.
+
't
+
+ + +
'1
+ +
1
'..
.
?
\

\
\
\ +
F

'.+ + r
+
+
+
+ + + i
+ 0+ + +
+ + + + + + _4
+
+ + t
++ 4 + h r 1 b 1 + -Ir f # #
+++ + + + 'r r +t? + r +
\
\ \ F

' l

•P ?
\ \ \ \ \ \ + + + + +++ ++ + + + + + F
\ \ \\ \ \\ + + + + 1 + v a
\ \\ \ \\ + + + + h ? 4 + + + i + + +
\ \ \ \ r ?i 1. + + :'F + a ? + , t + + +
.-. ^?- .c + +. 4•'.-^t°T?Y-«- +4++++++4+
4 +A T4; +-I•A}l4
\ \ \ \ \ + + + +--rti•- ?--f-+---+? + + + + + + - +
r +
! 1 i' + + + Jh + + F ? i + 4 + k 'L F
7\.?.a? +_. + bt r+++4r+4+++4++{+ i--+++ri++t+++++i++++ • • 1
+ --- + +++++'.I++ + + + + + + +--+.J +
'- i + F + + + + + } 4 + 4 4 k
-- + + i + + +-" ice -
\ + + + + + + +
+ +
1 i 4 ? 4 'T+%4++
I

• / v/?
---- - --- ----
1 1 1
L
a \ \
11
t -
/o/'
i
) 912
ml „

6uus$u},6ug rocn.;pn-n4By A J=t Jaafoad uoxT4B o11sa2I o?similed aae?H lEnJoN
PU'o tn. •fi0j j7
nsanr L S'IIVZHQ
I
J
O
?I
W
3
Y
U
O
3
O
;c

rn
m
?i
Ir
fg?
f
h
h
U

i

d
w i

cc
i
f-?
i'
in
I r?
Z?
O
F
U
N
W
O
U

i
'lf f 1M
1 I
i
i
I i
i
I
? i
t
N
r
eQeQ A ? _ ?A ysYa }[kjl
S1.8, I I 1 3 ?j C C OQ C i
DP
;r, 1 i O fit
's Z E
EE , I g a B
o a g
e - .g w
U #g ?° 3 L8
,gCL All I all 8
11
?? E €S
11 T1, C2
-- - s W
o???? z a
.:a?s.??se?:?a?,_. ??? a P4 d
?`$ ass .a$ a a
L
f
e
K
r
t?
w
?S
z
>r
?? 8L
a- pq
E
EN
i
3t
5
O
re
a.
Ca
?s
e

A7;-;'A'v
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 28, 2004
MEMORANDUM: 0 4 1 5 9 1
D ???a V
TO: John R. Dorney ? D
Environmental Biological Supervisor SEP 2 9
Division of Water Quality 2004
DENR _ND , WA TER QUALITY
FROM: Doug Huggett x;WZ oRNyyq?RBRq?
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: N.C. Coastal Federation-North River Farms
Project Location: Carteret County, SW corner of the Open Grounds Farm. Take Hwy 70 East through
Beaufort and continue north on Merrimon Road. Take right into farm at the Open
Grounds entrance gate and follow to the first dirt road on the right. Make a right and
continue along this unimproved road to the end.
Proposed Project: Proposes to convert 11 acres of PC farm fields to tidal creeks, coastal marsh, and
Section 404 wetlands.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by October 18, 2004. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Mark
Hardeman at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet. www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Aclion Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
0CM % DWQ %
Development Type FEE (14300 1601 435100093 1625 6253 (24300 1602 435100095 2341
1. Private, noncommercial
development that does not involve 5250 100%($250) 0% (SO)
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
II. Public or commercial development
that does not involve the filling or $400 100%($400) 0%($0)
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. For development that involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A, B, C, or D
below applies:
III(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, If General water Quality 5250 100%($250) 0% (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(B): For public or commercial
development, if General water Quality 5400 100%(S400) 0°b (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and 5400 60% (5240) 40% (5160)
written DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) 5400 60%($240) 40% (S160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more $475 60%($285) 40% ($190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
10 41591'x.
APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Coastal Federation - North River Farms
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project site is located adjacent to the North
River in the southwest corner of the Open Grounds Farm in Carteret County. Take
Hwy 70 East through Beaufort and continue north on Merrimon Road. Take a right into
the farm at the Open Grounds entrance gate and follow to the first dirt road on the right.
Make a right and continue along this unimproved road to the end.
Photo Index-2000: 621, grids 11-19T, 13-18S, 12-19U, 12-22V, 12-22W, 12-22X
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2720000 Y: 405000 Rover #
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - September 17, 2004
Was Applicant Present - No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - September 107 2004
Office - Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Carteret County
Land Classification From LUP - Rural/ Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: CW, ES, EW
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public/Conservation
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - None
Planned - None
(F) Type of Development: Existing - Farm with ditches
Planned - Wetland restoration
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
DREDGED FILLED (ITHIRR
(A) S artina alterniflora 9600sf
(B) Mixed High Marsh 37975sf
(C) Section 404 Wetlands 108900sf
(D) Shallow Bottom (Farm Ditches) 99425sf
(E) High Ground 4579260sf
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 111 ac.
(E) Primary Nursery Area: Yes
(F) Water Classification: SA-HQW Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to convert 111 acres of PC farm fields
to tidal creeks, coastal marsh, and Section 404 wetlands.
Field Investigative Report:
North Carolina Coastal Federation - North River Farms
Page 02
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
The applicant is the North Carolina Coastal Federation, and the project is the restoration of
prior converted wetlands on a 123-acre tract of the North River Farms, adjacent to the North
River and Deep Creek, off Hwy. 70 in Carteret County. The North Carolina Coastal
Federation (NCCF) purchased 4000 acres of the North River Farms, with another 2000 acres
purchased by other entities. The long-range goal for this project is to convert the farmland
from agricultural production to its historical wetland state. The goal is to improve water
quality downstream from the farm. The Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering at North Carolina State University has designed and will monitor the functioning
and success of this project.
The development currently existing on site consists of farm fields, ditches, unimproved roads,
canals, and a small bridge. Site features currently consist of artificially drained farm fields
and historical fields that have colonized into shrub/scrub vegetation. The 123-acre tract, Phase
II, is bordered to the west by a drainage canal. A dirt road and drainage ditch form the
northern boundary of the site. The southern boundary consists of drainage ditches and canals,
while the eastern boundary of the Phases II site is formed by a block of the Phase I restoration
(bottomland hardwoods) and a roadside ditch. Phase II is generally flat with the majority of the
site ranging from 3.5' to 4.5' in elevation. Standard ditches are 4' deep by 8' wide and
transect the site from north to south at 100- meter intervals. A total of nine field ditches drain
the Phase II project area.
Field surface waters (ditches) and field groundwater exhibit some tidal influence. Brackish
marsh vegetation can be found along the ditch banks (Salt Grass, Salt Meadow Grass, Black
Needlerush, and Salt Marsh Bulrush). A large area in the southeast portion of the site has
developed as transitional scrub/shrub habitat and several areas are populated with pines.
The classification designated by the Carteret County Land Use Plan is Rural. All AEC's
within the project site are classified Conservation. The DWQ classifies the waters of Deg
i-reex prom its source to the iv ortn xiver are aw, HY w . me limp aesignates veep Lreex
and the North River at this location as Primary Nursery Areas. The area is closed to the
taking of shellfish by the DEH. The applicant submitted a Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Plan to DLQ and received permit CA-03126 issued to DWQ/NCCF on November 25, 2002.
Restoration proposed would result in 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal
marsh, 23 acres of riparian freshwater wetlands, 1900' of freshwater stream ("Evans Creek"),
4577' of tidal creek ("Broome's Branch"), and 2118' of tidal fingers. The 53 acres of
bottomland forest would be constructed by filling existing farm ditches, removing field
crowns, and planting appropriate tree species. Shallow depressions and simulated treefalls
will be constructed.
Specifically, 9,600sf of Spartina alterniflora would be excavated to create the main channel of
the tidal creek. Freshwater wetlands in the amount of 108,900 sf would be excavated for the
creek and tidal marsh conversion. The high ground area to be excavated/graded to create

Field Investigative Report:
North Carolina Coastal Federation - North River Farms
Page 03
appropriate wetland elevation would be approximately 4,579,260 sf. The mixed high marsh
within the ditches to be filled for wetland elevation would be approximately 37,975 sf., and
the shallow bottom area (farm ditches) to be filled for wetland elevation would be
approximately 99,425 sf.
The proposed stream components are based on the applicant's research of historical aerial
photography. DCM's aerial photographs were researched back to 1984, which depicted the
area as farmland at that time. The stream systems are designed to transport drainage water
through the wetland system as opposed to emptying directly into Deep Creek via the existing
canals. DRAINMOD and HEC-RAS modeling was used to estimate and predict drainage
through the proposed streams.
Evans Creek will transport fresh water from a southwest canal and will connect with the
tidally influenced Broome's Branch. A new flashboard riser to be installed in the sub-main
canal east of an existing structure will control flow. The flashboard riser would be constructed
and attached to a 78' long culvert made of corrugated aluminum. The proposed is 3' in
diameter and the height at the top of the culvert would be 5' 4" above NWL. Approximately
81 cy. of material would be excavated during installation, with 61 cy. being returned for
backfill. The remaining material would be used to fill nearby drainage ditches. Areas 100'
wide on either side of the stream would be graded and reduced in elevation to serve as a
floodplain.
Broome's Branch would be connected to the main north-south drainage canal flowing from the
Open Grounds Farm. A low rock weir would be installed in the existing canal to divert water
into the tidal creek (Broome's Branch). The weir would be constructed of steel sheetpile with
rocks on either side. It would be constructed at 1.0 elevation to reduce drainage at low flow
conditions. The MWL of "Evans Creek" and the drainage canals are at 1.1 elevations.
Broome's Branch elevation would be lower since it is designed as a tidal system to support
brackish marsh. Approximately 25 acres of tidal marsh would be created surrounding
Broome's Branch and the lower part of Evans Creek. Several hummocks would be
constructed in the tidal mars to represent tidal marshes in Carteret County.
Two tidal fingers would be excavated east of the stream systems. They would connect to
tidally influenced ditches and would divert water to create tidal marsh. Two and one half
acres of Section 404 Wetlands would be converted to coastal marsh. Freshwater wetland
conversions are intended to connect proposed tidal marshes to existing coastal wetlands. The
conversion of freshwater wetlands would be accomplished by lowering the elevations along
ridges by excavating 6" to 18" off of the ridges.
There would be a 1.l- acre disturbance of coastal wetland during the construction of the lower
sections of "Broome's Branch" and "Evans Creek" and the tidal fingers. The final 240'-300'
of the stream corridor before it reaches Deep Creek would pass through regularly flooded
coastal marsh. Construction techniques proposed would remove and save the vegetation for
use as bank stabilization. Logging mats would be utilized for ingress and egress of heavy
equipment. Following excavation of the channel the banks would be stabilized with erosion
Field Investigative Report:
North Carolina Coastal Federation - North River Farms
Page 04
control mats, and the salvaged vegetation replanted.
Proposed post-construction monitoring is as follows:
1) Documentation of restored wetland success
2) Documentation of stream stability
3) Evaluation of improvements to water quality and overall stream health
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, Phase II would restore approximately 111 acres of North River Farms to a
system composed of 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, and 23
acres of riparian freshwater wetlands, inclusive of tidal and non-tidal streams.
Approximately 9,600 sf of S artina alterniflora and approximately 108,900 sf of freshwater
wetlands would be excavated for the proposal. The mixed high marsh within the ditches to be
filled would be approximately 37,975 sf., and the shallow bottom area (farm ditches) to be
filled would be approximately 99,425 sf. The high ground area to be excavated/graded would
be approximately 4,579,260 sf., requiring the removal of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of
material.
Ground disturbance in and proximate to wetlands and waters has the potential to cause
temporary turbidity impacts to these systems. These impacts would be lessened by the use of
turbidity curtains, rock check dams, and vegetation. The resultant ecosystem would be
intended to mimic the original habitat, and is intended to restore previous wetland functions to
the site. The public education aspect of this proposal would be an additional benefit.
{,
Mark Hardeman September 28, 2004 Morehead City
North Carolina State University is a land- Department of Biological and
grant university and a constituent institution Agricultural Engineering
of The University of North Carolina
Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
919.515.2675
919.515.6772 (fax)
7 September 2004
Charles Jones
NC Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy. 24 Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, N.C. 28577
Mr. Jones,
Enclosed is a CAMA major permit application for the Phase II wetland restoration at
North River Farms. The Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North
Carolina State University has been chosen by the North Carolina Coastal Federation and
the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program to design this project and apply for the
required permits. To date, we have worked together to restore 250 acres at the site in
Phase I.
Phase II of the restoration project includes 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35
acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of riparian freshwater wetlands, 1900 ft of freshwater
stream (Evans' Creek), 4577 ft of tidal creek (Broome's Branch), and 2118 ft of tidal
fingers. It is proposed that the freshwater stream and tidal creek will transport drainage
water from Open Grounds Farm across the Phase II area, increasing the detention time
and the potential for nutrient, sediment, and bacterial reduction before this water empties
into North River.
Open Grounds Farm and Weyerhaeuser, who are adjacent landowners, have been notified
of our intent to apply for a CAMA major permit, and copies of the certified mail receipts
are included.
This restoration effort will not include any impervious surfaces in its design. Therefore,
by copy of this letter, we are requesting exemption from the stormwater permit
requirements of the NCDWQ.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Burchell II - Extension Assistant Professor
Ph: [phone] e-mail : mike [e-mail]
CC:Linda Lewis
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
Straits Township, NC
1. APPLICANT
c. Street address or secondary road number
Highway 70
a. Landowner:
North Carolina Coastal Federation d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
Name jurisdiction? Yes X No
Address 3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) North River, Deep Creek
City Newport State NC
Zip 28570 Day Phone (252) 393 - 8185
Fax (252) 393 - 7508 3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
b. Authorized Agent:
North Carolina State University - Biological
Name and Agricultural Engineering
Address Campus Box 7625
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27695-7625 Day Phone [phone]
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Restoration of approximately 111 acres of prior
converted cropland to a wet and/stream system
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New Work
Fax [phone]
c. Project name (if any) North River Farms Wetland
Restoration - Phase II
NOTE: Permit wiU be issued in name of i wufowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Carteret
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages.
Please see attached pages
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MINI
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 123 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A - Farmland
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL 1 - 7 ft
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Predominately Deloss fine sandy loam with areas gf Leon
sand and Temotley fine sandy loam
e. Vegetation on tract Agricultural crops (corn, soybeans)
in restoration area with outlying areas of loblloly pine/salt
scrub an sa mars vegetation
f. Man-made features now on tract Drainage ditches
and canals, dirt roads, and bridge over drainage
canals
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local kind use plan.)
_ Conservation Transitional
_ Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Not currently zoned by Carteret County
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
No facility on site
n.. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial /commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.) Surface runoff -
diversion and reduction of agricultural drainage currently
owing in ac es and canals from within the existing
watersneci
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
No potable drinking water supply on site
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning co" Pliance cerrificate, if applicable)
j•
Has a professional
done for the tract?
If yes, by whom? _
archaeological assessment been
Yes X No
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes No
Coastal (marsh) X Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? X
(Attach documentation, if available)
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03195

Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name Open Grounds Farm (attn:Gabriele Onorato)
Address P.O. Box Drawer B Beaufort, N.C. 28516
Phone (252) 728 - 2212
Name Weverhauser (attn: Howard S Pty)
Address P.O. Box 1391 New Bern, N.C. 28563-1391
Phone (252) 633 - 7286
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan - CA-03126 Issued_to
DWQ/NC Coastal Federation on 25 November 2002
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the day of , 19
Print Name Todd Miller - NC Coastal Federation
Signature
Landowner or Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
x DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
X DCM MP-3 Upland Development
X DCM W-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
• A statement of compliance with the N.C. NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to space provided at the bottom of each form.
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public land's, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
To the best of our knowledge, this project does not require the submission of a signed
AEC hazard notice or a statement of compliance with the NCEPA

Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
Existing Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other*
(Excluding
shomline
stabilization)

i V' ??4 y S J.
f i?;
y
wk i,

8595 ft 0-200 ft N/A F=0-2.5 ft
S=2-4.5 ft
'Includes stream and floodplain
features
F = Floodplain
S= Streams
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 3500
b. Type of material to be excavated A and B horizon of
primarily Deloss fine sandy loam
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? X Yes No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards 85,000
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area No disposal area - soil to be used
for filling drainage ditches and surface contouring. Open
(Urounds Farm requests topsoil to increase land elevations.
b. Dimensions of disposal area Areas where excavate
material are to be used in construction are variable in size.
Ditches are normally 4 ft deep x 8 ft wide
c. Do )you claim title to disposal area?
Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes No
If yes, where? Soil will be distributed on the
restoration site and possibly Open Grounds Farm, so
no maintenance wiii be necessary.
Revised 03/95
A00W
Form DCM-NT2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes X No
If Yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION NSA
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
(Source of information)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Rpprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes X No
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If Yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(2) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL,
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Frnslon control mats and
veaetation establishment on the stream banks. Near
Deep Creek, a series of rock check dams and sediment
ence will be constructed. A floating turbidity curtain will
installed in eep ree .
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
Backhoe
c. Will wetlands be cr:,ssed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetlands Restoration - Phase II
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
Date
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-MP-3
UPLAND
DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or
structures proposed 0
b. Number of lots or parcels 0
Density (give the number of residential units and the
units per acre) 0
Size of area to be graded, filled or disturbed
including roads, ditches, etc. 111 acres
If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? Yes X No
If yes, date submitted
f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete) to be used for paved surfaces.
None proposed
g. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
MHW or NWL, or within 575 feet in the case of an
Outstanding Resource Water, to be covered by
impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as
pavement, buildings, rooftops, or to be used for
vehicular driveways or parking. 0 %
h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development
Permit may also require a Stormwater Certification.
Has a site development plan been submitted to the
Division of Environmental Management for review?
Yes X No
If yes, date submitted Note: No impervious surfaces
proposed - see cover letter requesting exemption
i. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal.
N/A
j. Have the facilities described in Item i. above
received state or local approval? N/A
(Aach appropriate documentation)
k. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial /commercial effluent,
"wash down" and residential discharges).
This wetland/stream restoration will discharge surface
runoff and agricultural drainage into Deep Creek, which
flows into the North River, at a volume no greater than
exis ing prac ices.
1. Describe proposed drinking water supply source
(e.g. well, community, public system, etc.)
None proposed
m. Will water be impounded? Yes X No
If yes, how many acres?
n. If the project is a oceanfront development, when
was the lot(s) platted and recorded? N/A
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetland Restoration - Phase II
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
Date
Revised 03/95
100W
Form DCM-MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application which relate to
this proposed project.
a. Dock(s) and/or Pier(s)
(1) _ Commercial -Community _ Private
(2) Number 0
(3) Length
(4) Width
(5) Finger Piers Yes No
(i) Number 0
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
(6) Platform(s) Yes No
(i) Number 0
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
(7) Number of slips proposed 0
(8) Proximity of structure to adjacent riparian
property lines
(9) Width of water body
(10) Water depth at waterward end of pier at
MLW or NWL
b. Boathouse (including covered lifts)
(1) 0 Commercial 0 Private
(2) Length
(3) Width
c. Groin (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.)
(1) Number 0
(2) Length(s)
d. Breakwater (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.) N/A
(1) Length
(2) Average distance from MHW, NWL or
wetlands
(3) Maximum distance beyond MHW, NWL or
wetlands
e. Mooring buoys
(1) _ Commercial -Community _ Private
(2) Number 0
(3) Description of buoy
(Color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
(4)
(5)
Width of water body -
Distance buoy(s) to
shorel ine
be placed beyond
f. Mooring structure (boatlift, mooring pilings, etc.)
(1) - Commercial Community _ Private
(2) Number 0
(3) Length
(4) Width
g. Other (Give complete description)
a) Low sheetile/rock weir in drainage canal to divert
drainage water into tidal creek (EL = 1.0 ft)
b) Flashboard riser/culvert to divert drainage water into
freshwater stream invert = 3.5 ft)
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetlands Restoration - Phase II
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
Date
Revised 03/95
'"?,
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
1. BRIDGES NSA
a. Public Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes No
g. Length of proposed bridge
h. Width of proposed bridge
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes No
if yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes No
If yes, explain
M. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes No
If yes, explain
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert n
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95
APIW
Form DCM-MP-5
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
Sub-main drainage canal of Open Grounds Farm
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
Circular, constructed of corrugated aluminum and
connected to lashboard riser structure.
Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert 78 ft.
g. Width of proposed culvert 3 ft dia.
h.* Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL 5.4 ft.
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes X No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be. excavated in cubic
yards
b.
C.
d.
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
X Yes No
If yes, explain Will divert and transmit drainage water from
Open Grounds Farm into the freshwater stream system
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs - Other Wetlands
If yes,.
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
if yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 78 ft.
(2) Width of area to be excavated 6 ft.
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 81 removed for installation a1 i icari fnr
backfill = net 20 excavated
If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
To be used for filling nearby drainage ditche5
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Ditches generally 4 ft deep x 8 ft wide
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
X Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03195
"0111116.
Form DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be fillets
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlahds - SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 20 ft
(2) Width of area to be filled 8 ft
(3) Purpose of fill Plug ditches to enhance wetland
ydrology
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
c. Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Sediment fences around
excavation site for culvert
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or -hydraulic
dredge)? Backhoe
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
NC Coastal Federation
North River Farms Wetlands Restoration - Phase II
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
Date
Revised 03/95
..`
Parcel 0 734$01275119000
Excise Tax $2,142.40
Fie No. 5701/NCCF.X
V
4'h? Sam. X=
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED ?I
This DEED made this the „ day of November, 2000, by and between JAMES
HOWARD WINSLOW AND WIFE, BILLIE R. WINSLOW, hereinafter "Grantor" and
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION, INC., 3609 HWY 24 (Ocean), Newport, NC
28570, hereinafter "Grantee". The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include
said patties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine,
fcine or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
That the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the
Grantee in foe simple, all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in Straits Township, Carteret
County, North Carolina and more particularly described as follows:
S r Being all of Tract "A" as described on that plat by McKim and it
Creed entitled "NORTH RIVER FARMS FOR NORTH i
r CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION" dated November 7, 2000 it
and recorded in Plat Book 29 at page 853, Carteret County it
Registry; said Tract "A" containing 1,99I +/- acres.
above- II
Also eo?rveged is an eamment for ingress and egress to the
*escribed property from Highway 70 over existing roads in North
r Farms. "Tirane easement rights shall be for the benefit of ?I
Grantee, 'its agents or employees only and said roads shall not be
used for public use nor shall this grant of easement be deemed a
public dedication of any of the roads. Uses of the easement may ?I
Include, but are not limited to the following: ingress and egress
for any member, agent or employee of the NC Coastal Federation,
or for any group of individuals directly supervised by any
member, agent or employee of the NC Coastal Federation for the
purposes of conduction educational tours, scientifle studies, ?I
restoration, planning and permitting and maintenance of the
property and for any other reason necessary for maintaining the
conservation value of the property. 1 18
b
The easement shall be for use of the most direct route from
Highway 70 to the above-described property over the existing ;I.
roads. The exact location of the easement may change in the
future should Grantor, its heirs or assigns agree to relocate the
current existing toads. Grantee must obtain prior written ??
?Aw
- permission from Grantor, it heirs and assigns should Grantee
desire to utilize the easement in any other manner except as
provided above.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and
appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee
simple, has the right to convey the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of
all eacinnbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all
persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove is subject to the following exceptions:
1. Public utility easements of record.
2. Those exceptions as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year
first above written.
Carteret:
BILLIE R. WINSLOW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
(SEAL.)
JAMES HOWARD WINSLOW
(SEAL)
IJ4?? '
ZM rI R K
sm,? ?,.:
I, Denise Lewis , a Notary public of the aforesaid County and State, do
hereby certify that JAMES HOWARD WINSLOW AND WIFE, BILLIE RL WINSLOW
personally came before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this 28thday of November, 2000.
NOTARY PUBLIC ??r?'"E ``''••,?
My Commission Expires:
October 30, 2005
M01 ni g Arthur 33
Carteret county Resister of Do@ S
MA Date 11/28/2000 Time 11:10:00
OR Si576-7, page i of 3
sOO PAGF.
NORTH CAROUN& C ET COVK"
The in Bahl p@tiMC 1 ?(a) of Nolsry RWftlN 604
aodlMd10b oN a T ???
? IMF d* Momod &Wn
tM 800k ftVdPps @rt m tha drat peps " -
NOURY
Alp
F:\MSOffice\documentt\DEEDS\NCCOASTAL FED-WINSLOW,doc
APO"
MXHIBIT A
1. Takes for the year 2001, and subsequent years not yet due and
' payable.
. Ingress and egress rigrita for the benefit of Tract 8 as shown an
Zat recorded a Book of Maps 29, page 853, Carteret County
plat
to Carolina gowar•and Light Company recorded in
3. Right(s)-of-way
Book 372, page 2se, Carteret County tegiatry-
4, Easement(s) to Carolina Power and Light Company recorded in Book
826, Page 688, Carteret--County Registry.
5. Riglhc(o)•of-way to Sprint/Carolina Telephone Company, recorded in
Hook 929, Page 333, Carteret County Registry.
6. Agreement with open Grounds Farm for drainage and maint•=rants.
7. Rights of teaant(s), as tenant(s) only, In possession under
unrecorded lease(s).
8. The provi.a.ons of the Coastal Aroma Management Act.
9. Rights ot. others in and to t eQcontinued aninterr pted flow of Creek, canal, Felton Creek
10. Rights of others in and to marsh and shoreline.
11. Rights to current year's winter wheat crops located upon the property to
to
harvestlshal.l eall rights xpire May 31t 1.
remain with Grantor adidGrights toshall
harvest said crops,
k

BOOK---=}? PAG"-"-
./?
DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The area northeast of North River, near Beaufort, North Carolina has been extensively
drained and converted to cropland. This cropland is in close proximity to North River and
its tributaries, and it is in close proximity to sensitive estuarine environments. Shellfish
harvesting in North River and the surrounding estuaries (Bogue and Core Sounds) is
restricted due water quality problems. This is primarily due to fecal contamination, but
nonpoint source nutrient and sediment pollution has also contributed to water quality
concerns and degradation of shellfish and juvenile fish habitat.
In an effort to improve the water quality in North River and other surrounding sensitive
bodies of water, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) was awarded a grant
from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund to purchase over 4000 acres of North
River Farms. An additional 2000 acres of that farm has been purchased by other entities.
Through this acquisition, the farmland will be removed from agricultural production and
converted back to wetlands, which were once thought to thrive there. The expectation is
that removing this land from agricultural production and subsequently converting it back
to its historical state will improve the quality of the waters downstream of the farm.
To date, 250 acres of the farm have been restored to wetlands in Phase I of this effort.
While the Phase I restoration is important to water quality and habitat restoration, it does
not directly address the potential problems associated with drainage water originating
from neighboring Open Grounds Farms (OGF) to the north. Agricultural drainage from
OGF is conveyed by large drainage canals through North River Farms and into Deep
Creek, a tributary of North River.
2.0 LOCATION INFORMATION
The site is located at North River Farms, a 6000+ acre farm in Carteret County, North
Carolina. This site was drained and cleared for intense agricultural production during the
1970s.The NCCF recently purchased a portion of the farm (over 4000 acres) through a
grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. The NCCF is
pursuing phased stream and wetland restoration opportunities throughout the property
during the next 10 years. Projects on the site are being implemented and funded through a
variety of private and public sources. A parcel of artificially drained farmland,
approximately 123 acres, is available for this phase of the restoration, known as Phase II.
The site is located in the White Oak river basin, DWQ subbasin 03-05-04. The North
River is listed as a Shellfish Area (SA) and a High Quality Water (HQW). The site can be
found on the Williston USGS Quadrangle. Figure 1 is a general location map for the site
and Figure 2 indicates the site location on the USGS Quad Map.

Location Map
Open Grounds Farms
Phase II
Enhancement Area
SR1163
Phase II
Main Site
US-70
SR1300
N
North River
Stream and Wetlands Restoration
Phase II
North River `_?`Va?ay
J
NCSU
Biological and Agricultural
-+" Engineering
Campus Box 7637
Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone: [phone].
USGS Quadrangle Map
USGS Williston Quadrangle
1-_i.- ?•'.-f?._ N-i', ..'• _?AD.
- .'?.• .?,OAK. -_.? ?.... -, _-__... ^_.. ._ ?T\`
_ --' . Phase 11
Area
tor
- ,.
JL_
?fc
y? 9
c ?` l
- 1?, _
k r? Bettie
? r ti '? ;.?' -Woodville Chnzch
li
M - \
N 3 .
North River
NCSU
Stream and Wetlands Restoration t Biological and Agricultural Campus Box 7637
Phase II Engineering Raleigh, NC 27695
-+ Phone: 919.515.267:
The main entrance to North River Farms is located on US-70 in Carteret County. Travel
east on US-70 from New Bern into Havelock. Turn left onto NC-101 in Havelock.
Follow NC-101 for approximately 15 miles and turn left onto SRI 163 (Laurel Road).
Follow SRI 163 until it ends and turn right onto SRI 300 (Merrimon Road). Travel
approximately 2 miles and turn left onto US-70. Cross over North River and Ward's
Creek, through the town of Otway, and past SRI 332 (Harkers Island Road) before
reaching the entrance to the farm on the left. The farm is marked with a yellow "North
River Farms" sign and has a gate that requires a key.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase II of this project will restore approximately 111 acres of North River Farms
between the southeastern corner of OGF and Deep Creek to a system including tidal
marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian wetland, and hardwood wetland. The site currently
consists almost entirely of artificially drained farm fields that were recently in
agricultural production. The main Phase II area is bordered to the west by a major
drainage canal that carries water from the Phase I site and from OGF. The northern
boundary of the Phase II site is formed by a dirt road and drainage ditch, which provide
access to the Phase I and Phase II areas. The southern boundary consists of drainage
ditches and canals, which collect drainage from various parts of the site. The eastern
boundary of the Phase II site is formed by a block of the Phase I restoration (bottomland
hardwood wetland) and a roadside ditch (see Sheet 1 of 3 - Existing Conditions).
The Phase II area is generally flat with some field crowning to promote surface drainage.
The highest elevation exceeds 8 feet near the northeastern corner. The lowest elevations,
around 2.6 feet, exist in the southernmost region and in the northwest corner near the
main north-south canal draining from OGF. The majority of the site is between 3.5 and
4.5 feet in elevation. Standard field ditches (-80 cm deep) transect the site from north to
south at 100-meter intervals. A total of nine field ditches drain the Phase II area.
Field surface water (ditches) and field groundwater exhibit some tidal influence and
brackish marsh and shrub/scrub vegetation can be found growing along the ditch banks.
Several areas along the southern border of the Phase II area were abandoned from
agricultural production due to field wetness, unacceptable frequency of flooding, or tidal
influence problems (brackish water flooding crops). A large area in the southeast portion
of the site has developed as a transitional shrub/scrub marsh and several areas are well
populated with pines. Several areas of lower elevation in the southern areas of the Phase
II site are currently well populated with brackish marsh vegetation. These lower areas of
brackish marsh result from the low elevation and close proximity to tidally influenced
drainage ditches (influenced by Deep Creek.). Background monitoring in the tidally
influenced drainage canals and ditches has indicated a mean water level of 1.1 ft
elevation.
This wetland restoration design is unique in that it combines bottomland hardwood
wetlands with a tidal creek and a freshwater stream. Restoration features will include 53
4
acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 35 acres of tidal marsh, 23 acres of riparian
freshwater wetlands, 1900 ft of freshwater stream (Evans' Creek), 4577 ft of tidal creek
(Broome's Branch), and 2118 ft of tidal fingers. The design creates an enhanced stream
and wetland corridor for treating agricultural drainage. A portion of drainage water from
OGF, currently transported by a network of ditches and canals, will be diverted across the
available landscape into a system of restored streams designed to include significant
floodplain wetlands. The riparian area will include depressions, vegetation, and woody
debris that can dissipate energy, enhance water storage, and create habitat. Surface and
subsurface drainage will be re-connected in the landscape. The restored system will
convey drainage water across the land area to the natural drainage system downstream,
dampening peak discharge and offering treatment of the runoff (nutrients, sediment, and
bacteria) before it reaches the estuary.
The 53 acres of bottomland hardwood forest will be constructed using techniques that
were successful in the Phase I wetland restoration. These areas, located outside of the
stream corridor and riparian floodplains, will provide additional habitat diversity and
water storage. Field ditches will be filled in the areas outside of any jurisdictional
wetlands (rather than just plugged as in Phase 1), field crowns will be removed, and trees
will be planted in these areas. As in Phase I, shallow depressions (which may develop
into small open water areas) and simulated treefalls will be constructed.
The stream component of this wetland restoration will form the cornerstone of the
project. The stream systems are designed to transport agricultural drainage water from
neighboring farmland through the North River wetland system, instead of through an
existing drainage canal that empties directly into Deep Creek. The locations of these
streams are based on historical aerial photography. Dimension, pattern, and profile of the
streams are based on reference stream reaches near the site. DRAINMOD and HEC-RAS
modeling was used to estimate drainage expected from OGF and subsequent flow
through the proposed streams. Impacts on OGF farming operations were also quantified
using HEC-RAS modeling. The stream design will include an extensive riparian wetland
system (tidal and freshwater). During high flow events the wetland system will provide
water storage and nutrient, sediment and bacterial treatment of drainage before it flows to
sensitive shellfishing waters of North River.
Evans' Creek will transport fresh drainage water from a sub-main canal from OGF
southwest and will connect with the tidally influenced Broome's Branch. Drainage water
will flow through a new flashboard riser installed in the sub-main canal east of an
existing structure. Areas 100 ft on either side of the stream will be excavated to serve as
a floodplain. This portion of the project will involve some Priority II restoration, but will
mostly be classified as Priority I. The floodplain of the upper 1900 ft reach of the stream
will consist of freshwater riparian wetlands. During large rainfall events, water will
overflow the banks of Evans' Creek into the riparian area, increasing the potential of
reducing nutrient, sediment, and bacteria. This freshwater system will transition to a tidal
system as it nears Broome's Branch. The riparian area associated with all tidal streams is
tidal marsh.
5
Broome's Branch will be connected to the main North-South drainage canal flowing from
OGF. A low rock weir will be installed in the existing canal to divert water into
Broome's Branch. This structure is essential to raise the elevation of the water in the
canal during low-flow conditions to elevations that will allow water to enter Broome's
Branch. Extensive HEC-RAS modeling has indicated that installation of the weir at 1.0 ft
elevation will minimally reduce drainage from OGF at low flow conditions. At higher
flows, drainage capacity for OGF will increase, because Broome's Branch will act as an
additional drainage outlet. The low rock weir structure will be constructed of sheet pile,
with a rock ramp on either side. This rock will support the sheetpile and ease passage of
shellfish and anadromous fish. Additionally, Broome's Branch will serve as an
alternative passageway and habitat for migrating species. Most of Broome's Branch will
be classified as Priority II restoration. This type of restoration involves reconnecting the
stream to a floodplain at a new elevation. Near Deep Creek, however, no floodplain
excavation will be necessary due to low surface elevations, and therefore Broome's
Branch will utilize Priority I restoration in this area. Elevations of the stream channel and
the floodplain in the Broome's Branch system will be lower than the upper reaches of
Evans' Creek since it is designed as a tidal system that supports brackish marsh
vegetation. Approximately 25 acres of tidal marsh will be created near Broome's Branch
and the lower reach of Evans' Creek. Several hummocks will also be constructed in the
tidal marsh to more accurately represent tidal marshes in Carteret County.
Two tidal fingers will also be constructed east of the stream systems. Both of these
connect to tidally influenced ditches, and divert tidal water into areas that will be lowered
to < 3.0 ft elevation. This will create an additional 10 acres of tidal marsh, a very valuable
ecosystem in this landscape setting.
The site is currently being monitored for background water quality and hydrology data.
4.0 WETLAND AREA DISTURBED
This project will substantially increase the area of brackish marsh and freshwater
wetlands. Most of the areas that will be created require no disturbance of existing
freshwater wetlands or tidal marsh. However, the project calls for conversion of 2.5
acres of freshwater wetlands covered by Section 404 to tidal marsh and temporary
impacts to 1.1 acres of CAMA marsh.
All freshwater wetland conversions are in an effort to connect proposed tidal marshes to
existing CAMA tidal marsh. These areas include (see Sheet 2 of 3 - Proposed
Conditions):
1. The southern riparian area along the first 800 ft of Broome's Branch
2. East of ditch 3 near the convergence of Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek
3. Along Broome's Branch between station 2700-3100 ft
4. Near the tidal fingers
Due to tidal influence, ditches 1-5 support small areas of tidal marsh. They support
vegetation such as saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina
6
patens), but there are also areas of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and saltmarsh
bulrush (Scirpus robustus). These areas are isolated from the prior-converted farmlands
by ridges with elevations between 6-18 inches higher. These ridges support shrub-scrub
vegetation communities. By lowering the elevation of these freshwater wetland areas, the
existing CAMA marsh could be connected to the proposed tidal marsh. This will create a
more stable ecosystem and increase acreage of tidal marsh created. These tidal marshes
are more important ecologically in this watershed than the non-tidal wetlands, due to the
proximity of the Phase II restoration site to the estuary. These areas will potentially
support larger populations of shellfish and juvenile finfish, which are important to the
health of the estuary and to the fisheries population. No net loss of wetlands will occur
during this conversion.
The 1.1 acres of CAMA wetland disturbance will be temporary and will occur during
construction of the lower sections of Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek and the tidal
fingers. The most significant area is near where Broome's Branch joins Deep Creek. An
alternatives analysis was performed to evaluate whether encroachment into this CAMA
marsh was necessary. The final 300-400 feet of the designed stream corridor passes
through a small tidal marsh area as it joins Deep Creek In this area, elevations are
between 1.8 and 2.5 ft. Marsh vegetation such as Spartina patens, Spartina alternaflora,
Juncus roemerianus, Scirpus robustus, and Distichlis spicata have been observed in an
area of approximately 1 acre that the final reach of the designed stream must pass
through. This area is tidally inundated daily because Deep Creek is connected with an
existing farm drainage ditch that borders this area to the east. The following are three
design alternatives for managing this sensitive environmental area, including the
proposed design (Alternative 4).
Alternative 1- Allow overland flow through the marsh area
This alternative would allow the combined flows of Evans' Creek and Broome's
Branch to flow overland for 300 ft through the existing marsh to Deep Creek. This
would be the most inexpensive option and would have the least initial impact on the
marsh area. The combined flow would form a series of natural channels through the area
as it progresses towards Deep Creek and produce additional sediment load to Deep
Creek. Surveys of the existing marsh area revealed several deep head-cuts from existing
overland flow around the marsh, demonstrating the production of excessive sediment and
vegetative loss that these cuts produce. In addition, the final reach of the design stream
would not immediately be connected with Deep Creek, and therefore could not serve to
transport brackish water upstream to support tidal marsh vegetation or allow passage of
finfish and shellfish.
Alternative 2 - Connect stream flow to existing ditch
Alternative 2 would connect the combined flows of Evans' Creek and Broome's
Branch to an existing field ditch on the eastern side of the marsh (Ditch 4), which is
currently connected to Deep Creek. The flow would bypass the marsh before emptying
into Deep Creek. The field ditch is narrower than the channel proposed to convey the
combined flow from Open Grounds Farm. This is also an inexpensive alternative, but
excessive scour and bank erosion would be probable with this ditch's current dimensions.
An unstable canal or stream can be a source of sediment and particulate phosphorus.
House (House and Warwick, 1998) reported within-reach particulate phosphorus gains,
attributed to bank erosion and surface runoff from adjacent land. In addition, the ditch is
restricted to regular flooding only on the west side into the current marsh area; excavated
material from the ditch construction/maintenance is piled to an elevation of
approximately 4 ft on the eastern side. This limits the extent of tidal marsh development
and also increases the potential for the higher, eastern bank to undercut, producing
sediment. As the ditch receives additional flow, it will attempt to achieve a stable channel
form, which is sinuous rather than linear. As sinuosity develops, the ditch will most
likely cut into the marsh, resulting in additional sediment loss to Deep Creek.
Alternative 3 - Connect stream flow to existing ditch after widening
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, but the ditch would be widened to
accommodate additional flow from Evans' Creek and Broome's Branch. Widening the
ditch with a backhoe would require stockpiling of vegetation for replanting after
construction of this section. However, even the widened section of existing ditch would
begin to achieve stability by becoming more sinuous, and thus encroaching into the
marsh. This would result in long-term sediment loss similar to that in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 - Stable channel construction through existing marsh
The design calls for the stream to be constructed with a sinuous pattern through
300 ft of marsh area before it connects with Deep Creek. Prior to construction, marsh
vegetation growing on areas to be disturbed will be harvested and stockpiled in a nearby
moist area. Channel excavation will be managed to minimize impacts to the existing
marsh. Channel excavation will begin on the downstream side near Deep Creek, and
progress northward out of the marsh area. Logging mats will facilitate transportation of
heavy equipment. Excavated material will be transported from the marsh along the same
path as the channel cut, to minimize disturbance. Following channel construction, the
banks will be stabilized with erosion control mats and root wads and the stockpiled marsh
vegetation will be planted on the channel edge immediately.
The result will be a stable stream section with access to a floodplain on both sides
rather than one side. Currently, the ditch is restricted on its eastern side by excavated
ditch material, and regular flooding only occurs on the west side of the ditch. By
implementing the proposed design, the tidal stream will moved further west into the
center of the marsh, increasing the potential for a greater area to be regularly inundated
with brackish water. This increased area alone will mitigate the initial loss of marsh due
to channel constriction. More importantly, the stream section designed through the
marsh will also be more stable and resistant to sediment loss than if the water from
Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek are left to overland flow through the marsh, or if
they are connected to the existing ditch bordering the marsh.
Construction of the tidal fingers that will transport brackish water into new areas within
the Phase II restoration area will also require temporary CAMA marsh impacts in the
areas where they will be connected to the tidally influenced ditches. Construction
methods will be similar to those described as Broome's Branch connects with Deep
Creek (Alternative 4).
8
No net loss of CAMA wetlands will occur. Any loss would be easily mitigated by the
acreage of CAMA marsh created with this design.
5.0 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN
From Carteret County soils map (MRCS), the following soils are present on the Phase II
restoration site (Figure 3):
Deloss (De)
The predominate soil series in the proposed Phase II restoration site is the Deloss
fine sandy loam. This soil series extends through the central sections of the restoration
site. The Deloss series are very poorly drained soils typically found in low marine and
stream terraces. The Deloss soil is used mainly as woodland. Typical tree species
include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine (Pines serotina), water oak (Quercus
nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), red
maple (Acer rubrum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipfera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and baldcypress (Taxodium distichum)
are dominant. In depressional areas where water ponds, the hardwoods are dominant.
Trees grow well, but wetness increases seedling mortality. Common understory plants
include redbay (Persea borbonia), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana),
bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
switchcane (Artmdinaria tecta), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), Virginia chainfem (Woodwardia virginica),
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison-ivy (Rhus radicans), sweetleaf
(Symplocos tinctoria), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), honeysuckle
(Lonicera sp.), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Leon (Ln)
Areas the eastern and westernmost sections of the site include Leon sand, which is
poorly drained. It is typically found in low ridges, flats and upland depressional areas, as
well as in low marine terraces and on islands. As the Deloss soil, the Leon soils are used
primarily for woodland. Loblolly (Pinus taeda), longleaf (Pinus palustris), and pond
pine (Pinus serotina) are dominant. However, scattered water oak (Quercus nigra),
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum) can also be found growing on
this soil. Common understory plants are threeawn grass (Aristida sp.), blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.), brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), bitter
gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), turkey oak (Quercus laevis),
redbay (Persea borbonia) and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana).
Tomotley (Tm)
The Northeastern portion of the proposed restoration site consists of Tomotley
fine sandy loam, a poorly drained soil typically located on broad flats and in depressions
9
in low marine and stream terraces. In woodland areas predominant tree species are
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Ater rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Typical understory species include redbay (Persea
borbonia), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea),
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), huckleberry (Gaylussacia
sp.), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), Virginia chainfern
(Woodwardia virginica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison-ivy (Rhos
radicans), sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Hoboken muck (HB)
The extreme south central portion of the proposed Phase II restoration site, near
Deep Creek, is comprised of Hoboken muck. This soil is very poorly drained, is located
in marshes adjacent to rivers, creeks, sounds, and bays in Carteret County. Its elevation
is generally less than 2 ft, so it is frequently flooded. Native vegetation is adapted to
extreme wetness, periodic flooding, and salt exposure. Common plants include black
needlerush (Juncos roemerianus), big cordgrass (Spartina cynsoroides), sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicense), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), eastern baccharis (Baccharis
halimifolia), seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) , smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniora), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus
robustus), glasswort (Salicornia sp.), marshelder (Iva frutescens), Atlantic-white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), and saltwort (Batis maritime).
The following are a list of herbaceous and woody vegetation that are to be planted in the
bottomland hardwood wetland, the freshwater riparian wetlands, and the brackish marsh.
Herbaceous vegetation will be planted on 3 ft x 3 ft spacing, while trees will be planted at
435 stems/acre.
10
Soil f Np ?`fh Rhase II
n?9?Restor on Site
IdWreto
Ws

De
Ln Deloss (fine sandy loam)
Tomotley (fine sandy loam)
Leon (sand)
Ln
Phase II Area -
A Ro
HB
Ln
Hoboken (muck)
Mu
Deep Creek
North River Ap / U
V ul
w _

AaA
The following species of vegetation are proposed along Broome's Branch and in the
lower reach of Evans' Creek:
Brackish Marsh (salinity 0.5 to 18 ppt)
Elevation Species
Lowest elevation adjacent to stream
Mid elevation
High marsh
Occasional shrubs
Trees
Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass)
Juncus roemerianus (black needle rush)
Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass)
Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass)
Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle)
Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel tree)
Hibiscus moscheittos (rose mallow)
Sabal minor (palmetto)
Taxodium disticum (bald cypress)
Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo)
Chamaecyparis thyoides (Atlantic white
cedar)
12
The following species of vegetation are proposed along the upper reaches of Evans'
Creek:
Freshwater Marsh (salinity < 0.5 ppt)
Elevation Species
Lowest elevation Scirpus validus (soft stem bulrush)
Scirpus americanus (three square)
Peltandra virginica (arrow arum)
Mid elevation Cladium jamaicense (saw grass)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
High elevation Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass)
Shrubs and trees Same as brackish marsh with additional tree
species such as
Nyssa sylvatica (swamp blackgum or tupelo)
Quercus lyrata (overcup oak)
Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
13
The following tree species are suggested for the bottomland hardwood/swamp wetland
areas:
Taxodium disticum (bald cypress), Nyssa aquatica (water tupelo), Nyssa sylvatica
(swamp blackgum or tupelo), Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) Quercus michauxii (swamp
chestnut oak) Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Quercus nigra (water oak), Quercus
pagoda (cherry bark oak), Quercus laurifolia (laurel oak), Persea palustris (swamp bay),
Pinus palustris (longleaf pine).
6.0 POST CONSTRUCTION MONIOTRING
Post construction monitoring will consist of three areas:
1. Success of wetland restoration
2. Stream stability
3. Evaluation of water quality improvements and stream health
A monitoring procedure has been developed based on the document "Draft Vegetation
Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration Projects"
provided by the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). This plan will
meet the requirements for determining the mitigation success of the Phase II restoration.
The plan for this site includes components for monitoring the restored stream reaches and
wetland areas. Initial inspections of the site should commence immediately following
construction and planting completion and occur regularly until the full monitoring plan
can be implemented. The full monitoring regimen should begin in the fall of the year and
should be repeated each year for 3-5 years. Visual inspection of the site should occur at
least once per year in addition to the full monitoring visit. A Monitoring Report should be
published and updated annually. The report should include the results of collected data,
the status of the site for meeting the site success criteria, and any suggestions for
mitigating areas not meeting requirements.
Further monitoring will be implemented by NCSU for research purposes. This
monitoring will involve a detailed investigation of water quality, hydrology, hydraulics,
soils, and vegetation in the Phase II area. Research activities will involve regular visits to
the site by university students and faculty.
6.1 Wetland Monitoring
As described in the "Draft Vegetation Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and
Wetland Restoration Projects" document, plots are proposed for recording vegetation
density and survivability in the restored freshwater wetland areas. Plots are proposed in
various areas to represent the range of conditions and treatments. The total number of
plots will be determined based on the final planting and community plan for the site. The
plots in freshwater wetland areas will be 10 meters x 10 meters, with nested plots of 5
meters x 5 meters and 1 meter x 1 meter. All trees will be counted, identified, and
14
measured for diameter breast height (dbh) throughout the entire plot. Shrub data will be
recorded in the nested 5-meter plot and herbaceous material estimated in the 1-meter plot.
Although plots cannot be set up in every area of the site, the entire site should be visited
to make observations on the health and development of various areas.
Also as described in the NCWRP Monitoring Plan, transects are proposed for vegetative
monitoring in brackish marsh areas. Transects will be positioned perpendicular to the
tidal creek (Broome's Branch) and will continue up slope to the freshwater wetland areas
or the borders of the site. Plots will be located along the transect for stem counts and
survival of marsh species. The plots will be 1 meter x 1 meter and all species will be
counted within each plot. A range and estimate of stem heights will also be recorded. The
exact number of transects and plots in each transect will be determined based on the final
planting plan for the site. It is estimated that at least one transect will be located on each
side of the tidal creek at an interval less than 1000 feet. Each transect will likely have at
least three plots in the lower marsh and at least one in upper marsh areas.
Further wetland monitoring will be completed to support research efforts at the site.
Detailed research will include the investigation of hydrologic and soil response to the
restoration activities. Background water table data has been collected since March of
2003. If needed, water table information from these same wells may be analyzed to
determine if hydrologic criteria for wetlands is satisfied after construction. Because this
site is located in the temperate coastal plain, soil temperature data may be needed to
augment growing season determination at the site. Other potential research investigations
are being developed and may be implemented at the site.
6.2 Stream Monitoring
The stream monitoring setup will also be designed based on the NCWRP Monitoring
Plan guidance. The proposed plan includes locating permanent cross sections at regular
intervals along all sections of restored stream on the site. The cross sections will be
surveyed annually to determine if any dimensional adjustments are occurring. Where
possible, cross sections will be targeted to assess the progression of geomorphic features.
The annual survey will also include acquisition of longitudinal profile and pattern data to
further assess the stability of the stream reaches. Vegetation surveys will also be
conducted on the bank and in riparian areas.
Photographic reference points should be installed in the stream and wetland areas of the
site. Comparing photos taken during each monitoring visit will provide a visual record of
site development. Other photographs should record any areas of concern throughout the
site. These photos will help determine the extent of any problems and identify potential
corrective actions.
6.3 Water Quality Enhancement
One of the goals for this restoration is to enhance the water quality of Deep Creek and
ultimately North River. Therefore, water quality in Broome's Branch, Evans Creek, and
15
Deep Creek will be monitored. Flow and water quality will be monitored upstream and
downstream in both Broome's Creek and Evans' Creek before they converge and flow
into Deep Creek. Additionally, flow and water quality will be monitored as the
constructed stream system enters Deep Creek. Flow and water quality have been
measured in the main canal from Open Grounds Farm that flows into Deep Creek since
March 2003, and will continue after the Phase II restoration. This sampling scheme will
provide information into water quality enhancement as a result of wetland/stream
restoration.
Automatic water samplers will be used to collect samples, which will be analyzed for
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment. A percentage of the samples will be used for fecal
coliform bacteria counts. Flow measuring devices will be employed at these sampling
stations to help determine the contaminant loads entering and exiting the restoration site.
In addition, macroinvertebrate surveys may be employed to evaluate how long it takes the
new streams to accumulate these organisms.
7.0 EXPECTED RESULTS
The Phase II restoration has been designed to reduce nutrient, sediment, and bacterial
loads entering North River. To estimate and compare the total nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction/attenuation that may occur by routing the predicted portions of OGF drainage
water through the proposed streams, first the background water quality data collected on
the site was reviewed. Automatic water samplers collect daily samples during low tide at
the location where Broome's Branch will begin (on the main North-South canal), and at
the outlet of the reference wetland.
Reviewing the available water quality data from February 2003 - February 2004 reveals
that the drainage water that will be routed through Broome's Branch contains elevated
nitrogen concentrations compared to the nitrogen concentrations monitored at the
reference wetland outlet. The mean nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and total nitrogen (TN =
TKN+NO3-N) concentrations were 0.3 and 2.6 mg/L respectively, in the main canal. The
mean NO3-N and TN concentrations for the same time period were only 0.04 and 1.3
mg/L at the reference wetland outlet.
Reviewing the background data also reveals that the drainage water that will be routed
through Broome's Branch contains elevated phosphorus concentrations compared to the
phosphorus concentrations monitored at the reference wetland outlet. The mean total
phosphorus (TP) concentration from Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2004 was 0.4 mg/L in the main
canal and only 0.1 mg/L at the reference outlet. Similarly average suspended solids (SS),
or sediment concentration was 70.6 mg/L over Feb. 2003 to Feb. 2004 and only 16.1
mg/L for the same time period at the reference outlet.
Literature was reviewed to determine the amount of nutrient and sediment reduction that
could be expected as drainage travels through a drainage canal versus when drainage
travels through the proposed stream and wetland system. There is a large range of
16
nutrient/sediment reductions (or increases) reported and results vary due to location,
drainage characteristics, seasons, years, variability in distribution of inflows, etc.
Findings from literature review:
• In a dissertation literature review, it was reported that nitrogen retention in
agricultural streams and canals can range from 5-60% of the gross load (Birgand,
2000). Over 14 months, Birgand measured 3% retention of TN, 10% retention of
TP, and 10% of TSS in an agricultural canal (1125 meters long) in the coastal
plain of NC.
• A Maryland study (Jordan et al., 2003) of a restored wetland receiving highly
variable amounts of agricultural drainage (ag area:wetland area = 10.8:1) found
annual removal of nutrients to vary each year of the 2 year study. During the first
year, 59% of TP and 38% of TN was removed. During the second year, no
significant removal of TN or TP was measured. Over the entire study, the
wetland removed 52% of NO3, but no significant removal of sediment or other
forms of N or P was measured.
• Two New Zealand constructed wetlands (1-2% of drainage area) received
subsurface drainage from grazed pasture land and were effective at removing
nutrients (Tanner et al., 2003). For the 2 sites, 56 and 33% of TN was reduced
through each site, respectively. A 3-month evaluation reported a 78% NO3
reduction, a 96% TN reduction, and an 80% DRP (dissolved reactive phosphorus)
based on a mass balance for one of the wetlands.
• In Illinois, constructed wetlands receiving tile drainage reduced overall NO3 load
to downstream surface waters by -38% in a 3-yr study (Kovacic et al., 2000).
These wetlands were not shown to be a significant source or sink of P. .
• Additionally, a riparian buffer acts as a filter for removing sediment/particulate
and sediment-bound nutrients (particularly phosphorus, P) from surface runoff
moving across them (Daniels and Gilliam, 1996; Gilliam et al., 1999).
• Osborne and Kovacic (Osborne and Kovacic, 1993) summarized results from a
variety of riparian buffer studies, citing the buffers' ability to remove 50-85% of
total P, on a long-term basis.
The mean nutrient and sediment concentrations for the current MD01 record (location
where Broome's Branch will begin) were used to estimate load inputs for Broome's
Branch, Evans' Creek, and the existing canals. Using HEC-RAS predictions for the
distribution of flows between existing and proposed streams and the nutrient and
sediment concentrations listed above, nutrient and sediment loads were estimated for
each theoretical storm, for each stream or canal.
The performance of the proposed system was evaluated for this application in a general
way - based on percent reductions in load. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention
in drainage canals are those from research in eastern North Carolina (Birgand, 2000).
Birgand (2000), measured 3% reduction in TN, 10% reduction in TP, and 10% reduction
in sediment over 14 months. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention expected in the
proposed stream/wetland system are conservative estimates based on other literature
reviewed. Estimates of nutrient and sediment retention in the stream/wetland system are
17
30% retention of TN, N03, TP, and sediment. These estimates were used to compare the
treatment of nutrients and sediment by the existing conditions (i.e. drainage water
flowing through the canal system to Deep Creek) and the proposed system (i.e. existing
canals plus proposed streams/wetland). These percentages were used to reduce the
estimated mass load (kg) of nutrient or sediment for each reach and a mass load reduction
per storm was calculated for each reach.
To estimate the flow needed to calculate nutrient and sediment removal for the existing
and proposed conditions, a network including the existing drainage canals and the
proposed stream system was produced for hydraulic analysis using HEC-RAS. A series
of steady flow analyses were used to predict the proportion of flow that will be diverted
into each proposed stream for the 2-, 5-, and 10-yr theoretical storm hydrographs.
Modeling and predictions will continue in order to quantify these influences on the
proposed system's ability to treat nutrients and sediment. Ultimately, the proposed
system will be evaluated based on longterm drainage inflows estimated using
DRAINMOD (Skaggs, 1980).
Based on the stream dimensions, slope, and structures designed to divert the drainage
water, the HEC-RAS model predicts Broome's Branch will carry 16% of the 2-yr storm,
17% of the 5-yr storm, and 21% of the 10-yr storm. The model also predicts Evans'
Creek will carry 60% of the 2-yr storm, 48% of the 5-yr storm, and 43% of the 10-yr
storm.
Table 1. Percentage values used to estimate overall reduction in gross nutrient and
sediment load for each canal/stream (same values used for all storm sizes).
Reduction percentages used (same for all design storms that were evaluated)
TN Reduction N03-N Reduction TP Reduction SS Reduction
Main Canal, Existing Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Main Canal, Proposed Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Broome's Branch, Proposed Conditions
i ...a
war
Q
s
++ 30%
?rva
wwsxumar?•rm^
rc:::;per 30% 30%
r:eera.-r..wrsu?.?er:Jew.rrrnnnnuac rra.:icstn av+:!.s+:::,vrcat.m„as
a?v
++ 30%
;n.Kw.ua?.ws+m?arrnia:ranarrrewa
r.
r
.
.
.
vcwva.*a:.atm>+.rr+?awr
East-West Canal, Existing Conditions .
.
3% ..
.
3% 10% 10%
East-West, Proposed Conditions 3% 3% 10% 10%
Evans' Creek, Proposed Conditions 30% 30% 30% 30%
Nutrient loads in and out of the existing canals and the proposed system were calculated.
In order to summarize the amount of nutrient or sediment treated by the existing canals
compared to the proposed system, percent change in mass load was calculated. The
following calculation was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for
Broome's Branch and Evans' Creek separately.
In all instances, the proposed conditions (existing canals, plus proposed streams) result in
lower sediment or nutrient exported downstream in the outflow. To quantify the
difference in load reduction due to the proposed conditions compared to the existing
conditions a percent difference was calculated.
18

The results indicate that the proposed conditions will reduce sediment and nutrient loads
continuing downstream more than the existing canals alone (Table 2). For instance, for
the 2-yr storm event, the proposed conditions at Broome's Branch may reduce the TN
load 4% more than the existing canal and the proposed conditions at Evans' Creek may
reduce the TN load by 17% more than the existing canal alone.
Table 2. Percent reduction of nutrient or sediment load from stream inflow to
outflow for existing and proposed conditions for various storms.
% by which proposed conditions reduce loads more than
existing conditions
(LOexisting - LOproposed) / LOexisting
TN N03 TP SS
2-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 4% 4% 4% 4%
'
`

Storm Qf+.31Ft:.?5C.h2tim4i.tllsLPA?:.kT:SRetIO'47C'.f,?.i`•,lG:.?%.'?R tfs}RofY?C::i?+3KPSYxL"?4 ti ?;F:O"-'C.T,"St':?7fiW11WS?IC'YDK7r.?.[R' ?A?iAffTta n!SYX11:C.7
.u
:iiY.TJSi!'iCilw4@?t2R?4Y1sd t?K'Jw.?lF75:nt1
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed 17% 17% 13% 13%
5-yr Main Canal + Broome's Branch, Proposed 5% 5% 4%
'
'
'
' 4%
*2c?5t%i:;
?7
"
'
:
ifre6'i'7131SC4RY?A[SiFY+?t:>:?!X'+9iiVi?lGeA'BA:SRS7.yLYri..:,:.:.?Y.:7?"l,'L31:3::4!3L3'A!a"'.'7?'15T':19'.'?1':ht8;i?f+!iC]tC 711'.fA WitlL.K2:7?'.S'v.Nn1:d4A:tit"3Y'4lA.C ;
AN1
$1nY,?T+w
:
.?
R7
tAfdfiEC6•MP!AYfL
9?,:
u
Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed 13% 13% 11% 11%
10-yr Main Canal + Broome 's Branch, Proposed 6% 6% 5% 5%

Storm
East-West Canal + Evans' Creek, Proposed
12%
12%
10%
10%
The percentage of marsh and riparian wetland to drainage area is 8%, or a 13:1 ratio of
proposed drainage area to treatment area. Including the hardwood wetland that will be
created, the percentage of restored wetland area to drainage area is 15%, or a 7:1 ratio of
proposed drainage area to wetland area. Significant nutrient and sediment treatment has
been measured in wetlands that only represent 1-2% of the catchment area (Tanner et al.,
2003). For a smaller ratio of drainage area to wetland, more nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction in the drainage water can be expected (Lilly). Lilly suggests a ratio of
agricultural drainage area to wetland buffer area of 15:1 to achieve water quality
improvement.
Even though there is no animal production on the surrounding agricultural land, fecal
coliform (FC) levels found in drainage water from OGF are elevated (based on
background data collected by colleagues). This fecal bacteria is believed to be
contributing to the degradation of downstream shellfish and fisheries. Agricultural
drainage networks do not provide adequate time for inactivation of FC due to relative
short hydraulic retention time of water in the canals. The sediments in drainage canals
may even serve as a reservoir of fecal microbes (Jamieson et al., 2003).
It is possible to reduce FC levels by spreading drainage out over a larger area. Spreading
the water out can reduce the survival of such bacteria by increasing its exposure to solar
radiation and less ideal environmental conditions (Burkhardt III et al., 2000; Ontkean et
19
.
al., 2003). Additionally, FC have been shown to be associated with particulate matter,
which can be trapped by a riparian buffer or floodplain (Ontkean et al., 2003). A
Canadian study observed lower FC numbers in outflow from a wetland, compared to the
inflow (Ontkean et al., 2003). These studies indicate that the proposed stream and
wetland system that utilizes an extensive floodplain will likewise treat fecal bacteria in
the source drainage water, providing a direct improvement to downstream water quality.
References
Birgand, F., 2000. Quantification and modeling of in-stream processes in agricultural
canals of the lower coastal plain. Ph.D. Dissertation Thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 469 pp.
Burkhardt III, W., Calci, K.R., Watkins, W.D., Rippey, S.R. and Chirtel, S.J., 2000.
Inactivation of indicator microorganisms in estuarine waters. Water Resources,
34(8): 2207-2214.
Daniels, R.B. and Gilliam, J.W., 1996. Sediment and Chemical Load Reduction by Grass
and Riparian Filters. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60(1): 246-251.
Gilliam, J.W., Baker, J.L. and Reddy, K.R., 1999. Ch. 24. Water Quality Effects on
Drainage in Humid Regions., Agricultural Drainage, Agronomy Monograph No.
38. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 801-830.
House, W.A. and Warwick, M.S., 1998. A mass-balance approach to quantifying the
improtance of in-stream processes during nutrient transport in a large river
catchement. The Science of the Total Environment, 210/211: 139-152.
Jamieson, R.C., Gordon, R.J., Tattrie, S.C. and Stratton, G.W., 2003. Sources and
Persistence of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in a Rural Watershed. Water Quality
Research Journal of Canada, 38(1): 33-47.
Jordan, T.E., Whigham, D.F., Hofmockel, K.H. and Pittek, M.A., 2003. Nutrient and
sediment removal by a restored wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 32: 1534-1547.
Kovacic, D.A., David, M.B., Gentry, L.E., Starks, K.M. and Cooke, R.A., 2000.
Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands in Reducing Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Export from Agricultural Tile Drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29(4).
Lilly, J.P., Soil Facts: Agriculture and Coastal Water Quality, North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service, AG-439-10.
Ontkean, G.R., Chanasyk, D.S., Riemersma, S., Bennett, D.R. and Brunen, J.M., 2003.
Enhanced Prairie Wetland Effects on Surface Water Quality in Crowfoot Creek,
Alberta. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 38(2): 335-359.
Osborne, L.L. and Kovacic, D.A., 1993. Riparian Vegetated Buffer Strips in Water-
Quality Restoration and Stream Management. Freshwater Biology., 29: 243-258.
Skaggs, R.W., 1980. A water management model for artificially drained soils. Technical
Bulletin No. 276. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.: 54.
Tanner, C., Nguyen, M. and Sukias, J., 2003. Using constructed wetlands to treat
subsurface drainage from intensively grazed dairy pastures in New Zealand.
Water Science and Technology, 48(5): 207-213.
20
e~ m t•
i
W m
t` N
OPEN GROUNDS FARM ~ ~
Er Existin Control Proposed Riser ~ z g .Structure ~ ~
Structure (see details) ~ ~aa ~t d
t~ . c, U r ~ x
E
Drainage Canal ~ v ~ _ ~ a - _ ~w o
Moh FIOM (tldall k,ftuencean _ , ~ z U V
, ix ~d ~
o ~ - ~ .
/ / / / / nny~Cr ek/ Q ~
/ fr~s. nt~ S a~ 00 9+00 / / •c~ / dal r k + 49+ -3}400 N r / ~ ~ / l / ~ ~
Broome's Brunch ' ~ / / / / / / / / / / Tidnt Creek ` / / / / / / / U ~
/ / / Tree nl~' / / / / / / r MAP LEGEND / / / ~
/ / / / / / / ~ / / / 1 / / / ~ ~ ~
i, f. / / / / / / / / / / / / J!J~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / , / '~C as
_ ~;~r; / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / : / % / / BRIDGES
/ / / / / / / / ~ r : ! t / / % / / - - DIRT RDAD ~ / / / ~
f J~ / / / / / / / l / / r` / S CT T Z / ~ / r / CROSS E ION POIN
/ / / ~ ' ' ; . ~ s / CONTROL POINT / ~ , r , ~
tow'Rod~ Whir + + + + + + + + > > ! ~ ~ / Sll'~ F nce' / / / / / / / % ~ , r j ` ~ ~ ; / ti BENCH MARK r / J ~ r ,t r l r/ r, ; / -~L TREE LINES/WOODS
. r , ~ ~ , ' r , HYDRO
/ r , r~~ , ` , ~ ~ ~ , ; " ~ / / _ EXISTING CONTOUR
i ' ` / ' ' ~ / CAMA WETLANDS
+ + + + + + + + + ~ + + + + + taact~str r~~/: r~'f%, / / / / / / / / ~ /f,~. l ; ~ t ` t ` ~ ~ ® FRESHWATER WETLANDS
t % / / ~ ( l ~ ~ r / J / / i ! % / ` ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ? o~ / PHASE II AREA J .r' J 'O ~ ~ /
/ ~ ~t J~ c~ r ~l i t ` / 1~ / / J ~ ~ : ' I ~ % ' r i "ag + + + + ~6 + + ~ ox+ + + % ~ ` t , fL99 $IU f 1 f j ~ r . J r~ J / r' e r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DISTURBED AREA ~ ; "fir / ~ r ' l /
r o~ + + p+; + + + + + + + + + 1 r ~ ~ r F / UPLAND ISLANDS
to + + } + + + ' + + + + + + ` , J l ~ / ~ ~ / ~ ~ ; ` { ~ } ~ r r / (r fJ ~ t i` a ,i , r ~ a ~ J / / . , PROPOSED MARSH ~ ~ ~ / / /
z~ + + + + + + + + ~ ' ~ / ~ ~ / ' / / / , i % ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ r' ; ~ ! ~ + + + + l l t ~ i ~ ~ ~ , ~ ,l 1 J; ~ l r' 1 i ' / ~ a ` t ' / P F TLAN } 1 ~ F ~ , f / Q ROPOSED RESHWATER WE DS ! ~ r ~ t / , / / DESIGNED:
k ' ~ / t ~ / ~ ~ ~ A dI hest + + + + + + + + + + 1g + + + ~ + i le and e' ~ j i , ~ r~ r 7 s t J t J ~ , f~ r" ° ; ` ~ , ~ / / / ~ / PROPOSED HARDWOOD FOREST
to i pnct undar 1 / ~ % f-~ e , / / ~ ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED TREE FALLS ROE, MRB, JDS, r' ,;ti ~ ~ ~ / / ~ KL8
+ + + + + + + E~os~n Con ` tj~ i ~ ~ , ' / / , r ? ~ J f /i l~ ! % ~ i< ~ 'S J r ~ + + + + + + + + + + ~ +BlalfketF + r r ; ' 'I ' ` r ~ . ~ 0 ; ~ ! / r J J ~ ~ , , ! ( i t ~ r , ~ ~ r' ~ _ PROPOSED 404 IMPACTS r, / /
#en rn MM'shF + 1+ + + + + + + ) ~ J f ~i tl > j f'~ , / ~ 1 ~$+~la / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (i= ~ t` ~ , ; ~ / / / PROPOSED CAMA IMPACTS CIiECKED:
~ ~ r / / / / ® EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ~ / / / / /
+ s / J ~ ~ i ' / ~ / / ~ -SF- SILT FENCE KLB . / /r / /
i Fneshwater ~ } ) , ' J / j r { / ` ~I ~ ' / ~ % / + , 1 !l + + + + ~ r ( ~ / detlnnd 1Mpnct + + + + + + ~ - ' j i % i . ~ ~ ~ ri 1 / / • / / / f / -SB- SEDIMENT BOOM / ~ / / /
+ + + + + + + + + + + i' / ' j J j TlctnlJRedcY~ ; j , j, convert to marsh) ' 1 % + j I It ' f / / / / / / DATE. / / / /
{ + + + + + + + + Te~porwry+Marsh + + + + + + + r ~ I ,i , ' i ! ` ~ J / / / / / / /
( ' + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2Z + / f~ipQr n fr~shfia~er/ / / ~ / / / / / July 2004
Are/Disturbnn Its J ~ ~IetCn ! - ' ~ ~ / / xJi / / / / ~ / / Notes+ i / / / / / / / PROJECT ENGINEERS+
u ,y 1 / / / / Robert Evans SCALE:
+ + + m+ + + t J / / / / / / / / Kris Bnss ' / / / ~ / / NCSU/BAE
/ / / / / 1 = 150 / / / / ~ / / 919,515,8245
1 + + + + + + + + + + ~ + + + + + + + + + + + + r';~/; / / / ~ ~ { ! / \ \ ~ f + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ~ ~ ~ f / / / / / ~ / / tt6ml ~I(i oo PROJECT SUMMARY+
/ ' / / fo es ~ ' PROJECT: j; / / ~ Disturbed Area 111 acres / re$ s % ! / / ~ Proposed IMpacts
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + , / / re / / / / / / CAMA Marsh+ 1,1 acres North River
% ~ / / / / / Freshwater Wetlands+ 2,5 acres / / / / /
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + r + + + + + + + + + + ( / / / / ~ ' / / / / / / Marsh iMpacts are teMporary as areas 1P'II,B:
i'/ ~ ~ / + + + r + + + + + + t~enn+Wat+er t{eve+ + ! + + + + ++{pp + + + + + + + !/i / / 1.1 ~ 3 l s cars / . / / ' / / / will be restored as rlarsh, Freshwater
c ~ / ~ / / / / / _ _ ~ - / wetlands iM acted will be converted to / / / / / / ~ CAMA r7arshP Phasell_Design
/ ~ / ~ / ' / / /
` ~ ~ O r ! / / ; / ~ / / / ; j Restoration Plan / / / / / ~ Freshwater Strear+~ 1900 ft
+ + + + + + f -r + + + + + +g+ + + 1, + + + + / ~ _ / / / / - Tidal Creeks 4577 ft
t. ,r; Roc heck + + j, + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + k + + ~ / / ~ / / / / ! , Tidal Fingers 2118 ft
/ ~ / f ~ / / , Brackish/CAMA Marsh+ 35 acres ~
~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ / / / / / / Riparian/Freshwater Wetlands+ 23 acres
r / ' / / / _ ~ Bottor~land Hardwood Forest+ 53 acres rr~~ V1 / / / /
' 1, / / i + / / / / / / /
Fre hwater Wet and. ; + + + + + + + + + + + + ~ + + + + p~ + + + , f 1 !1 f +Ir~p~ct / , / / / a
, 1 .i. .I- + + + + + (COnVert Lo I~rS J + + + i' + + ~ f / / / r / /_i
~ < r : ' , J f. / / / / / / a--~
/ / / / / o~
+ + + / / / / ~
ti r + ~ ~ / / / / c~ y / r /
! ~ ~ . a / / / / / / / / - / ~ / f / / / / ~ / / / / o
u
~ ~ / ' / ! / / / / /
' ~ „ + + + + + + + + + + r / / + + + + +g + + r;' / / / / / / / / / / ~ o
/ i - / / i / /
+ +++~rr / f / / / ~ / ~ / ~
~ J % / / / / / / / / ~
X + + + + , / / / / ~ / / / / / a~ f / ~ / / _ s~
` ~ ''n + + + / / / / / / / / / f ~
/ / / / / a~ / / ~ w
/ ~ , / / / ~ z~ / / ,
/ / / ;r;r , , r n._ / /
_ / / a~ ~
/ / r /
^ Phase II Aren / / ~y / W
r ~ ; Perr~anent r~nrsh inpnct / / / / /
Perr~anent r~rsh ir~pact (for channeU ,x - (for channel) / /
\ ' ~ ,r . Tenporary / ~ ~ /
- Rock Check All ditches to be filled and plugged ~1 /
\\t to inpnct boundory /
~ ,a~" '
% ~ Sedinent Boots ' ~r ;t

, ~ A PAGE NUMBER
. / r w \ ; ~\y\~, ~
~C
` ~ ` . ,
, 150 0 75 150 300
OF ( IN FEET }
1 inch = 150 ft.
- , <fi ~

PROJECT NARRATIVE:
This project is a joint venture between the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the NC Coastal
Federation, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, and NC State University. This project is Phase II of the larger
North River Farms Restoration Project. The project involves bulk earth movement, fine grading for stream
construction, installation of various stream structures, final grading, and planting. The site is also planned for
research on the impacts to water quality, both during the construction and over several years after project
completion. Construction oversight will be performed throughout the project by NCSU staff.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
1. Locate and set up an appropriate site for stockpile of materials and storage of equipment.
2. Install all erosion control measures.
3. Remove and stockpile topsoil.
4. Begin mass grading operations.
5. Rough grade the stream. Manage stream construction such that the stream may be built "in the dry".
6. Fine grade the stream and install stream structures and rootwods.
7. Install erosion control fabric.
8. Replace topsoil and fine grade wetlands.
9. Connect stream/complete construction.
10. Install water control structure and low rock weir.
11. Distribute and grade fill.
12. Prepare seedbeds and complete seeding operations.
13. Implement planting plan.
14. Request a completion inspection from the Project Engineer.
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. All erosion control must be set-up and inspected prior to commencement of grading operations.
2. Stream banks and all other slopes graded at a slope of 3:1 (H:V) or steeper shall be protected with
erosion control blanket. Erosion control blanket shall be of type North American Green C125BN or equivalent.
3. Road embankments shall be protected with erosion control blanket. Erosion control blanket shall be of type
North American Green C125BN or equivalent.
4. Strip and stockpile topsoil in indicated areas for use as substrate in wetlands. Stockpile other excavated
soil for use with regrading.
5. All disturbed areas shall be scarified to a depth of 5 inches. Areas next to streams or otherwise subjected
to heavy traffic shall be rip tilled prior to planting.
6. Any disturbed areas containing unsuitable soil for plant growth shall be amended with 6 inches of clean
topsoil.
7. All elevations and channel dimensions shall be met within a tolerance of 0.1'
8. Stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as practicable in portions of the site where construction
activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in no case more than fourteen (14) days after work
has ceased, unless activity in that portion of the site will resume within twenty-one (21) days.
9. All sediment and erosion control devices shall be inspected every seven (7) days or after each rainfall
occurence that exceeds one-half (1/2) inch. Damaged or ineffective devices shall be repaired or replaced, as
necessary.
10. All erosion control devices shall be properly maintained during all phases of the construction until the
completion of all construction acitivities and all disturbed areas have been stabilized. Additional control devices
may be required during construction in order to control erosion and/or off-site sedimentation. All temporary
control devices shall be removed once construction is complete and the site is stabilized.
11. The contractor must take necessary action to minimize the tracking of mud onto the paved roadway
construction areas. The contractor shall daily remove mud/soil from pavement, as may be required.
12. Temporary diversion berms and/or ditches will be provided as needed during construction to protect work
P rY
areas from upslope runoff and/or to divert sediment laden runoff water to appropriate traps or stable outlets.
FLASHBOARD RISER DETAIL
N.T.S
D;-
3 ft
PLAN VIEW
EL. Top of Riser = 7.5 ft
Riser Diam = 6 ft 3
1JA
EL Bottom
Of Riser = 3.5 ft
Fill bottom with 1.5 ft
of concrete
Flashboard
Riser
Pipe
Barrel
RISER SCHEMATIC
PROFILE VIEW
Pipe Barrel
EL. 11 ft - Top of Embankment
EL. Outlet
INV. =3.5ft
Pipe barrel
Diam. = 3 ft
TYPICAL CHANNEL CROSS-SECTIONS
N.T.S.
12'
2.0'
Bankfull Stage
EVANS' CREEK
Top of bank berm
Height = 0.5'
Width = 3.0'
TIDAL FINGERS
4'
1.0'
1 Bankfull Stage
SITE CROSS SECTIONS
Section A -A'
LOW ROCK WEIR DETAIL
Canal Bank
I'll \11, "I
14/
� y w
A
Sheet Pile (55-60')
GFJW Quick SectIM
SECTM aroc s Bream
War QJ[k
SES TIM
Section B -B'
Section C -C'
NLI 14�
S
A
Canal
� � w
B
A'
� y �
B'
Rock Ramp
� y �
y 41
14, 1k v.
Canal
Pile EL =1.Oft
A'
SECTION B -B'
Sheet pile CEL = 1.0 ft) Rock Ramp (24 Slope)
Filter Fabric
/- Canal bottom CEL = -1.25 ft)
�
�
w
�
w
�
S
A
Canal
� � w
B
A'
� y �
B'
Rock Ramp
� y �
y 41
14, 1k v.
Canal
Pile EL =1.Oft
A'
SECTION B -B'
Sheet pile CEL = 1.0 ft) Rock Ramp (24 Slope)
Filter Fabric
/- Canal bottom CEL = -1.25 ft)

: f ` a ~ I 1 ~ 1, G t ' tA\ ~a
iii ~ j 1,8 ~ d 8 'i, r- ~ i ~ 3.3 • ` , ~ ` `t M
i ~ 3.7 i~ .b. • i _ ~ ! ~
~ • 1' • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •5.9 •6.4 j ~ ~,3i r 1 ti f ' OK S II fj W
• r ~ a! i /J
• • ~ !y ~ N i ~ ~ ~ ` ~,4 44 ~ ~ ~
'OPEN RUUNDS FA M •3'7 2:4 ~ ~ 3,5 • t ~s' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ z
; i • ~ 5:3 ; 21 • •2.3 t~ 4.5 3A • • 6.9 ~xistin''~ Contr°o't-°~ ~ ~ ~ s.9 ~ S ructure 7s ~ O
• 31 > • • i 3.8 3,j ~ ~ • ~ 'ti + • ~ ~ a d
,,L7 s. • , ' ~ 3b''~ 5.4 • ~ i _ ~ , i` i 4• 4 _ U ` • • • 4:4 ~y 5,8/ ' r ~ ` U ~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ r ,
_ _ ~ ~T' s ~ ~ ~ ~ r`' X5,2 I 78 7:2 ''r _ : ~ : X7,8 ~ ~ ~ ~V a 3,
~ i'4 " " f Drainage Canal • _ 3: s i` ~L2 ~f ~ r ~ ~ ~ 4.3 ~ 5 -MOh-FCa _ rv. Y z w,. -
- %2,9 , ~ _ tkWl
5 - - - r. -ti+ ~~r3 - 6.7 _ - ~ _ , , o ~l
~ lfr - 5 i . ~ f-- _ _ _ " ._.y .
3a ~ s, ~ - - _ - - ,w.ax.~.~..,.~.m~- - _ 5q, /.Z7 u
ti _ , r 6.3 1 ~i s ~ I'~'\ t ` i j
f Bride 1 5,6 a`. 9 :1 - _ _ - _ c> I i8,8 i o-~ s ~
• ~ V`, _ 4,6 r't 4:4 ~ ~ 4:1 • ~ .7 3:5 3.9 ~J 3,9 4J 6d 1 i MAP LEGEND 1 I' ~ .6a ; ~ ' .7,1 ' ~
3S Vin, .9 ~ : ,<~6''-. 3:6 I' ~ ~ 7 / Y z II °E i t f
y • • ~ • ~ • j: i I 1 ~ ~ f 3.4 ~ ~ 3~ ~ t 3.9 J~ i. 5.1 j i '4 ~ 6,6 ~ s 7 2 ! BRIDGES ~
32•. i Mean Water Lever ~ 5~ ~ ~ 'r :i Dirt Road ~ ~ •sz ; • . f ~ m ~ ~ i' - - R3AD U
~ N ~~3.1 : 1.1~ l • •4,7 ~ 3.8 z 34 ~ 4.9 5.8 N' - - AREA OUTLINE
ii ~ r s • • / ~ • Ali • , i 4,6 ( _ j ~ '7,~ ~ ~ 1 CROSS SECTIDN POINT
Ditch 1 Ditch 2 '3,8 a.2 3.4 ~ 3,6 f' Phase II Area Boundary ~j f 7S s 1 1 >~~---~t CULVERT
' b ` " fDitCh 3 3.4 S,2 5:1 • Ditch 9 ~ f 5,1 ; , i j! ~ ~ CONTROL POINT
~ i `L f 1 ~ ',Ditch 5 1 Upland Islands o a , is a ~ i ~ BENCH MARK
i ° ~ , ~ Ditch 6 j ~ 2 , 4:6 i 32 , ~ 2,9? ~ 3:4 4.8 ~ ~ s~f , zi~. ! j . ; ~ WATER ELEVATION
r` ~ 1` Ditch 7 1 ~ { i i _1t Main Cdnat ~ 'a,6 , 7 ~ f` Ditch 8 ~ ~ mrm. l•; ~ ; TREE LINES/WOODS
} • ~ 4.4 t j 1 r b~ 2,6 1 t k ~ Ditch 4 I' ~ 8S a ~ ~ ~ ~ HYDRO
I'iE ' ~ ' l •7,3 OBSCURED CONTOUR
4,5 3:9 i 3:8 5,5 r: a ~V A i C i E i i ~ ~ Ij I~- ~ r INDEX CONTOUR
d= ~ • I 31 3A 4.3 ?::i 5.5 i • E 0 ' 7a r~ I ! 7's INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR
r ~a ; ~ ( ~ t 7 i`~ I t ~ ' ' !i ~ i i~ ~ • •4.2 t s ! ~ f ~ ~ k ~ ~7 rLe SPOT ELEVATIDN
i ~s ~~f j • r ~ ' • 4,1 ' 3,9 31 ~l + 1 3S s i 2A z , i &6 6,8 ~ , ~ 1 ; ! ~ CAMA WETLANDS DESIGNED: i, ~ ;
~ i ' i 1 ~1 s; i`. ~ t ' ~ i a • 6,~ ! FRESHWATER WETLANDS N ,i ~ E ; ® ROE, MRB, JDS,
y 'j r ii * f i + r~ s.a 7,3 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ PHASE II AREA KLB
\ t j r ~ ~ f ~ ; s ~ 2:3 i ~ ~ ~ , i \ ; ' •a4' ~ ; ! ~ UPLAND ISLANDS
i. i rt i d ~ ~ yd • ~ 1 ~.r l ' ~ CHECKED: 1
E ~ • • ~ 4.4 r ~ I~ •4.7 • ' s i 2,8 i ~ j ~ 3:7 39 '~..~5.9 i r I it 1.5.9 ~ 7.1 ( !4 7J
•2s ~ ~ ~i ~ !Existing CAMA Marsh , • 6 ` t . . s 3,7 . 61 1 ; ~ KLB t,
# + ;m 28'; 3:4 ~ 1, 51 , i ~'d ~i i- - i i 9 ca 1 ~ s I j t
1 . d.. .f 's 's i i i > ~ i ~ j ~ _ ~ R i 3.3 ~ ~ DATE: , } e,7 7a 7b
_ `,i r r~ 3 ,r ~ I 4'8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 1 ~ i t ~l r? ii i~9
't ! • ' / i ~ 3 f, 9 ~ ( i •8 I` ~ ii ~ 2 a ? ~ . ! July 2004 1 ! 1 ~ ! ~ t w~ ~
t ' s ' j i, i ~
! i` r , r i ~ 4,3 t ~ ; ~ ~ 4,5 51 6.2 3 / s~, i SCALE: 6~ ! ,J
( / ' 2,9 r ~ ~i • ~ r 1 ~ t
's.~ ~ '&4 ~ ; ~ t' = 150' ? ~ 3
J i ~ ~ - . ~ " • ~ ~4. X3:6 ~ X4:6 { ~ ~ e 2.7,~ a ~ 1 ~ ` i. t
i~ - ' ~ * 2.7 t i ~ I •i ~I I i 1 ~ -i ~ i • { E i i ~ i _ ~ ' • ~ • j i ~ 4.9 ~ k , I I ~ l ~ 7.~ ~ i ~ PROJECT: I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ • ~ i i 4•~ ~ 4,7 4J r i / ~ . ~ 4.3 ~ , tt 2.9 1 ~ ~ f 7 s 7,3! 7,5 { a ~ ~ ~ North River
. ~ ~ i_ ; ~ 1 ! Existing~Freshwo.ter ~ 7~ k Aso 0 7s Aso xo 7 ~ i 1!
, ~ ' • ~ ~ Wetlands 1 4A,' ~ E 31 ¢ ~ ~t ~i 1 ~ f ~ ~ J/ ~t ~ i. ''~1 ~ i 1 i • 8A 81' i ''G9 ~ ~ 1 I ~ FiLCi:
23 ii 1 \ _:a~~ 1 ~ ~ • • ~ UI ~ it r4 is ~ • s~ ~ ' i m •4.5 •4.6 f ~ 4J I I ~ ~ •6.9 • it ~ ~ ~ ' s.9 ~ ~ !1 - ~ ; (IN FEET )
i 4 i ~ ~ s r ~ r ; 4~ s'~ / f - ~ ~ Phasell_Desi n
~ . ~ r 2:7 s ~ ~ 4,7 ~ i i ~ .4 • s I c w / t j 3.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4A i ' t ; ~ t ~ ~ i inch = 150 ft. 9 ~ X5,2 ~ '1/ i ! 5~~.3) ~ 5,3 j ' ' ; ~ C__~
y ~ j 27 • • • ~ • l e i y li 1 1
~ ~ i ~ 3:4 Y. 3:2 4.7 ~ ~ ~ C.
1 Ir__ / l { ' ~ ~ ' ~ 4.9 • ?t i 4.9 '
2,9 ~ / 2:5 A { ~~a~7 4. ~ ; j i ~ 1 i ~ i ~3~ ~ f ~ ~ 1 4.3 ` 4.3 ~ l ~ 5. ^1
3s • ~Z91i~ ~ 5.4 6,9 ~ ' I 5,3 ~ ~
f t' O
i 1
/ ~ ~ i' a ~ i ~
y ~ ~ y E f ~ ~ 2.8 r`~•`` _5~
~ ~ ~s ' 7 r i ~ i •3,4 ASS 8
1 5.4 l ~ ;t r"D,21 i 6,31 0 ' ~ i t i 1
2.7 ' ~ R V~. ; ~ ' 3z ' €,E t 1 &7 ; 4 F--I RS
~ _ 'ii - r I. • 1 • °,i •
~.~1,1 : ~ r ~ j ,i ' ~ l 1 i ~ i 1~` ~ j ~ ~ ~ ! 7,4 {j ' / r{ f f { .lq ; ~ ? ~ 0
,J t`. i ~ { N r r li~ 2. i 2, ~ ~ ~ l ~ . x ~ i
i - ti..` ~ ,4 m W ~ 6"" ~ I ~ i f 7Ji X5.9 ' ~ i ~ y, f i! ,
: ~ I. , - ~ l ; 4 ~ i s i ` ~ - - ~ ~ ~ 1 r \ i ~i + • i • a 1 1 .i, \ 7~~ ~ Y
i \ ~ ~ • • ~ i • } ~ 'r.;~ 2:8 ~ at 2.9 •3.6 ~ ~ X29 4J •7b s '4i 1 ~ ~ i l } l ,f i i ~ , l V
i `V~`.` 1 ~ ~ / s l ~ • S
2:7 2:4 ~ ~ 3. f ~I /r / ~ SJ 6~ \ati,~ ~ i` % f
4 ~ / ' ~ ` ~ ~ WETLAND DELINEATION PROVIDED BYE ~ fy / ~ ~ • I i f~ j 6.7
• ~ 1 lA, ~ " ~ r 1~~ a r ~r~ 2:8 d? r. 3.2 I ~ • 1 4 ~ ~ f 1 ~ f rte. e . v \ - ~ 9 f %4 r. ~ , A 2:2 9 i i 7 ~ ~ ~ i r ~y~ ~ i LAND MANAGEMENT GRDUP w~
.4•; ~ ~i ~ ~ • i j' l• • t ' WILMINGTON, NC 1 • ~ ~ P--I za zz; i ` [phone] ~
~ ~ f ~4 it /,y',, .Y # 6 * i. l/ : t • c i ! i ' ~ 6,~
~ : ' . i / _ ' ;y ~ , ~ + ~ j ~ NOTES 404/FRESHWATER LIMITS DETERMINED FROM ~ ~ l-6.9 ~ ' ~ 5,9 ~ 7~ 6,7 ~
! : ' ~ 1 - 1 i t ~c.8 f ~ f'i. ~ ! 1 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND DRAWN BASED UN V 1
\ 1 ' ~'f ~ • • ~ ~ i ~ ~ f' 1` •7.2 ~ti~G9 ~ ss ~ ~ AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. H 'N~ j , 8.3` ~ i ~ W ! 1
\ r.• I ! S.7. 2b X2,3 \ ~ ~ ,3 s r r r i~ ~7k~ ~ 2:7•; 3.4 ~ g • • ' ; ` r` 5,7~ 1v.,~
~ ~r ~ ~ V ' 1 ~ i3:lj U' ~ % 5 l ~ ~ ; 1 ~'.r ~ i T, ~ . ~ i l
2:4 f I i 3J 3:5 / 7.3 . rr r m it • ,81 7.3 7.3 ~ 7.6 ~ ; i ~ 1 ~ ~ EXISTING TOPI)GRAPHIC MAP COMPILED BYE
• ~ ~ 2J r i •4,1 _ I tiE • ~
3.2 „ ~~4,1 ` ',t\ ~ ,r-.r, ~ ~ j i ' ~
t u • • .6 . ~ 2J 2:4~' ~ i ~ 5.5 ~ 6.9 ~ ~ - ; 1 ~ ~t ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ 4 i7 a a (7
~ ~ ~ Deep Creek "t`. ~ t ~ ~ ~
•~6 • ~ A m r. a a~' ~ ,4 • i 3A ~ 2.9 ( 2.T~ , i 69 f.` I .
, ~ V - _ - ~ ~ f r t ~ \ • ~8~4 !1 ~ ~ PAGE NUMBER l • y r •
- ; a . , ~ ~ ~ •4 _ - ; ~ i ~ .r s i~ L '&4 7~ a ~ r_.r ~ ~ - Vii, 104 EAST NORTON STREET ZEBULON NC 27597
U~ - , ~ 28 E~.g 1 PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone] • ~ ` ~ ' ' ~ www,GeoDataCor oration.com
~ - , Y ~1 1 : ~ ~ ` ~ 7,4 6,5 ! ~ ~ ~ p / • ~ 19
~ ~ 2:8 2.9 ~`31r" 'p,G - ~ 26 5, ` F 4.1 G6 i _ 8,3• ~ / i c•' ~ ~ ~ 1' r_ 8~ ~ .4 ~
t { i n'/ "tip ~ ~ tit ~ % ~ , , .r" ~ f _ ~ " r'~ j° E % -
~ ~ , 4 t`~- % ~ / Wyk 5 ~ ~c~ r' 44~ ` OF 7.e 6.6 ~ ! CROSS SECTION FIELD DATA PROVIDED HY
THE ROSE GROUP
~ 2.7 r%~ 2.8 : 2:5 / ; 1~. 3,5 4:2 2,9 6:4 , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FA V NC s,3 6s YETTE ILLE, [phone]
;`~3 i ~ 3.21 6:f`~ - 4.4 . n ~ i 2S : 2.7