20070233 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20090421

X00-10 x,33
RESTORATION PLAN (FINAL) Y-?n .-?
t4- 21-09
SPRING BRANCH STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Pitt County, North Carolina
December 2007

NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-16152
RESTORATION PLAN (F 1 NA L)
SPRING BRANCH STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Pitt County, North Carolina
Prepared by:
EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
Project Manager: Jens Geratz
December 2007
Spring Branch Restoration Site ii Pitt County
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is currently evaluating stream and
riparian buffer restoration opportunities at the Spring Branch Stream Restoration Site (Site) located in Pitt
County, North Carolina. The Site encompasses approximately 1708 linear feet of stream channel, most of
which has been channelized for agricultural and flood abatement purposes. The Site watershed,
comprising approximately 0.34 square miles, supports a mixture of agricultural, silvicultural, and light
residential uses. Land use within the Site includes primarily historic conversion of the floodplain and
adjacent uplands to agricultural use. This document details stream and riparian buffer restoration
procedures for the 10.5 acre Site located approximately 0.5 mile from the confluence of the Middle
Swamp Creek (Neuse River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Cataloguing
Unit 03020203070040).
Under existing conditions, Spring Branch and its feeder tributaries have been dredged and straightened to
support agricultural practices. Natural vegetation within adjacent areas, including stream buffers zones,
has been removed throughout much of the Site. A significant increase in nutrient and sediment loads is
expected as a result of current land use practices in the region. In response to these modifications,
nutrient recycling associated with riverine wetlands and floodplains has been severely diminished or
negated throughout much of the region.
Restoration activities have been designed to restore historic stream and riparian buffer functions that
existed at the Site prior to dredging and vegetation removal. Proposed Site alterations include the
excavation or reestablishment of the floodplain and in-situ channel modification to the existing stream.
These activities will reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 0.34-mile watershed along the
restored length of stream and floodplain. The existing channel will be modified to reflect regional stream
characteristics and accommodate bankfull flows. Subsequently, floodplain soil surfaces will be restored
and the Site reforested with streamside and riparian hardwood forest communities. The re-forestation of
upland buffers has been included to further protect water quality and enhance opportunities for wildlife.
This document provides a detailed plan designed to facilitate implementation and success of on-site
restoration opportunities including 1) a description of existing Site conditions, 2) a stream reference study
3) restoration design plan, and 4) a monitoring plan. After implementation, restoration activities are
expected to provide the following:
• 10.5-acre conservation easement which will encompass all restoration activities and address
landowner concerns.
• restoration of approximately 8.28 acres of riparian buffer.
• enhancement (Level I) of approximately 899 linear feet of Spring Branch.
• relocation and restoration of approximately 914 linear feet of Spring Branch and an Unnamed
Tributary to Spring Branch.
• reforestation of approximately 3.14 acres of upland habitat.
• restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream.
Spring Branch Restoration Site iii Pitt County
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "'
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Restoration Project Description .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... 1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ................................................................................... 2
2.2 Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology ................................................................................................ 3
2.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology .................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams ............................................................................................ 5
2.5 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.6 Plant Communities ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Federally Protected Species .......................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Constraint Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 STREAM REFERENCE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 10
4.0 STREAM AND RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION PLAN ....................................................... 12
4.1 Stream Enhancement .................................................................................................................. 12
4.2 Stream Restoration ..................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Floodplain Excavation ................................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 Stream Channel Construction ........................................................................................ 13
4.2.3 Groundwater and Soil Restoration ................................................................................ 14
4.3 Riparian Buffer Restoration ........................................................................................................ 14
4.4 Plant Community Restoration ..................................................................................................... 15
4.4.1 Plant Community Associations ..................................................................................... 15
4.4.2 Planting Plan .................................................................................................................. 16
5.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 17
5.1 Stream Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................................................. 17
5.3 Stream Contingency ................................................................................................................... 18
5.4 Vegetation Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 18
5.5 Vegetative Success Criteria ........................................................................................................ 19
5.6 Vegetation Contingency ............................................................................................................. 19
5.7 Special Considerations ............................................................................................................... 19
6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................20
Spring Branch Restoration Site iv Pitt County
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Tables
Appendix C: Coastal Plain Regional Curves
Appendix D: USACE Wetland Data Forms
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Local Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: USGS Sub-Basin 8-Digit Hydro Unit
Figure 5: Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
Figure 6: NRCS Soil Units
Figure 7: Jurisdictional Mapping and Hydric Soils
Figure 8: Restoration Design Units
Figure 9: Stream Restoration Plan
Figure 10: Existing and Proposed Stream Cross Sections
Figure 11: Existing and Proposed Stream Profile
Figure 12: Target Plant Community
Figure 13: Planting Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Stream Geometry and Classification
Table 2: Reference Stream Geometry and Classification
Table 3: Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Table 4: Planting Plan
Spring Branch Restoration Site V Pitt County
RESTORATION PLAN
SPRING BRANCH STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Pitt County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Restoration Project Description
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to perform stream restoration,
stream enhancement, and riparian buffer restoration at the Spring Branch Restoration Site located in Pitt
County. The restoration site, hereafter referred to as the Site, is located approximately 4.0 miles southeast
of Farmville and approximately 0.25 mile south of the intersection of US Highway 264 and US Highway
13. The Site is directly west of and adjacent to Moye-Turnage Road (SR 1139) (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Site encompasses approximately 10.5 acres and has been impacted by past land management
practices such as land clearing, dredging/straightening of stream channels, and nutrient and sediment
loading from adjacent agricultural row crop production.
The Site contains two tributaries to Middle Swamp Creek (Figure 2 and 3, Appendix A). The primary
tributary (hereafter referred as Spring Branch) flows the length of the Site, entering from the northwest
Site boundary and exiting the eastern Site boundary through a culvert located under Moya-Turnage Road.
The second tributary is an unnamed tributary (UT) that originates within the Site boundary. The UT
flows in a northeast direction before the confluence with Spring Branch near the center of the Site. The
streams offer opportunities for restoration and enhancement.
1.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
Restoration activities have been proposed to restore historic stream and riparian buffer functions that
existed at the Site prior to dredging and vegetation removal. Site alterations will include the excavation
or reestablishment of a floodplain and in-situ channel modification to the existing stream. These activities
will reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 0.34-square mile watershed along the restored
length of stream and newly constructed floodplain. The existing channel will be modified to reflect
regional stream characteristics and accommodate bankfull flows. Subsequently, the floodplain and
adjacent slope soil surfaces will be restored and the Site reforested with riparian hardwood and mixed-
mesic forest communities. Forested stream and upland buffers will be restored along the entire stream
and floodplain to further protect water quality and enhance opportunities for wildlife. After
implementation, restoration activities are expected to provide the following:
• 10.5-acre conservation easement which will encompass all restoration activities and address
landowner concerns.
• restoration of approximately 8.28 acres of riparian buffer.
• enhancement (Level I) of approximately 899 linear feet of Spring Branch.
• relocation and restoration of approximately 914 linear feet of Spring Branch and an UT to Spring
Branch.
Spring Branch Restoration Site I Pitt County
• reforestation of approximately 3.14 acres of upland habitat.
• restoration of wildlife habitat associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream.
Numerous ecological benefits are anticipated as a result of on-Site restoration activities. Floodplain
excavation adjacent to Spring Branch will restore the characteristic flood regime to the stream, as well as
provide lateral hydrologic input to restored vegetative communities along the floodplain. The restored
Neuse River riparian buffer areas will help improve water quality via nutrient removal, increase local
vegetative biodiversity, provide wildlife habitat, and serve as a forested corridor, linking the Site with
adjacent natural areas.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Cataloguing Unit
03020203070040 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [DWQ] Sub-basin 03-04-07) of the Neuse
River of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (Figure 4, Appendix A). The area is part of the Rolling Coastal
Plain ecoregion of North Carolina (Griffith et al. 2002). The Rolling Coastal Plains ecoregion is
characterized by irregular plains with broad interstream areas with a mosaic of cropland, pasture,
managed woodlands, and forest (Griffith et al. 2002). Soils in this region formed from the sands, silts,
and clays of the Cretaceous or Tertiary-age. These soils cover the geologically older metamorphic and
igneous rocks of the Piedmont with varying thickness. Streams in the region are primarily low-gradient
and sandy-bottomed. Elevations within the Site range from a high of approximately 65 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the northern boundary to a low of approximately 52 feet NGVD
within the stream channel upon exiting the Site at the western boundary (Figure 5, Appendix A). Annual
precipitation in the region averages 47.5 inches per year (MRCS 1974).
Land uses within and in the vicinity of the Site consist primarily of agriculture, livestock operations,
forest, pastureland, roadside shoulders, and residential lots. Current land uses in the region are dominated
by agricultural practices, including large-scale agriculture and livestock operations. Relatively large areas
of forest cover remain, relegated to non productive agrarian areas including interstream flats,
drainageways, and floodplain bottoms associated with the regions streams and rivers. Throughout the
area, state roads provide assess to scattered residential homes and commercial interests. Based on the
most recent aerial photography (2006), agriculture and livestock operations occupy approximately
50 percent of the Site's watershed area while small commercial and residential development occurs within
less than 1 percent of the watershed. Forest cover located primarily in the headwaters of the watershed
occupies the remaining 49 percent of the land area.
2.2 Soils
Based on soil mapping for Pitt County (NRCS 1974), the Site is underlain by four soil series: Bibb
complex (Typic Fluvaquents), Exum fine sandy loam (Aquic Paleudults), Lenoir loam (Aeric
Paleaquults), and Lynchburg fine sandy loam (Aeric Paleaquults) (Figure 6, Appendix A). The Bibb
complex is considered hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) [1997].
The Bibb complex (Bb), with slopes ranging between 0 and 1 percent, consists of poorly-drained, nearly
level soils on floodplains and in draws and depressions in the uplands. Permeability is moderate,
Spring Branch Restoration Site 2 Pitt County
available water capacity is medium, and the shrink-swell potential is low. Depth to bedrock is greater
than 60 inches, and the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface.
Exum fine sandy loam, with slopes ranging between 0 and 6 percent (ExA [0-1], ExB [1-6]), is a
moderately well-drained, nearly level, and gently sloping soil that occurs on uplands. Permeability is
moderate, available water capacity is high, and the shrink-swell potential is low to moderate. Depth to
bedrock is greater than 60 inches, and the seasonal high water table is at a depth of approximately
2.5 feet.
Lenoir loam (LoA), with slopes ranging between 0 and I percent, is a somewhat poorly-drained, nearly
level soil that occurs on uplands. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is high, and the shrink-
swell potential is high. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches, and the seasonal high water table is at
a depth of approximately 1.5 feet.
Lynchburg fine sandy loam (Ly), with slopes ranging between 0 and 1 percent, is a somewhat poorly-
drained, nearly level soil that occurs on uplands. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is
moderate, and the shrink-swell potential is low. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches, and the
seasonal high water table is at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet.
2.3 Hydrology
2.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The Spring Branch watershed originates on side slopes of Middle Swamp Creek terrace approximately
1 mile northwest of the Site outfall (Figure 1 and 2, Appendix A). The Site outfall supports a watershed
area of approximately 0.34 square miles or 218 acres. The watershed is comprised of approximately
2500 linear feet of stream channel upstream of the Site and approximately 1708 linear feet of perennial
and intermittent stream channel within the Site, most of which has been channelized for agricultural and
flood abatement purposes. The valley along Spring Branch is relatively flat with a slope of approximately
0.0058 (rise/run).
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 47.5 inches per year (NRCS 1974). Site discharge appears to be dominated by a
combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves
(Sweet and Geratz 2003), the bankfull discharge for a 0.34-square mile watershed is expected to average
approximately 4 cubic feet per second and occur approximately every 0.1 to 0.3 years (Sweet and
Geratz 2003). Regional curves for the Coastal Plain are provided in Appendix C.
Stream Classification
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification system stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics.
Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity,
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Each stream type is modified by the number 1
through 6 (ex. E5) denoting a stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock,
2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6) silt/clay.
Spring Branch Restoration Site 3 Pitt County
Historically, on-site'reaches appear to have been characterized as E-type streams. E-type streams are
slightly entrenched, relatively narrow and deep, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (>1.4). In
North Carolina, E-type streams occur in both narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial
floodplains (Valley Type VIII). These streams are typically stabilized with dense riparian vegetation. E-
type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow pattern. E-
type channels are considered very stable. The Site streams are currently proposed to emulate E-type
channels based on the width-depth ratio predicted by regional curves and reference streams in the region.
Channel substrate is dominated by sand and silt (subclassification 5/6).
On-Site Stream Characterization
The on-site streams have been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996).
Table 1 (Appendix B) provides a summary of measured stream geometry attributes under existing
conditions (considered to be unstable) and proposes potentially stable stream attributes for Spring Branch
and the UT. Estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon data observations from the
existing stream, similar streams in the region, and regional curves for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
(Sweet and Geratz 2003).
Dimension
Regional curves (Sweet and Geratz 2003) were utilized to determine the natural bankfull channel cross-
sectional area (i.e., theoretical bankfull channel) of Spring Branch and the UT. The cross-sectional area
was then utilized to determine the bankfull width, average bankfull depth, maximum depth, and
floodprone area of the existing on-site channel. Using this method, a departure from stability was
estimated based on a comparison of existing and proposed dimension variables (Table 1, Appendix B).
Based on the regional curves, a stable cross-sectional would be approximately 4.2 square feet and
2.5 square feet for Spring Branch and the UT, respectively.
During field investigations, a cross-section was measured at several locations along Spring Branch and
the UT. Based on field measurements, both streams are characterized as an enlarged and entrenched
channel where flood flows are fully contained within the adjacent terraces. Under existing conditions
Spring Branch has been classified as a G-type stream, with a bank-to-bank cross sectional area between
48 and 71 square feet. Similarly the UT has been classified as a G-type stream with a cross-sectional area
up to 40 square feet. The regional curve suggests a stable cross-sectional area of 4.2 and 2.5 for Spring
Branch and UT, respectively. Both reaches exhibit characteristics of a severely incised (i.e., entrenched)
stream with a bank-height ratio generally greater than 2.0 (low bank height/bankfull maximum depth).
Based on the cross-sectional area from the regional curve, both Spring Branch and the UT are
characterized as eroded and highly incised channels with high bank-height ratios. Measures to restore
suitable channel size (i.e., cross-sectional area and bank-height ratio) will be targeted for this project.
Profile
Based on the Site stream measurements, the on-site valley slopes measured approximately 0.0058 rise/run
and 0.0166 rise/run for Spring Branch and the UT, respectively (Table 1, Appendix B). The low
estimated valley slope is typical for the Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina. Measured
sinuosity's for Spring Branch and the UT are approximately 1.2 and 1.1 (thalweg distance/valley
distance), respectively. Water surface slope was calculated from survey points collected in the thalweg in
Spring Branch Restoration Site 4 Pitt County
both upstream and downstream reaches. The calculated water surface slope of Spring Branch is
approximately 0.0048 rise/run and approximately 0.0061 rise/run for the UT.
Both streams been slightly over steepened due to human manipulation which has increased erosive forces
on the adjacent banks. Measures designed to dissipate energy and increase riffle and pool complexes will
be targeted within the restored stream reaches.
Plan Form
Current sinuosity's for the on-site streams measure less than 1.2 (thalweg distance/valley distance). Most
of the current pattern comes from the zigzag form of the excavated channel, not fluvial processes. Stable
sinuosity for E-type streams is expected to vary significantly (thalweg distance/valley distance). Due to
the lack of a distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools, values for belt-width, pool-to-pool spacing,
and meander wavelength were not readily measured.
Based on plan form variables, the on-site channel contains reaches that have been degraded by 1) slight to
moderate bank collapse and erosion, 2) channelization, resulting in very little discernable riffle and pool
sequences and reduced sinuosity, and 3) a subsequent reduction in the overall length of the on-site
channel. Restoration efforts along the degraded sections will target restoration of riffle and pool pattern
and bringing pool-to-pool spacing and meander wavelength into suitable ranges for this region.
2.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology
Groundwater hydrology is driven primarily by inputs from precipitation and the rate of discharge into the
stream channel. Removal of forest vegetation, conversion of adjacent forest to agriculture, channel
dredging/manipulation, and leveling of soil surfaces accelerates the rate of near-surface groundwater
discharge from the Site. Modifications to stream channel including dredging, diminished rooting
functions, and the soil characteristics have increased the rate of discharge adjacent to the stream and
lower the water table near the disturbed stream reach.
2.4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams
Jurisdictional areas are defined using the criteria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence for wetland hydrology during the growing season
(USACE 1987). Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with
respect to Section 404 review. Site jurisdictional areas include surface water in bank-to-bank streams and
linear vegetated wetlands.
Site jurisdictional areas were delineated and located utilizing Trimble XRS Differential Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology on February 2 and March 2, 2006. The delineation was approved
by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Mr. Josh Pelletier, regional field office representative) on
March 6, 2006 (Action ID 200610759). Based on the jurisdictional boundary mapping approximately
1,619 linear feet of perennial streams, 89 linear feet of intermittent stream, and 0.08 acre of jurisdictional
wetlands were identified within the Site (Figure 7, Appendix A).
2.5 Water Resources
The Site is located within sub-basin 03-04-07 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ 2002). This area is part of
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020203 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. Spring Branch and its UT occur
Spring Branch Restoration Site 5 Pitt County
within the Site. The portions of Spring Branch and the UT that lie within the Site have not been assigned
Stream Index Numbers by DWQ (DWQ 2006a). The section of Middle Swamp that receives Spring
Branch has been assigned a Stream Index Number 27-86-26-5 by the DWQ.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated
best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. Spring Branch and the UT have not
been classified for best usage; however, unnamed tributaries are considered to carry the same
classification as their receiving waters. A Best Usage Classification of C Sw NSW has been assigned to
Middle Swamp; therefore, Spring Branch and the UT are assumed to carry a Best Usage Classification of
C Sw NSW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and
secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving
human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The designation Sw refers to swamp
waters, which are waters that generally have naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH, and low
dissolved oxygen. Class NSW waters are nutrient sensitive and require limitations to nutrient inputs. No
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), Water Supply II (WS-II), or watershed
Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the Site (DWQ 2002).
The DWQ has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins
within the state. Water quality for the proposed study area is summarized in the Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2002). Spring Branch and the UT are currently Not Rated for their designated
uses. With respect to temperature regimes, Spring Branch and the UT are designated as a warm water
streams (USACE et al. 2003).
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, (Section 303(d) list). The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all
impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards
including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in
40 CFR 131. None of the Site streams (Spring Branch, or the UT) including Middle Swamp, are listed on
any section of the Section 303(d) list (DWQ 2006b).
There are 23 NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin (03-04-07) with a total permitted flow
of 21.2 million gallons per day (MGD). The largest are Wilson Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
(12 MGD), Contentnea Sewerage District WWTP (2.8 MGD), Farmville Town WWTP (3.5 MGD), and
Little Creek WWTP (1.8 MGD). No point-source dischargers are hydrologically connected to the Site.
Two Superfund sites are listed in Farmville approximately 5 miles upstream of the Site (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2006a). No hazardous sites were documented within 1.0 mile of
the Site (Environmental Data Resources [EDR] 2006). Multiple animal operation permits, as determined
by NCDWQ, occur within the Middle Swamp watershed upstream of the Site (DWQ 2003). A Federal
Public Water Supply System monitoring well is just outside of the Site (EPA 2006b). This well has
recorded traces of many contaminants; most frequently nitrate (EEP 2006). Major non-point sources of
pollution for the entire Neuse River Basin include agriculture, construction, forestry, mining, on-site
wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs
are major problems associated with non-point source discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy
metals, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters (DWQ 2002).
Spring Branch Restoration Site 6 Pitt County
The project will entail stream restoration work that will temporarily impact the subject streams and
adjacent areas. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution
(NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt
basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of
chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality;
and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
2.6 Plant Communities
Two plant communities were identified within the Site: agricultural/maintained land and mixed
hardwood forest. These plant communities and associated wildlife are described below. Wildlife directly
observed in a plant community or determined to be present through evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc.)
during field investigations are indicated with an asterisk (*). Vascular plant names follow nomenclature
found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Wildlife and
habitat use were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat type distributions, and
available supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 2006, Webster et al. 1985, Hamel
1992, and Palmer and Braswell 1995).
Agricultural/maintained Land - Approximately 10 acres of the Site is agricultural/maintained land.
This community includes agricultural fields, residential yard, roadside shoulders, and pastureland. Within
agricultural/maintained land, grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation, with scattered trees within a well
maintained residential yard. The agricultural fields were not planted at the time of field investigations
and were dominated by common field weeds including Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), fescue
(Festuca sp.), horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), henbit
(Lamium amplexicaule), chickweed (Cerastium sp.), and ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
Representative species in residential yard and roadside shoulders include clover (Trifolium sp.), wild
onion (Allium canadense), common plantain (Plantago major), and dandelion (Taraxicum officionale).
Trees that occur in association with residential areas include river birch (Betula nigra) and loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda).
Within the agricultural/maintained land, it can be expected that mammalian, avian, and reptilian diversity
will be limited to species adapted to fragmentation and disturbance. Agricultural/maintained land may
provide an easily-traveled corridor between forested communities as well as foraging habitat for
herbivores, granivores, and insectivores, but little cover from predation. Insectivores which take
advantage of available food resources in such areas include American robin* (Turdus migratorius),
eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus
tyrannus), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces faciatus), American
toad (Ba fo americana), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), least
shrew (Cryptotis parva), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis). Herbivores that graze many of the grasses and
forbs present include meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus). Granivores that feed
upon the seeds of grasses and herbs include northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), field sparrow* (Spizella pusilla),
Spring Branch Restoration Site 7 Pitt County
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis). Other
wildlife which may find food resources within agricultural/maintained land include carnivores such as
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis); omnivores including American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina); and scavengers such as turkey vulture*
(Cathartes aura).
Several wildlife species are well-adapted to using the ecotone between agricultural/maintained land,
woodlands, and/or scrub/shrub communities. The herbivorous eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus)
and white-tailed* deer forage in disturbed/maintained land but prefer brushy clearings and shrubby
woodland edges that provide shelter from predators. Birds commonly found along forest/grassland
ecotones include northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), brown-
headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), and eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus). These species provide food for predators in disturbed/maintained land including
black racer (Coluber constrictor), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), Cooper's hawk* (Accipiter
cooperii), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and red-shouldered hawk* (Buteo lineatus).
Mixed Hardwood Forest - Less than 0.5 acres of the Site area is mixed hardwood forest. This
community consists of an immature, secondary growth forest characterized by a relatively well-developed
mid-story and occurs along the western Site boundary. Loblolly pines generally dominate the fence row
along the western edge of the Site; scattered amongst hardwoods in the more wooded areas becoming
more frequent at the southern end of the Site.
This community is dominated by willow oak (Quercus phellos), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), loblolly pine, red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata) in the
canopy. American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), privet (Ligustrum sinense),
and tulip poplar dominate the subcanopy/shrub layer. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), rush (Juncus effusus), and
fescue occur in the herb layer. Weedier species frequenting the wooded borders with agricultural fields
include chinaberry (Melia azedarach), smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), and the field weeds of the agricultural/maintained land along with understory species such
as elderberry (Sambucus nigra) and beauty berry (Callicarpa americana).
This community provides food for wildlife, while its stratification creates numerous shelter opportunities
for species such as Virginia opossum, meadow vole, red bat, raccoon, eastern mole, eastern box turtle,
and white-tailed deer*. The proximity to a water supply is also beneficial. Wildlife species which may
take advantage of food sources such as herbaceous vegetation, hardwood mast, or seeds from red maple
and tulip poplar include gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), northern cardinal*, field sparrow* (Spizella pusilla), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), brown thrasher, and blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata). Some wildlife species that may take advantage of cover such as the forest floor,
loose bark, and arboreal areas, or prey upon species utilizing these habitats include northern flicker
(Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus),
Spring Branch Restoration Site 8 Pitt County
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), American toad, five-lined skink, upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinensis), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sublavus), white-spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon
cylindriceus); sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), eastern garter
snake, copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), timber rattlesnake, and gray fox (Urocyon
cineareoargenteus).
2.7 Federally Protected Species
The most current United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing of federally protected species
with ranges extending into Pitt County (May 17, 2006) is considered in this report (USFWS 2006).
NCNHP records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations (February 21, 2006). The Site was walked and visually surveyed for
potential protected species habitat.
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such listing
are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which
is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Four federally protected species are listed for Pitt County
(February 20, 2006): bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus),
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). As described
in the Environmental Resources Technical Report (May 2006) the proposed project will have no effect on
the four federally listed species.
2.8 Constraint Analysis
An Environmental Resources Technical Report (ERTR) has been completed for this Site (EEP 2006).
The purpose of the ERTR is to evaluate the suitability of the Site for restoration and identify any
outstanding issues which may jeopardize the success of the project. Specific tasks performed for the
ERTR include 1) a general description of existing watershed conditions; 2) an assessment of biological
features within the site including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, jurisdictional
wetlands, and water quality; 3) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas and subsequent mapping
of jurisdictional boundaries, 4) an Environmental Data Resources Report; 5) environmental screening
documentation (including the Categorical Exclusion [CE] checklist), and 6) a constraints analysis.
A summary of environmental screening (EEP 2006) results for the Site is provided below.
• The Site is not located on tribal territory, federal lands, within a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) county, in a federally designated Wilderness area,
or in an estuarine system.
• The Site does not include land purchased or improved with Land and Water
Conservation Funds.
Spring Branch Restoration Site 9 Pitt County
• This project is not "full-delivery"; however, a limited Phase 1 Site
Assessment was performed. A search of available environmental records
was conducted. No mapped sites were found in a search of available
("reasonably ascertainable") government records either on the target property
or within the search radius around the target property for any of the databases
searched.
• No federally Threatened or Endangered species occurrences are documented
within 9 miles of the Site. No designated critical habitat, and no suitable
habitat for any federally protected species occurs in the Site.
• The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has determined that the
Site does include prime and unique farmland.
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) had no
recommendations regarding the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act issues.
• USFWS had no recommendations regarding the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act issues.
• CE documentation was submitted and has been approved.
• According to the N.C. Rural Economic Development Center (NCREDC), a water utility is
located within the road right-of-way along the west side of Moye-Turnage Road and along
the south side of NC 13 (NCREDC 1998). No other utilities or easements are located within
the Site. The water utility is not expected to impact the suitability of the Site for restoration
opportunities.
• The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office conducted a review of the Site and is
aware of no historic properties that would be affected by the restoration work proposed at the
Site.
• The project entails Priority 2 stream restoration and in-place stream restoration. Therefore,
no hydrologic trespass is expected to occur beyond the Site boundaries.
3.0 STREAM REFERENCE STUDY
A fundamental concept of stream classification entails the development and application of regional
reference curves to stream reconstruction and enhancement activities. Regional reference curves can be
utilized to predict bankfull stream geometry, discharge, and other parameters in altered systems.
Regional reference curves for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina were published in 2003 (Sweet and
Geratz, 2003, [Appendix Q. These curves characterize a broad size-range of streams within the Coastal
Plain physiographic province. However, small watersheds or deviations in valley slope, land use, or
Spring Branch Restoration Site 10 Pitt County
geologic substrates may not be accurately described by the curves. Therefore, verification of individual
watersheds (or regions) may be necessary and are typically accomplished through the use of reference
studies.
Three reference stream reaches located within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (MACP) [Griffith and
Omernik 2000]. have been utilized in conjunction with regional curves for detailed planning and stream
characterization for this restoration project. All three reference streams are characterized by a well-
developed floodplain, moderately sinuous channel pattern, moderately low channel gradient, cohesive
channel materials with high accumulations of organics, and dense floodplain vegetation with root mats
along the channel banks. The reference stream channels are classified as an E-type. Table 2
(Appendix B) provides a summary of the reference stream geomorpology utilized to establish
reconstruction parameters. The table includes common reference stream geometry measurements as well
as ratios of geometry relative to bankfull width and bankfull depth. A brief description of each reference
stream is provided below.
Black Branch
Black Branch is located in south central Craven County, which lies in the Carolina Flatwoods sub-
ecoregion of the MACP (Griffith and Omernik 2000). The watershed encompasses approximately
1.2 square miles at the reference reach and is characterized as gently undulating with wide floodplains
and broad, flat, interstream divides. Land cover within the uplands of the Black Branch watershed is
primarily southern yellow pine (77 percent). Mixed upland hardwoods and shrubland are also found in
the uplands and cover a combined 12 percent of the watershed. Bottomland hardwood swamps found
along drainages cover approximately 8 percent of the watershed. The plant community type adjacent to
the reference reach was classified as Coastal Plan Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). The dominant canopy species within this community type are bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), tulip poplar, red maple, and sweetgum.
Bullard Branch
Bullard Branch is located in north central Duplin County, which lies in the Rolling Coastal Plain sub-
ecoregion of the MACP (Griffith and Omernik 2000). The watershed encompasses approximately
1.3 square miles at the reference reach and is characterized as gently undulating with wide floodplains
and broad, flat, interstream divides. Land-use within the watershed includes primarily cultivated land,
bottomland hardwood swamp, and southern yellow pine. The cultivated areas occurring primarily in
uplands, constitute approximately 44 percent of the watershed. The remaining watershed acreage is a
mosaic of various forested land cover types. The plant community type adjacent to the reference reach
was classified as Coastal Plan Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
The dominant canopy species within this community type are swamp blackgum, tulip poplar, American
holly (Ilex opaca), sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), and water oak (Quercus nigra).
Unnamed Tributary to Town Creek
The unnamed tributary to Town Creek (UT) is located in north central Brunswick County, which lies in
the Carolina Flatwoods sub-ecoregion of the MACP (Griffith and Omernik 2000). The watershed of the
UT encompasses approximately 0.6 square miles at the reference reach and is characterized by low
slopes, wide floodplains, and swampy interstream flats. Land-use within the watershed includes is
primarily yellow pine plantation (46 percent), cultivated land (35 percent) and pocosin swamp
(12 percent). The plant community type adjacent to the reference reach was classified as Coastal Plan
Spring Branch Restoration Site 11 Pitt County
Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The dominant canopy species
within this community type are swamp blackgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple,
sweetgum, and bald cypress.
4.0 STREAM AND RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION PLAN
The restoration concepts being developed for the Site follow a watershed approach for stream and riparian
buffer restoration design. Therefore, the plan takes into account the surrounding land use and
management practices that could realize additional benefit from having an adjacent restoration project in-
place. This concept also subscribes to the restoration of all ecosystems located within the Site including
upland communities. Restoration of land form in all areas that fit within the restoration scheme has
therefore been incorporated into the plan. The restoration design and mitigation planning units are
depicted on Figure 8 (Appendix A). After implementation, restoration activities are expected to provide
the following mitigation planning units (see Table 3, Appendix B):
• enhancement (Level I) of approximately 899 linear feet of Spring Branch.
• relocation and restoration of approximately 914 linear feet of Spring Branch and the UT.
• restoration of approximately 7.26 acres of riparian buffer.
Components of the restoration plan may be modified during final design stages based on construction or
access constraints. Primary activities designed to restore the stream and riparian buffer complex include
1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement, and 3) plant community restoration. Subsequently, a
monitoring plan is outlined that provides methods for monitoring success of the proposed restoration
activities.
4.1 Stream Enhancement
Level I stream enhancement is designed to restore bankfull dimensions to reflect those exhibited by
streams in similar geographic contexts within the region. Stream enhancement is expected to entail
excavation of a bankfull bench/floodplain adjacent to the existing channel thereby re-establishing the
stream to a floodplain, enabling bankfull and higher flows to exit the channel. Floodplain excavation plan
view and representative cross-section is depicted on Figures 9A, 9B, and 10 (Appendix A). The proposed
floodplain profile is depicted on Figure 11 (Appendix A).
Stream enhancement activities will restore the upper reach and a small portion of the lower reach of
Spring Branch with approximately 899 linear feet of a stable E-type channel configuration. Stream
channel enhancement will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, introduce natural flooding frequencies
within the floodplain, increase in-stream habitat including pools and associated micro-habitat, and lower
water temperatures resulting from the shading by planted vegetation.
The existing channel shall remain with only minimal channel modifications, as necessary. The
excavation and grading of the floodplain will remove eroding material and steep collapsing banks, and
increase the width of the flood-prone area to greater than 25 feet. A floodplain will be constructed by
way of excavation along both banks of the existing stream channel. Planting of the floodplain with native
vegetation is expected to quickly stabilize and help reduce flow velocities in floodwaters, filter pollutants,
and provide wildlife habitat.
Spring Branch Restoration Site 12 Pitt County
4.2 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts, using Priority 2 design techniques (Rosgen 1996), are designed to restore a
stable, meandering stream that approximates the hydrodynamics and stream geometry relative to natural
conditions in the region. This effort consists primarily of floodplain excavation and grading followed by
stream construction on a new location. Stream design parameters will follow those depicted in Table 1
(Appendix B). The excavation limits of the constructed floodplain and plan view of the proposed channel
are depicted on Figure 9B (Appendix A). The proposed channel profile and representative cross-section
are provided on Figure 10 and 1 l (Appendix A), respectively.
Stream restoration activities will restore the entrenched, lower reach portion of Spring Branch and the
entire UT channel with approximately 914 linear feet of a stable E-type channel configuration.
Restoration of these channels will remove the erosive threat to the adjacent property owner, reduce
sediment and nutrient loading, introduce natural flooding frequencies within the floodplain, increase in-
stream habitat including pools and associated micro-habitat, and lower water temperatures resulting from
the shading by planted vegetation.
An erosion control plan will be developed in conjunction with detailed construction plans. Erosion
control will be performed locally throughout the Site and will be incorporated into the construction
sequencing. Adding appropriate soil amendments, immediate seeding with appropriate annual grasses,
and planting with disturbance adapted woody species will be employed following the earth-moving
process. A pump around operation is expected to be utilized during the excavation and stream restoration
work.
4.2.1 Fooodplain Excavation
A new floodplain will be excavated as depicted in Figures 9B and 10 (Appendix A). The objectives of
floodplain excavation are to 1) move Spring Branch away from the adjacent, Johnson residential property
(see Figure 9B, Appendix A), 2) grade eroding material and steep collapsing banks, 3) significantly
increase the belt width, and 4) increase the width of the flood-prone area from an average of 10 feet to
greater than 25 feet. Based on preliminary estimates, it appears that approximately 12,500 cubic yards of
material may be excavated to achieve design parameters. Excavated material is expected to be used to
backfill the existing channel location, fill on-site field ditches, or distributed on adjacent fields within the
Site and on adjacent properties. Planting of the floodplain with native vegetation is expected to quickly
stabilize and help reduce flow velocities in floodwaters, filter out pollutants and particulates, and provide
wildlife habitat.
4.2.2 Stream Channel Construction
After the floodplain has been excavated, the proposed channel will be constructed to the average width,
depth, and cross-sectional area derived from regional curves and detailed measurements of the on-Site
reach (Tables 1 and 2, Appendix B). Proposed stream profiles of both spring Branch and the UT are
depicted on Figure 11 (Appendix A). Stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will
be immediately matted with coir fiber matting and planted with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Once
the proposed design channel has been excavated and stabilized, the abandoned channel will be filled with
the material stockpiled from floodplain excavation.
Spring Branch Restoration Site 13 Pitt County
4.2.3 Groundwater and Soil Restoration
Restoration of groundwater hydrology and riparian soil attributes involves 1) the excavation and grading
of floodplain, 2) the backfilling of the retired stream reaches, and 3) the scarification of floodplain soils
prior to planting. In addition, the construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions
(i. e., small floodplain pools and depression) also represents an important component of groundwater
restoration activities.
Topsoil Excavation and Stockpiling
Creation of a productive riparian forest community will depend on soils that will adequately support
water movement and characteristic plant growth. Since local soils have a relatively shallow layer of
topsoil, it is expected that excavation of the floodplain will expose dense, very fine textured soils that may
have low infiltration and permeability properties. In the event this occurs, one of several measures will be
undertaken to improve soil conditions including 1) undercutting the floodplain and adding a nominal 1-
foot layer of the stockpiled topsoil obtained from on-site or off-site sources and 2) incorporating organic
matter from obtained from local, off-site sources into the existing soil.
Based on local conditions, topsoil from the excavated floodplain and future spoil locations may be
excavated and stockpiled, then redistributed over excavated areas that lack sufficient topsoils depth. Soil
cores of on-site soils indicate the general lack of appreciable topsoil depth. However, if available, topsoil
material with the current vegetative cover will be stockpiled on-site to be redistributed after excavation.
Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent important
components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex surface
microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools, oxbows, and
hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the
system. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface microtopography shall be
implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping, or scarification shall be performed. Mixing of
vegetation debris in surface soils and surface modifications (i.e., constructed concavities and swales) shall
also promote complexity across the landscape. After construction, the soil surface should exhibit
complex microtopography across floodplain surface with up to one-half foot vertical asymmetry.
Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated on complex floodplain surfaces. Exposed surfaces
will support complex microtopography, including hummocks and troughs, to maximize water-storage
potential.
4.3 Riparian Buffer Restoration
Riparian buffers, as described in the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy (1998),
(codified in 15A NCAC 2B .0235) are lacking along the streams within the Site. Effective restoration and
enhancement of these buffers will serve to provide several water quality benefits, which include nitrogen
and sediment removal from the supporting watersheds. Currently, approximately 1,708 linear feet along
both sides of Spring Branch and its UT do not support riparian buffers. Restoration and enhancement
within the groundwater slope area will assist in successful restoration of the adjacent riparian floodplain.
Important hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions to be restored include moderation of groundwater
flow and discharge towards the floodplain, dynamic surface water storage, long term surface water
Spring Branch Restoration Site 14 Pitt County
storage, and subsurface water storage. Application of agriculture-related chemicals and other biological
wastes adjacent to the stream may also be inhibited due to upland buffers abutting the floodplain.
Biotic functions potentially restored within the riparian buffer include re-introduction of habitat for
certain terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife guilds. Species populations promoted herewith include those
dependent upon interspersion and connectivity within riparian areas along with those requiring forest
interior. These interactions are considered degraded throughout a majority of the project region as
agricultural lands dominate intermediate landscape positions (i.e., between interstream and riparian
habitat). Habitat value and community maintenance functions will also be improved by creation and
interconnection of several plant community types, including uplands, along the restored environmental
gradients. Based on restoration analyses, the Site includes approximately 7.26 acres of riparian buffer
restoration (Figure 8, Appendix A).
4.4 Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of riparian and upland forest communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic stream forest species across the landscape. Ecotonal
changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Plant
community restoration within the Site will include the planting of bare-root trees consistent with reference
data, on-site observations, and community descriptions (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Revegetating the floodplain and stream banks will provide stream bank stability, shade, cool surface
waters, filter pollutants from adjacent runoff, and provide habitat for area wildlife. Scarification of all
planting surfaces will be required prior to planting. Species distribution and densities are expected to be
determined during development of the detailed restoration plan.
4.4.1 Plant Community Associations
Site specific environmental factors (i.e., moisture regime, landform, and soils) and community
descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted
during community restoration activities. Targeting the appropriate plant communities using this
methodology has been endorsed by North Carolina State University and a requirement of EEP
(Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering and North Carolina Water Quality Group, Plant
Community Workshop, June 2006.).
The community associations include 1) streamside assemblage, 2) riparian assemblage, 3) Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest and 4) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Figure 11, Appendix A). Figure 12
(Appendix A) identifies the location, based on elevation and landscape position relative to the restored
stream for each target community acreage to be planted. Planting elements within each map unit are
listed below.
Streamside Assemblage
1. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
2. Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
3. Coastal Doghobbble (Lettcothoe axillaris)
4. Swamp Doghobble (Leucothoe racemosa)
7. Mayberry (Vaccinium elliottii)
8. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
9. River Birch (Betula nigra)
10. Red Bay (Persea borbonia)
Spring Branch Restoration Site 15 Pitt County
Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida)
11. Giant Cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
6. Virginia Sweetspire (Itea virginica)
Riparian Assemblaee
1. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
2. Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
3. Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia)
4. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
5. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
6. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
7. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
8. River Birch (Betula nigra)
9. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
10. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
11. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
12. Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana)
13. Red Bay (Persea borbonia)
14. Giant Cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
2. White Oak (Quercus alba)
3. Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata)
4. American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
5. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
6. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra)
7. Mockernut Hickory (Carya alba)
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
1. White Oak (Quercus alba)
2. Black Oak (Quercus velutina)
3. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
4. Mockernut Hickory (Carya alba)
5. Red Hickory (Carya ovalis)
8. Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
9. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
10. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
11. Southern Sugar Maple (Acer floridanum)
12. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
13. Sourwood (Oxydendron arboretum)
14. Hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana)
6. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra)
7. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
8. Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
9. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
10. Sourwood (Oxydendron arboretum)
Streamside trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate,
and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events.
Shrub elements will be planted along the banks of the reconstructed stream, concentrated along outer
bends. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Forest is the target community for the floodplain locations
and mesic and dry mesic hardwood species will be planted along the valley side slopes and on adjacent
uplands within the Site. Certain opportunistic species that may dominate the early successional forests
have been excluded from plant community restoration efforts. Opportunistic species consist primarily of
pines, red maple and sweet gum.
The following planting plan is the blueprint for plant community restoration. The anticipated results
stated in the Success Criteria (Section 4.7) are expected to reflect potential vegetative conditions achieved
after steady-state conditions prevail over time.
4.4.2 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to re-establish vegetative community patterns across the landscape. The
plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of proposed site preparation,
and 3) planting of selected species.
Spring Branch Restoration Site 16 Pitt County
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various non-commercial species. Bare-root
seedlings of the listed species will be planted within most specified map areas at a density of 680 stems
per acre on 8-foot centers. Additional plantings of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) will be planted at a
density of 1742 per acre within designated planting units. Planting densities in the streamside assemblage
will be approximately 10,890 stems per acre, which will allow for two rows of plantings on each side of
the restored streams at 3-foot spacing. Table 4 (Appendix B) depicts the total number of stems and
species distribution within each vegetation association.
The Site shall be prepared for planting including soil scarification, topsoil excavation (see 3.2.3
Groundwater and Soil Restoration), fertilization, and lime application. Planting will be performed
between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root
during the spring. A total of approximately 11,218 trees and shrub specimens will be planted within the
Site boundary during plant community restoration activities.
5.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of Site will be performed over a 5 years period (i.e., five growing seasons), including a
minimum of two bankfull events recorded at the Site, or thereafter until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring reports will be submitted at the end of each monitoring year. The report will include
compilation of collected data in spreadsheet, tabular, and graphic format. ESC will follow the format
provided by the EEP (Content, Format and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports, Version 1.1 -
9/16/05). Monitoring is proposed for stream restoration and buffer restoration. Two distinct tasks are
covered under the monitoring plan including stream monitoring, and vegetation monitoring. These tasks
are described below.
5.1 Stream Monitoring
As part of the post-project As-built Mitigation Plan, a baseline survey encompassing all restoration
reaches will have been completed that will be used as base line mapping. The As-built Mitigation Plan
will establish the channel plan view; establish permanent channel cross-sections on riffles and pools;
provide substrate analysis; and establish the channel profile. Profile measurements will include bed
facets, water surface, and bankfull elevations. A minimum of two pools and two riffle cross-sections
locations will be identified within each monitored reach. Subsequent monitoring will revisit cross-section
locations, re-survey of the pattern and profile, and provide substrate analysis. Data will be presented in
graphic and tabular format consistent with the EEP format. Stream monitoring shall also include photo
documentation of changes observed within the channel, including bank erosion, aggradation, degradation,
and presences of in-stream bars. Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported
by comparing data from previous monitoring data.
In order to substantiate the extent of floodplain restoration, one stream crest gauge shall be placed in the
primary stream channel to verify bankfull stage events.
5.2 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel parameters that are indicative of a stable stream
Spring Branch Restoration Site 17 Pitt County
system. Channel configuration will be evaluated every year to monitor for changes in channel geometry,
profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream channel
stability.
The channel configuration will be compared to the design plans and previous geometry data to track
changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to assist in determining the
success of restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, there shall be no significant change in channel
geometry from constructed channel; pool depths and width should remain consistent with the constructed
geometry; the profile should continue to show the development of bed features and not evidence of
channel aggradation or degradation; and over time the channel will be successfully classified as an E-type
stream. The field indicators of bankfull will be described in each monitoring year and indicated on
representative channel cross-sections.
Channel stability will be assessed based on dimension, pattern, and profile variables. Bank erosion and
headcut migration through the Site will be assessed visually (photo record) and through cross-section and
profile data. Additionally, no less than two bankfull flow events will be documented through the required
5-year monitoring period. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years, and will be
verified by the stream crest gauge or photo documentation.
5.3 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but is not be limited to repair of dimension, pattern, and
profile variables or bank stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon
stream variables not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns that may jeopardize stream
success include headcut migration through the Site or bank erosion.
Headcut Migration Through the Site - In the event that a headcut occurs (identified visually or through
on-site measurements), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage caused by the
headcut may be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation of in-stream
grade control structures (log cross vane) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability
is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include stabilizing the material with erosion control
matting, and vegetative stabilization (seeding or planting).
Bank Erosion - In the event that severe bank erosion results in width/depth ratios significantly higher
than that of the previous monitoring year, contingency measures to reduce these variables may take place.
Bank erosion contingency may include bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces
shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, the channel may be modified to reduce shear stress.
5.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring procedures are designed in accordance with the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
(USACE et al. 2003) and guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
(CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.0, 2006). A
general discussion of the plant community restoration-monitoring program is provided.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting
Spring Branch Restoration Site 18 Pitt County
and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary. During the first year, vegetation will
receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted
elements by nuisance species.
Collection of the first year data must be performed during the month of September. The second and all
subsequent vegetation sampling must be collected between June 1 and September 31 or until the
vegetation success criterion is achieved.
As part of the post-project As-built Mitigation Plan, approximately eight (8), permanent 100-square meter
sampling plots (modules) will be established at stratified locations within the Site. The sampling plots
will equally represent the various hydrologic regimes and plant communities found within the Site.
Vegetation Baseline Data will be collected from each new sampling for inclusion of the As-built
Mitigation Plan. In each sample plot, protocol Level 1 and 2 will be used to identify and track only
planted vegetation. Volunteer and exotic vegetation will also be noted during data collection. One
photograph of each plot will be required.
5.5 Vegetative Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density
and survival of planted species identified in Plant Community Associations (Section 4.5.1). All canopy
tree species planted and identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) will be utilized to define "Character
Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving in the first year of
monitoring. Subsequently, 290 character tree stems per acre must be surviving in Year 3, and
260 character tree stems per acre in Year 5. This is consistent with USACE Wilmington District
guidelines for vegetative success criteria (USACE 1993).
5.6 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined
sample plot data, supplemental planting will be performed with a tree species listed in the planting plan.
Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria. No
quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the vegetation success
criteria. Development of floodplain forests over several decades shall dictate the success in migration and
establishment of desired understory and groundcover populations.
5.7 Special Considerations
The Site shall be periodically monitored for structures that significantly impede surface flow of the newly
constructed stream channel (e.g. beaver dams or fallen snags). Snags and other woody debris that pose
such obstruction shall be removed by hand or "cabled out" of the riparian area with minimum impacts to
soil compaction and vegetation. There shall be no excessive clearing or pruning of vegetation within the
Site boundary. Corrective action shall be applied to any monitoring activity that causes channelized flow
within the riparian area.
Spring Branch Restoration Site 19 Pitt County
6.0 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). 2006. Environmental Resource Technical Report (ERTR),
Spring Branch. Raleigh, North Carolina. (unpublished report).
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2006. EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck. Environmental
Data Resources, Inc. Milford CT. February 24, 2006.
Griffith, G.E., J.M Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson„
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Hamel, Paul B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina,
United States Department of Agriculture, U.S Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hydric Soils,
Pitt County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
North Carolina. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2003. Animal Operation Permits: NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. Basinwide Information Management
System (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reports.htmi. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2006b. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303d.htm. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Spring Branch Restoration Plan 20 Pitt County
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, R.P. Teulings, and R. Davis. 2006. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 399 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Sweet, W.V and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence
Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA). 39(4):861-871.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 169 pp.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington
District. Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, April 2003. State of North Carolina. 26 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MIST). EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. Envirofacts Warehouse: CERCLIS
Query Form for the State of North Carolina. http://cfRub.epa. osupercpad%cursites/srchsites.cfrn
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. Envirofacts Warehouse: SDWIS Query
Form for the State of North Carolina.
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/htmi/sdwis/sdwis_query.html#geography
Spring Branch Restoration Plan 21 Pitt County
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Pitt County Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/Pitt.html [February 20, 2006]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Spring Branch Restoration Plan 22 Pitt County
This page left intentionally blank
Spring Branch Restoration Plan 23 Pitt County
APPENDICES
Spring Branch Restoration Plan 24 Pitt County
APPENDIX A
Spring Branch Restoration Plan Appendix A Pitt County
rurrnvwe, rol, vuocr ongie. a
Projett? n
By: ed y:
SITE LOCATION Dote GWN JWG FIGURE
Spring Branch NOV 2007
G PI6=
Stream Restoration Site AS SHOWN
?:u,hc ic?n?c Pitt County, North Carolina Esc Ploj-t No:
06-283

s
l :Cost ient c
C urpuriiti(N1
n 1,
LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY and DRAINAGE AREA
Spring Branch
Stream Restoration Site
Pitt County, North Carolina
JwG FIGURE
1 2007
1-1000" 2
06-283
Imogery Source: GeoOoto Corp„ Morch 2006.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Spring Branch
Stream Restoration Site
l?.cu5wictt?t
C'nrp rratiott Pitt County, North Carolina
300 0 300
SCALE IN FEET'
GWN JWG FIGURE
Tote:
NOV 2007
Scae:
I"•300`
ESC Project No.
'Rocky Mount
ar ra 77,
sits E D G L_ C O Y? r D )r Gold Po.rr {f(~
[[, \ 3
\Mddrecl ? ? Event ? i ?YtftdtdTlSio[t
\ - Wiggins Cr¢.,.,i.'da> 7T e' 'The'strrtviLlr _
Conetoe j{? arme',e y
J {*
?? .. E3ethel z
aJ- [ 4'rneto? a
l Elm
Old t V•,':g
(2oSe[,uc: St Lc-,,,, / ?Haer Gr
1v`t:ttehUr ';u, ak!eY`''h,..
9 nd4,'ei ovule
'iisort PROJECV stokPS' mat.: k
Ho'det
LOCATION
Falkland
n .,y
v $Te CO r N hir
7 [IMF
.? L.arv,aule lid'atoga
Todd, a •.....,,, ,- :,""'.....? fattnro-l,.:, t
P\
letl)
r? 74 l
Vllle?
t '• +?.
` tt.,
:7e 4.rartg-?. t :OnDUI$ f'2Yft1 lie N, at,<r r
hell At
_
Maribpro SinrPo Gr,v "a^-'_° $y?aftinIP
?indelt ?; r ^ W +in?trr
FureKa ?+rs Wmte,vti / t? n rf
{en t
12Llt /r
L
Fart/ jac hOf.D
G R E ENE ?oundt+? B`', E A U
Maury
Al tlAyden ^` erdine N
Orrnandsvtll_
Cewf M _Ce n
Snow HIIl nei:
? s
rime l
.Faww L. t tlefieid
Hvokerton' A
j •,? (f
Cal,cu
%anrahan ?? ryytlm
4 I 1
{'',,e kotuwir .12350ft'V
_,r.?( 1 FFf1 nJ1Cl1U
`hy Institute
E3ast° ` - ?4 ^'
V - ,rirngers
t aGrartge Al
I ,?^•,,, .._L._..?I -, Ft (3arnwell ,..Cayton?
rrc J?Inston Er:tu1
'. r III w.
Falling Greek
I Rlvermnnt
s - (? j ('"? [A n \_ Dover Skt,n ? /
L E I V ti..J R Wise For k3\- "^.•.. Ja?[rer •'? ,?
Cove CttY
PA a,_ k's
1 __ fiA'r ca o°? Tuscarora Bella m
Jlymp,a t,, ate:
.. WyrnariS _ .,
J? w Deep Run ten"' Clary' oodrow redge. F?cf t ., c. ?
/ New Ber?x
s ? !``James C!tY}
Jonestown / Phillips
Cr m m T rent (ir Ithtarn
/ ossroad,;""` '
Trenton s > 1 Woods /
r,• `-??. Pink Hill -
,/ '. ...
Tl?
8 mi. 0 8 mi.
Comf: t _ F'oiVoeksydie er
1:506,880 1
1 ?1 '/Ravenswom ar
L- ??!r ? ?r3et ,?
Dwn. by:
MAF
FIGURE
USGS SUB-BASIN 8-DIGIT HYDRO UNIT ckdby JWG

Spring Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site SEPT 2006
Pitt County, North Carolina Pmjeot: 4
IscoScience
Ctirhoration 06-283
?. l1J n O _.h
U c V Z
' - i = y N N
' z O a= $
G,? ve c
co D c F= z o CC o r A
e s? V' cc0 u oo?
0- CC iL
r
J
y
J n a W W S VI r '
qq ^,±ry
1 4 ??p?yi V? 1

? s
n

r d

i

in
LAJ
4
a

?+? L.lU?ltl'tll?C'
Curlmration
NRCS SOIL UNITS
Spring Branch
Stream Restoration Site
Pitt County, North Carolina
JWG I FIGURE
NOV 2007
1"-300-
No.; 06-283

300 0 300
Imagery Source* GeoOoto Corp.. March 2006.
SCALE W FEET
Imogery Source. GeoDoto Corp., Morch 2006. 300 0 300
SCALE IN FEET
y Pr OjeCt
wn y: kd By
JURISDICTIONAL MAPPING / HYDRIC SOILS Me GwN .IwG FIGURE
Spring Branch Nov 2007
Stream Restoration Site scare: 1"•300'
Corix>r?( „ L Pitt County, North Carolina esc alo,ect No,
06-283
y f~ 2 ? z n
U O _= a. U Z a Z g n
?1/ I, U CC " € j OaCQ?w z? aZrA >
tr ti a ° ,.i m "a Z /?
Sg W
O OZZ 0
?Oy ??
Y z _
v p
L,) ch
S W
(J O _ : W
a
II
II
(I
II
II
I
II
II'
II
I?
I I b3?s
II ?
q? a
li
II
I
I.?N\
II ?
II a
I 1 /
I /
a
II ? /
I I `?
II A? ,
I I \ ? _ 'J
II
If,
H s s
C N x h
z
C7 2 QQ 48
?
O
z Z
a O W V
?-
J V V Q
>
2 j Z<
?
w <
?)
1y/ W
VW 7 ? 1
V1.. V1
I ?
w 11 I

u e
0
W
4
3
o N
N
0
5
v
U
O
O
O
Y
U
v
a
, i
E '
Q) ?+ S O
G O° V Z z $° co
ILA wFW- O Wag & °z ?% .J 555222
F- IL 0 y
t 0: CA
Y
W o.0 W
e N Y v d
t
U
9FI
r
?_lt
Ua
W
V HH 1
NN
I 1
J J
uU I
yI1 I
I I
?g
J
WW
y
re4
vz?• W pl?i,
u ?
9
13
/F9
W ss
J
M
I
9('4
z2
uyy(
U O Og OO Yf
U
z v u (4WD o S i
J VW W W Y1 4 ?4 gg? s ??
I !
4F9

f
oo
d
/f

9Z9• O
ti
W
W
4

JW
Q

O
?O U
N
F

n
)i

?S
t
I y
F •
3 t9
I
I ,
? 3...
1
...

'S t S ' 454
t
5 I
t

t
?
? I
I •
O

^S 1
I O
U

.I U
I I
FW.,1 i
qll
XI I
u
N
? I
t P
1 '
C) o f L) z z g N
Z p F a O N e
mwaac? of wig Z x m
_T 3c
W a a a m a
v
--------------------------'--'------------------
vr9d sn g• OVou 3avNUn1.3 ar
- - - - - - - -
----------- -------
I / 1

W 1 1
1 "y I
V 1 1
i
I 1
I 1
1 1

> I 1
1 1
11
u n
' 1 1
1
> 141
It\ 1 1

1, O
'? A• w W
y1 W J
Y
tnY uz a
x0 xo x0
WF WhWMs

3•
C/E C/E -
N3110 i0 ON3 Ot
lllix3ve 3nN11NOJ
n ? t 0 „`` ? r
4 `F
pnF / #i.. .c
00 0
NN •r. ? N ? C
JJZ q xo V
w ZZ O • WN- ?
Z< O C R
uU 1 C7 $•? _• 1KT
1 1 1 0? ??! ?? u
00 >°r
Zzw
LS ~. Y.:y \'•. ,i .ate V??d??'..}..: ?..1 `?\ W U
D
u
i b
N 5
3i? W o
_ >> __--
1 N
X2 0
W?
h
" s " F O r2
v G$ „ Q
mLu z
F-Z0
iL
1 1

-
02
D
O z
(1? 1?
Q .,
C
- cc
C71-? ri
ZN ? e(
CC
7
X Ory
y z
3
;
_ r
.
W 0" y rop
ap w a
e
2 U z
iL a

J
U
C! t'
O
a O O
U
? o
a
0

Q
N
(r
W Q

--
m
ry
s a
\ ...
J i ? w

I
w
jt r
r?
I- ^
0
to

m eD
rl _ s?

9
t
a ? ( I
e

F
rl 1
t
1 4
r
6
f
? I
s I
r I y
p

p.
i I
I
r
m
P
m

I
f I
E 00
Pj
3?
it i >
TY. I
r I

4
,I I ?

U
c '.
l i I
I i O?
a' H ?
s i
j I I 1
?
V1 3 ?

to j ? J N Ik I j I i ?? " I
r.,, I I i t I r ..«
V \ I ? J 4 1 I
I ? I
4
N I 41 I
I I I I
8 ` I ! I I I ? I
n :.

i .
J N

WZz<

?
x

? 4 1
a

t. i
l

?
I I
I

I
I

I
I

Y.
u ? I
I y l i I i . I I I

"I I Y i
I I •, l I

dl ?
?
I j
° ? '
' I I
I
- f
d I
II I
l
? ? I ' t I I I I I i i
I .?

a „' I I ? i . I s l
l

r
I
I I
I
P I I
I : I
4 ? I I I I d l I I

a t I i i t
_
I I
r
?
t
I
u?
I

r

s z
I
d

0
0 00
N

N N N N IPft N N

{p
U 5 V Z a °a o N
Z O >: 0 o N
cL > N
ri .a) Q?F O W W
(V ?QQw ZO?aJ o 933 O z =On 1nQ0?00 z v 3 e-
z r
0 :)..6 i z(A0 W ay CL
W Lj p (s y a z
z
o
J a
n > OOD
0 W
O
O W
? O
m
OO
N J
a Fs
> zd
M? x
o w u coo
0
_n
N
? U
Z
w1w,
Q' m n tD 1f1 < M N
111 111 411 111 111 111 N 111 B

00
°ao o =1
ndCo
z
0
a
z
0
a
V1
Ul 1[O N t(1 N 101 N N 0
N011YA3'13
I
a
A Y
O
a)a0cmNwc

e^`?
e
°?'
c
a
Q
a d
n - a
U Q= L J. c U U
E U m c
°
m

_.
O
"
N
N o
N

v
mU) 0 E a O¢O ,p o O
m
V) (U
f
4 +g
v ¢
5
S. ?
6 ? aJ
? ,?
cA U
o U
m

µ t :' n -
„ d
U L N
0 0-0 ?• 'E " tea ` a
- O u
t
m E 3 ?La? ?. c Q g
+ ? v m g o

N

.Y

to N Y O
E
O

I 3? T't'Av`v
?

, N
Zvi c-,NW c
n
Q may. ti
3 6
and
m E ~
?U
V aLL
3T y
§ a
H m 30 E ECG fix`' S
nO .-1 4i >
c i Q
O

Wp -j
.9 0 E [if
O S°= o W Q
L-
0
E _
°
ua°?cn

?'1c
'

S T>.

m

m
S
ode
UwOf
ir O
Z
O O
Z °" '
x a w
2 d
J2?
V
d Y -
OOH v. a a
°c .
? O
d 7
w dUZ
?Z?
a) c 2 .° ,t
L o -O 1 j G
• W
O

' m
0 m ot
o?:.? v + ' C9 f-

Y a?N Fi Ye b.' li
0 E
mQ) u=
c C? 2 O _
?E-5 .
C N
O
? Q
O
5
a` .
C
m [Y1
Eon
Q
o
K LL
v Q Z
Y "
O o
°
d.? m
O L
Y -0 e

4a J?
R O) o Of c 9
= n 0` N
U ?? _- µ L o
C LL O >
J
L = E
O Q
Cl)
} m
F LLJa

a
UZ

?O
= ~
Z
?m
22,
?
z?Q- uI
a
0U to
J
O
75?
o
VQ C9?
Oj U)
?z (n
..
t a Q
J
_ ^ 3 m
U N
Z < o
Z C) F? N N o
cc QQW ZZ >"a
mw2F o F Q a z M
Cr 0 L) -Z
5 a.
,t zNy a
W 2 a
Q
0
0
W
_Z
W
O U
N ?
?•a •._ ...tea.
p

!!!III!
III ?
I?
n
I!Iill ?
0
a
0
0
U
O
O
O
O
V
U
u
0
inns
.Q
n
7
JNf N O J1 +
GI O O '? IV m O
Ln -0
o ? ? oa
z x?
W y? W?y
J ?/y3? W 7 51p
0, 4r
APPENDIX B
Spring Branch Restoration Plan Appendix B Pitt County
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Stream Geometry and Classification
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
ATTRIBUTE
(Dimensions in feet)
Spring Branch UT to
Spring Branch
Spring Branch UT to
Spring Branch
Drainage Area (square miles 0.34 < 0.1 0.34 < 0.1
DIMENSION
Bankfull Area (Abk f) 4.2 2.5 4.2 2.5
Ditch Area (Adnh) 48-72 30-40 NA NA
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 3.6-3.9 2.7 4 3
Bankf ill Mean Depth (Dbkf) 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio (WbkMbkf) 3.3-3.5 3.0 4 3.8
Floodprone Area (WFPA) 7-10 5 30-35 25-28
Entrenchment Ratio (WFPA/Wbkf) 1.9-2.6 1.8 7.5-8.8 10-11.2
Bank Height Ratio 4.9-6.9 4.8 1.0 1.0
PATTERN
Median (Range) Median (Range)
Meander Belt Width (Wb,„) No Distinct No Distinct 14.9 (13.4-17.1) 12.7 (11.5-14)
Belt Width Ratio (Wb.h/Wbkf) Repetitive Pattern Repetitive Pattern of 3.7 5.1
Meander Length (LM) of Riffles and Pools Riffles and Pools 26.3 (18.7- 6.4) 17.6 (12.7-22.7)
Meander Length Ratio (LM/Wbkf due to Channel due to Channel 6.6 7.0
Radius of Curvature (Rc) Dredging and Dredging and 7.3 (6.0-11.0) 5.1 (4.0-10.0)
Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rc/Wbkf) Straightening Straightening 1.8 2.0
Channel Sinuosity (SIN) 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3
PROFILE
Average Water Surface Slope (5,15)
1 0.0048 0.0166 0.0065 0.0110
Valle Slope (S,,,,,,) 0.0058 0.0061 0.0084 0.0144
I SUBSTRATE I Fine Sand I Fine Sand I Coarse Sand Coarse Sand
I STREAM TYPE I G5 I G5 I E5 E5
Spring Branch Restoration Plan B-1 Pitt County
Table 2. Reference Stream Geometry and Classification
ATTRIBUTE
(Dimensions in feet) Black Branch,
Craven County Bullard Branch,
Duplin County UT to Town Creek,
Brunswick County
Drainage Area (square miles 1.2 1.3 0.6
DIMENSION
Bankfull Area (Abkf) 11.5 10. 9.0
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 9.8 9.2 7.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) 1.2 1.1 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio (WbkMbkf) 8.2 8.4 5.5
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmbkf) 1.8 1.5 1.9
Pool Width (WPoo1) 12.0 13 11.5
Pool Width Ratio (Wpoo,/Wbkf) 1.2 1.3 1.4
Maximum Pool Depth (Dp,ax) 2.3 2.1 2.5
Pool Depth Ratio (Dp.x/Dbkf) 1.9 1.9 2.3
Floodprone Area (WFPA) 225 200 175
Entrenchment Ratio (WFFA/Wbkf) 23.1 20.3 20.9
PATTERN
Meander Belt Width (Wbe1) 53.2 (31-113) 30.5 (12-45) 31.3 (15-60)
Belt Width Ratio (Wbe„/Wbkf) 5.5 (2.5-14.0) 3.1 (1.1-4.9) 3.7 (1.1-8.6)
Meander Length (LM) 118 (65-175) 66.4 (54-79) 42.7 (28-63)
Meander Length Ratio (LM/Wbkf) 11.7 (5.3-21.6) 6.5 (4.8-8.6) 6.0 (2.1-10.3)
Radius of Curvature (Rc) 29.2 (18-58) 19.1 (14-27) 9.8(7-13)
Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rc/Wbkf) 3.1 (1.5-7.1) 1.9 (1.3-2.9) 1.2 (0.5-1.9)
Channel Sinuosity (SIN) 1.6 1.4 2.2
PROFILE
Average Water Surface Slope (S,,,) 0.0023 0.0013 0.0036
Valley Slope (5,,11,y) 0.0037 0.0018 0.0080
Pool Length (LP,J 34.6(5-84) 33(22-44) 22(15-30)
Pool to Pool Spacing (LP_P) 58.9 (20-102) 48(35-66) 51 (19-113)
SUBSTRATE Sand Sand Sand
L STREAM TYPE ES ES ES
Spring Branch Restoration Plan B-2 Pitt County
Table 3: Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Project Restored
Segment or Mitigation Linear Footage or
Reach ID Type Approach Acreage Stationing Comment
UT to
Floodplain
Spring Branch R P2 384 linear feet 0+00-3+84 excavation and new
channel construction
Reach -T-
Spring Branch Floodplain
R P2 530 linear feet 0+00-5+30 excavation and new
Reach -L- channel construction
Spring Branch Floodplain
El -- 85 linear feet 5+30-6+15 excavation
Reach -L-
Spring Branch Floodplain
El -- 814 linear feet 0+00-8+14
excavation
Reach -E-
8.28 acres Includes buffer up to
Riparian Buffer R (360,677 square feet) 200 feet.
R = Restoration P 1 = Priority 1
El = Stream Enhancement I P2 = Priority 2
Ell = Stream Enhancement II 3 =Priority 3
S = Stabilization SS = Streambank Stabilization
C = Creation E = Riparian Buffer Enhancement
Spring Branch Restoration Plan B-3 Pitt County
Table 4. Planting Plan.
Vegetation Association

(Planting area)
Streamside

Assemblage

Riparian
Assemblage Mesic Mixed

Hardwood
Forest Dry-Mesic

Oak-Hickory
Forest TOTAL

STEMS
PLANTED
Area (acres) 0.2 1.0 6.7 2.5 10.52
Stem Target (per acre) 10,890 680 680 680 --
SPECIES' 4 planted 0 planted N planted N planted 9 planted
Common Name Scientific Name (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total)
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 436(20) 436
Coastal Doghobble Leucothoe axillaries 327(15) 327
Mayberry Vacclnrum elhotd 327(15) 327
Swamp Doghobble Leucothoe racemosa 327(15) 327
Virginia Ssceetspire Ilea virgovana 327(15) 327
Bald Cypress Taxodium disuchum 65(3) 68(10) 133
Red Bad Persea borhoma 174(8) 34 (5) tog
River Birch Betula nigra 65 (3) 34(5) 99
Swamp Tupelo Nycsa hii lora 65(3) 68(10) 133
American Elm Ulmus americuna 34 (5) 34
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvardca 34(5) 34
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 68(10) 68
Swamp Chesnut Oak Quercus micbanxii 68(10) 68
Sweetbav Magnolia Magnolia wrgimana 68(10) 68
Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 68 (10) 68
Ironwood Carpoms carohmana 65(3) 34(5) 228 (5) 327
Chembark Oak Quercus pagoda 34(5) 456(10) 490
American Beech bogus grandifolia 456(10) 456
Hop-hombeam Ostrya virginuma 228(5) 228
Southem Red Oak Quercus falcate 456(10) 456
Southern Sugar Maple Acer floridanum 228(5) 228
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 228(5) 170(10) 398
American Holly flex cpaca 34 (5) 228(5) 170(10) 432
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipijera 34(5) 228 (5) 85 (5) 347
Mockernut Hickory Carya alba 456(10) 170(10) 626
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 456(10) 170(10) 626
Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 228(5) 170(10) 398
Sourwood Oxydendron arboretum
228 (5)
170(10)
398
White Oak Quercus albs 456(10) 255(15) 711
Black Oak Quercus veharna 170(10) 170
Red Oak Quercus ovahs 170(10) 170
SUB TOTAL 2,178 680 41560 1,700 9,118
Giant Cane' Arundrnaria gigannea [741/ac 17421a7c -- -- 2,100
TOTAL 11,218
I Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting. The stem count for unacai[able species should be distributed
among other target elements based on the percent (%) distribution. One year of advance notice to forest nurseries will promote availability some
non-commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2. Barre root giant cane rhizomes (8-10 inches in length) will be planted randomly within the planting areas at the density specified.
APPENDIX C
Spring Branch Restoration Plan Appendix C Pitt County
(a)
r?t(t _ ........................ .._.._......
{ Ankr - 9.43 (A.)0.74
A?
R2 = 0.96 /
W ?
i
O.1 1 I0l 100 10 0
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
(C)
100
i
Dbk,t = 0.98 (Aw)a.36
R2 = 0.92
1{i
1
4-
Q
1000
0 38
W _
rakt _ 9.64 {Aw}
R2 = 0.95
Mo
M 10
(d)
10000 -
r 1001
r=,
i I 0 1011 i 000
Draina (e Area (sq. mi.)
=- 10
O' l
°,
r'-CZ) °
r"
I IQ IOIJ ,i;)ca
Drainage Area (;q. rni.)
O4 9f
a '• '
o
Draina e Area (sq. mi.)
Sweet, W.V and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and
Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association (JAWRA). 39(4):861-871.
APPENDIX D
Spring Branch Restoration Plan Appendix D Pitt County
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Spring Branch Date: 02/22/06
ApplicantlOwner: EEP County: Brunswick
Investigator: EcoScience/ David O'Loughlin State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: JE
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: JE04
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Lonicera japonica V FAC- 9.
2. Arundinaria gigantea H FACW 10.
3. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) >50
Remarks: drainage ditch possibly maintaned
L--
HYDROLOGY
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) x Inundated
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Aerial Photographs Water Marks
Other Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
Field Observations: Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: 8 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Lenoir loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Paleaquults
Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0+ A IOYR 4/1 l OYR 6/6 common loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: hydric indicators F3
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Spring Branch Date: 02/22/06
Applicant/Owner: EEP County: Brunswick
Investigator: EcoScience/ David O'Loughlin State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: JE
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: JE04
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Festuca sp. H FAC- 9.
2. Geranium maculatum H FACU 10.
3. Viola rafinesquii H - 11.
4. Lamium amplexicaule H - 12.
5. Stellaria media H FACU 13.
6. Cardamine hirsuta H FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) <50
Remarks: mown agricultural field
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: >12 (in.)
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
I Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Lenoir loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aeric Paleaquults
Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 A I OYR 4/1 loam
6+ B IOYR 4/4 loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks: mown ag field.