20070624 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070409

RESTORATION PLAN
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06069-A)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
IN THE WHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030001
Prepared for:
X7'0624
r~
I~~cnysteln
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources , ,
~`
Ecosystem Enhancement Program ~~,~~~
Raleigh, North Carolina ~~~ X01 ~y
~v_° ~ ~ <}
Prepared by: ,~~~ ~~ ~C`4~°~~
~~ ~ ~~ o~~
~'y!-~~
' foam Envvonmontal, Inc.
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107 And 2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Willow Spring, North Carolina 27592
December 2006

~
~
~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~~ ~~ ,~
4
•
The Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site), located less than 2 miles east of the
• Onslow/Duplin County line and approximately 3 miles west of the Town of Richlands, in Onslow
County, will provide a minimum of 6640 stream restoration credits and 12 riverine wetland restoration
credits. The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Catologing Unit (CU) and
Targeted Local Watershed 03030001010010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ]
Subbasin 03-OS-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit CU 03030001. This
subbasin of the White Oak River Basin is entirely contained within Onslow County and consists of the
New River and its tributaries, several small Coastal Plain streams, and the Intracoastal Waterway.
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities at the Site. An approximately 35-
acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities. The Site
contains 24 acres of hydric soil, three unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River, and adjacent
floodplains. An undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch, approximately 15 miles northwest of the Site in
• Duplin County, was utilized as the reference reach.
• The drainage basin size is approximately 0.59 square mile at the Site outfall. The Site watershed is
characterized by forest, agricultural land, and sparse industriaUresidential development; less than ten
• percent of the upstream watershed is composed of impervious surface. Residential development becomes
more concentrated southeast of the watershed in the Town of Richlands. The Site is characterized by
• agricultural land utilized primarily for row crop production. Riparian vegetation adjacent to Site streams
is sparse and disturbed due to plowing and regular maintenance, and row crop areas are subject to the
broadcast application of various agricultural chemicals.
Under existing conditions, Site streams are characterized by straightened, G-type reaches. Site streams
• have been degraded by dredging and straightening of the stream channels. Additional evidence of stream
deterioration include bank collapse and erosion, channel incision, changes in stream power and sediment
• transport, and loss of characteristic riffle/pool complex morphology. Site floodplains and wetlands have
been impacted by deforestation, vegetation maintenance, and groundwater draw-down from ditching and
stream channel downcutting.
Restoration activities will restore historic stream and wetland functions, which existed onsite prior to
• channel straightening and dredging, agricultural impacts, and vegetation removal. Stream construction of
meandering, E-type stream channel and braided, D-type channel will result in a minimum of 6640 stream
restoration credits (64181inear feet of stream restoration and 1205 linear feet of stream enhancement).
• Wetland restoration will occur within sections of the Site floodplains (riverine wetlands) underlain by
hydric soils and will result in a minimum of 12 riverine wetland credits (11 acres wetland restoration and
• 6.1 acres of wetland enhancement). Wetland restoration activities include removing spoil castings from
channel dredging/straightening activities, filling and redirecting existing onsite downcutting reaches,
filling drainage ditches within the floodplain, and revegetating with native woody species.
Characteristic wetland soil features, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation communities are
• expected to develop in areas adjacent to the constructed channel. The existing, degraded channel will be
abandoned and backfilled. Reestablishment of stream-side and hardwood forest communities will occur
• throughout the Site to further protect water quality and enhance opportunities for wildlife.
__ _ __
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page 1
. Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

A Monitoring Plan has been prepared that entails a detailed analysis of stream geomorphology, wetland
hydrology, and Site vegetation. Success of the project will be based on success criteria set forth under
each of the monitored parameters outlined in this document.
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page 2
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODS .............:........................................................................................................................ . 3
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. .4
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ............................................................................ . 4
3.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ .4
3.3 Plant Communities ................................................................................................................. . 6
3.4 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. . 6
• 3.4.1 Drainage Area ...................................................................................................................... . 6
3.4.2 Discharge ............................................................................................................................. . 6
3.5 Stream Characterization ......................................................................................................... . 7
3.5.1 Stream Geometry and Substrate ............................................................................................ 8
3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold ............................................................. 9
3.6.1 Stream Power ........................................................................................................................9
3.6.2 Shear Stress ...........................................................................................................................9
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ........................................................ 10
3.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 11
3.7.1 Groundwater Modeling ....................................................................................................... 12
3.7.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions ............................................................................... 12
• 3.7.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications .......................................................................... 13
3.7.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results .................................................................................. 14
• 4.0 CONSTRAINT EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Surface Water Analysis and Hydrologic Trespass ................................................................ 18
• 4.2 Protected Species .................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Categorical Exclusion Document .......................................................................................... 20
• 5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES ................................................................................................................ 21
5.1 Reference Channel ................................................................................................................ 21
• 5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems ................................................................................................ 22
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 24
6.1 Stream Restoration/Enhancement ......................................................................................... 24
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location ........................................................................................ 24
6.1.2 In-Stream Structures ........................................................................................................... 26
S 6.1.3 Braided Channel Development ........................................................................................... 27
6.1.4 Forded Channel Crossing .................................................................................................... 27
• 6.2 Wetland Restoration/Enhancement ....................................................................................... 28
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification ................................................................................................. 29
• 6.4 Plant Community Restoration ............................................................................................... 29
6.5 Planting Plan ......................................................................................................................... 30
• 7.0 MONITORING PLAN .......................................................:........................................................... 31
7.1 Stream Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 31
. 7.2 Stream Success Criteria ......................................................................................................... 31
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 32
• 7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria ................................................................................................... 32
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 32
. 7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 32
7.7 Contingency .............................................................................................•------...................... 33
• 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 35

• Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page i
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendices
APPENDIX A TABLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND
FIGURES
APPENDIX B CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DOCUMENT
APPENDIX C ~ EEP APPROVAL LETTER
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3 Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4 Drainage Area Land Use
Figure 5 Existing Conditions
Figure 6 USDA-SCS Soils Map
Figure 7 Typical Soil Profiles
Figures 8 Existing Conditions Dimension
Figure 9 Existing Conditions Groundwater Model
Figure 10 Proposed Conditions Groundwater Model
Figure 11 Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 12A-B Proposed Restoration Plan
Figure 13 Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 14 Typical Structures
Figure 15 Planting Plan
Figure 16 Monitoring Plan
List of Tables
Table 1. NRCS Soils Mapped within the Site ..............................................................................................5
Table 2. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ............................................................................. 7
Table 3. Stream Power (SZ) and Shear Stress (r) Values ...........................................................................11
Table 4. DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod ..................................................15
Table 5. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss ...................................................................17
Table 6. Federally Protected Species for Onslow County .........................................................................19
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem ........................................................................................................23
Table 8. Planting Plan ................................................................................................................................ 30
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page ii
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• JARMANS OAK
DETAILED RESTORATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
'I a Restoration Systems is currently developing stream and wetland restoration at the Jarmans Oak Stream
• and Wetland Restoration Site (Site) located less than 2 miles east of the Onslow/Duplin County line and
approximately 3 miles west of the Town of Richlands, in Onslow County (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit (CU) and Targeted Local
Watershed 03030001010010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-OS-02)
of the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit CU 03030001 (Figure 2, Appendix A)
(USGS 1974). This subbasin of the White Oak River Basin is entirely contained within Onslow County
and consists of the New River and its tributaries, several small Coastal Plain streams, and the Intracoastal
Waterway (NCDWQ 2001).
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities on the Site. A 35-acre
conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities. The Site
contains approximately 24 acres of riverine hydric soil, three unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New
River, and adjacent floodplains. An undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch approximately 15 miles
northwest of the Site in Duplin County was utilized as a reference reach (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The three UTs to the New River and adjacent floodplain represent the primary hydrologic features of the
Site. The drainage basin size is approximately 0.59 square mile at the Site outfall (Figure 3, Appendix
A). The Site watershed is characterized by forest, agricultural land, and sparse industriaUresidential
development; less than ten percent of the upstream watershed is composed of impervious surface (Figure
4, Appendix A). Residential development becomes more concentrated southeast of the watershed in the
Town of Richlands. The Site is characterized by agricultural land utilized primarily for row crop
production and livestock grazing (Figure 5,
Appendix A). Riparian vegetation adjacent to
Site streams is sparse and disturbed due to
plowing and regular maintenance, and row crop
areas are subject to the broadcast application of
various agricultural chemicals.
• Site land use, including agriculture, removal of
riparian vegetation, and straightening and
• dredging of stream channels, has resulted in
degraded water quality, unstable channel
• characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion,
and bank collapse), and decreased wetland
function.
The purpose of this plan is to present a detailed restoration plan for stream and wetland restoration
activities. The objectives of this study include the following:
• Detailed Restoration Plan page 1
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

• Classify onsite streams based on fluvial geomorphic principles.
• Identify jurisdictional wetlands and/or hydric soils within the Site boundaries.
• Identify a suitable reference forest, reference stream, and reference wetland from which to model
Site restoration attributes.
• Develop a detailed plan of stream restoration and wetland restoration activities within the 35-acre
conservation easement boundary.
• Establish success criteria and a method of monitoring the Site upon completion of restoration
construction.
Site restoration efforts wili.result in the following:
• Restore 64181inear feet of stream within three UTs to the New River.
• Enhance 1205 linear feet of stream within three UTs to the New River
• Restore 11 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland.
• Enhance an additional 6.1 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland.
• Reforest the entire floodplain with native forest species.
'The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and will be accomplished by:
• Removing nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with agriculture including a) cessation
of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and adjacent to Site streams
and b) restoration of a forested riparian buffer adjacent to streams to treat surface runoff.
• Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank erosion
associated with vegetation maintenance and agricultural plowing to Site streams and b) planting a
forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams.
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in-stream habitat and grade/bank
stabilization structures.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, dredged, straightened, and entrenched tributaries, thereby
reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; c) increasing storage capacity for
floodwaters within the Site; and d) revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on
floodwaters.
• Restoring onsite wetlands, thereby promoting flood storage, nutrient cycling, and aquatic wildlife
habitat.
• Improving aquatic habitat with bed variability and the use of in-stream structures.
• Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area developed for agricultural production.
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the Site. The
plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and forest studies; 3)
restoration plans; and 4) Site monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval of this plan by the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), engineering construction plans will be prepared and
activities implemented as outlined. Proposed restoration activities may be modified during the civil
design stage due to constraints such as access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs
(floodway constraints), or other design considerations.
Detailed Restoration Plan
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 2

• 2.0 METHODS
. Natural resource information was obtained from available sources including USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangles (Potters Hill and Richlands, North Carolina), United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, Natural Resource Conservation Service
• (MRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), soils mapping for Onslow County (USDA 1992),
and recent Onslow County aerial photography to evaluate existing landscape, stream, and soil information
. prior to onsite inspection.
• A reach of Bullard Creek located approximately 15 miles northwest of the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A)
and other offsite streams were utilized to obtain reference data. Reference stream and floodplain systems
were identified and measured in the field to quantify stream geometry (pattern, dimension, and profile),
substrate, and hydrodynamics to orient the channel reconstruction design. Reconstructed stream channels
and hydraulic geometry relationships have been designed to mimic stable channels identified and
• evaluated in the region. Stream characteristics and detailed restoration plans were developed according to
constructs outlined in Rosgen (1996), Dunne and Leopold (1978), Harrelson et al. (1994), Chang (1988),
. and State of North Carolina Interagency Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE et al. 2003).
. Characteristic and target natural community patterns were classified according to Schafale and Weakley's
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990). Plant communities were
characterized by structure and composition.
Detailed field investigations were conducted between September and November 2006, including
• generation of Site channel cross-sections, profiles, and plan-views; valley cross-sections; detailed soil
mapping; and mapping of onsite resources. Hydrology, vegetation, and soil attributes were analyzed to
• determine the status of jurisdictional areas.
• NRCS soil mapping and soil map units were ground truthed by a licensed soil scientist to verify existing
soil mapping units and to map inclusions within soil map units. Adjustments to hydric soil boundaries
were delineated using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with reported submeter accuracy.
• Recent aerial photography was evaluated to determine primary hydrologic features and to map relevant
environmental features.
S
• Detailed Restoration Plan page 3
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Jarmans Oak Site is located less than 2 miles east of the Onslow/Duplin County line and
approximately 5 miles northwest of the Town of Richlands, in Onslow County (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Site is located in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion of North Carolina
within USGS 14-digit CU and Targeted Local Watershed 03030001010010 (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-05-
02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service USGS 8-digit CU 03030001 (Figure 2, Appendix A)
(USGS 1974). Regional physiography is characterized by flat plains on lightly dissected marine terraces..
The ecoregion is characterized by Carolina bays, swamps, and low-gradient streams with silty or sandy
substrate (Griffith 2002). This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with
precipitation averaging approximately 56 inches per year (USDA 1992).
3.2 Soils
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina are
depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A) and described in Table 1 (USDA 1992). Onsite verification and
ground-truthing of NRCS map units were conducted in October 2006 by a licensed soil scientist to refine
soil map units and to locate inclusions. Refined soil mapping units are depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix
A). Soils were sampled for color, texture, consistency, and depth at each documented horizon.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 4
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
a
•
•

Table 1 _ NRCS Snils Manned within the Site

Soil Series
xydri
Status

Family -_-

Description
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
Muckalee Class A Typic moderately permeable soils of floodplains. Depth to
Fluvaquents seasonal hi water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.5 feet.
This series consists ofwell-drained soils on uplands.
Arenic Slopes are generally between 1 and 6 percent. Depth to
Autryville Nonhydric Paleudults seasonal high water table occurs at greater than 6 feet.
Soft bedrock occurs at a de th of more than 72 inches.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Based
on NRCS mapping, hydric soils underlying the Site stream channels and immediate floodplain include
soils of the Muckalee series.
Detailed soil mapping of the Site indicates that hydric soils of the Muckalee series encompass
approximately 23.9 acres (68 percent of the Site) adjacent to Site stream channels targeted for restoration
and extend into the immediate floodplain (Figure 6, Appendix A). Soils of the Muckalee series are
characterized by light gray to dark gray or gley colored matrix with mottles consisting of sandy loam
textured surface soils underlain by sandy loam or sandy clay textured soils (Figure 7, Appendix A). In
general, areas of hydric soils of the Muckalee series have been disturbed by stream alterations including
dredging, straightening, rerouting, and downcutting of streams; floodplain ditching; deforestation; and
soil compaction due to annual plowing. Based on preliminary studies, onsite soils of the Muckalee series
appear to have historically supported jurisdictional riverine wetlands that were intermittently flooded by
over-bank stream flows, upland runoff, groundwater migration into the Site, and, to a lesser extent, direct
precipitation.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and replanting with native hydrophytic species will occur in the areas
of hydric soils. See Section 6.2 for detailed wetland restoration information.
Nonhydric Soils
• Based on NRCS mapping and field observations, nonhydric soils underlying the Site are mapped as
Autryville loamy fine sandy.
Nonhydric soils mapped at the Site occur on upland margins of the Site floodplain and on side slopes,
encompassing approximately 11.1 acres (32 percent) of the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A). Nonhydric
. floodplain soils are generally located on gentle rises in the Site and are characterized by dark grayish-
brown to grayish-brown colored sandy loam or dark gray colored loam underlain by sandy clay. These
. soils may be subject to occasional flooding; however, aerobic features in the soil profile suggest that the
landscape position and soil permeability are sufficient to maintain nonhydric soil characteristics.
• Detailed Restoration Plan page 5
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

3.3 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils,
hydrology, and past or present land use practices. The Site is characterized entirely by agricultural land
that is regularly maintained and plowed for row crops, leaving soils disturbed and exposed to the edges of
Site stream banks. Riparian vegetation adjacent to Site streams is predominantly characterized by an
herbaceous assemblage of planted grasses and invasive annuals.
3.4 Hydrology
Hydrology within riverine areas of the Site is defined by the presence of surface water flows, groundwater
migration into open water conveyances, groundwater seepage onto floodplain surfaces, and, to a lesser
extent, precipitation. Surface water flows result primarily from upstream drainage basin catchment,
discharge into upstream feeder tributaries, and surface water flows into and through the Site.
3.4.1 Drainage Area
This hydrophysiographic region is considered characteristic of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province
and is located within the Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion of North Carolina. The region is characterized by
Carolina bays, swamps, and low-gradient streams with silty or sandy substrate (Griffith 2002). This
hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 56 inches per year (USDA 1992). The Site occurs within USGS 14-digit CU
03030001010010 (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-OS-02) of the White Oak River Basin (Figure 2, Appendix A)
(USGS 1974).
The Site drainage area encompasses approximately 0.59 square mile of land at the downstream Site
outfall (Figure 3, Appendix A). The drainage area is characterized by forest, agricultural land, and sparse
industrial/residential development (Figure 4, Appendix A). Site streams ultimately drain to a section of
the New River which has been assigned Stream Index Number 19-(1), a Best Usage Classification of C
NSW, and is partially supporting its intended uses (NCDWQ 2001, NCDWQ 2005).
3.4.2 Discharge
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Current research also estimates a bankfull discharge would be expected to occur approximately every 0.1
to 0.3 years (Geratz et al. 2003). This is much shorter than previous state and nationwide estimates in
other ecoregions of approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994). The shortened
recurrence interval may be attributed to precipitation inputs onto wide, nearly level land with a large
surface storage capacity, an elevated water table, and slow flushing rates (Geratz et al. 2003).
The Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic province; therefore, regional curves for the Coastal
Plain (Geratz et al. 2003) were utilized and verified by regional regression equations, Cowan's roughness
equation method, and reference stream data.
Based on available Coastal Plain regional curves, the bankfull discharge for the reference reach averages
approximately 11.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Geratz et al. 2003). The USGS regional regression
equation for the Coastal Plain region indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach at a 0.1 to
0.3 year return interval averages approximately 4.5 to 12.0 cfs (USGS 2001). In addition, a stream
Detailed Restoration Plan page 6
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of Arcement and Schneider's (1989) weighted
method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component values and applied to the following equation (Manning
1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge estimate.
• Qbkf= [1.486~nJ * [A*R2/3*S1/2l
•
i
•
•
•
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water surface
slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reach averages
approximately 20.6 cubic feet per second. Field indicators of bankfull and riffle cross-sections were
utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-sectional area for the reference reach. The Coastal Plain
regional curves were then utilized to plot the watershed area and discharge for the reference reach cross-
sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull approximate an average discharge of 11.4 cfs for the reference
reach.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at the Site
will be based on bankfull indicators found on the reference reach and Coastal Plain regional curves. The
following table summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull discharge.
To verify regional curves and USGS regression models, gauged streams are generally analyzed to
determine a return interval for momentary peak discharges. Momentary peak discharges (return interval
between 0.1 to 0.3 years) would be calculated from the USGS gauge data collected monthly and plotted
against the regional curve. However, data for stations within close proximity to the Site and of a similar
drainage area were not available. The limited number of available stations within Onslow and
surrounding counties occurred on large rivers with drainage areas ranging from 94 square miles to greater
than 500 square miles. Therefore, data from such gauges is not applicable to the Site with a 0.59-square
mile watershed at the Site outfall.
Table 2. Reference Reach Rankfull Discharue Analvcis
Watershed Area Return Interval Discharge
Method (s uare miles) ears cfs
Coastal Plain Regional Curves
(Geratz et al. 2003) 1.27 0.1 - 0.3 11.0
Coastal Plain Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2001) 1.27 0.1 - 0.3 4.5 - 12.0
Mannin 's "n" usin Cowan's Method 1956 1.27 NA 20.6
Field Indicators of Bankfull (Coastal Plain Regional
Curves, Geratz et al. 2003) 1.32 0.1 - 0.3 11.4
3.5 Stream Characterization
Stream characterization is intended to orient stream restoration based on a classification utilizing fluvial
geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into comparable groups based
on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary components of the classification
include degree of entrenchment, width-to-depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and stream substrate
composition. Existing Site reaches are classified as G-type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio)
Detailed Restoration Plan page 7
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

streams. Each stream type is modified by a number 1 through 6 (e.g. ES), denoting a stream type which
supports a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6) silt/clay.
3.5.1 Stream Geometry and Substrate
Locations of existing stream reaches and cross-sections are depicted in Figure 8 (Appendix A). Stream
geometry measurements under existing conditions are summarized in Figure 8 and the Morphological
Stream Characteristics Table in Appendix A. The Site is characterized by dredged and straightened, G-
type streams. The reference reach exhibits a sinuous, E-type channel and is discussed in more detail in
Section 5.1.
G-type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio) streams are generally in a mode of degradation derived
from near continuous channel adjustments resulting from very high bank erosion. Bed and bank erosion
typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution from a stable E-type channel into a G-type (gully)
channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension of the G-type channel into an F-type
(widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue to widen laterally until the channel is wide
enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel at a lower elevation so that the original floodplain is
no longer subject to regular flooding. Existing stream characteristics are summarized below.
Dredged and Straightened G-type Streams
Dimension: Site streams have been dredged and straightened and are classified as G-type
channels. Cross-sectional areas of the channel currently range from 17.5 to 74.6 square feet (compared to
1.9 to 4.0 square feet predicted by this study). Incision of the channels is indicated by bank-height ratios
ranging from 3.1 to 10.8. The channels are currently characterized by eroding banks as the channels
attempt to enlarge to a stable cross-sectional area as described in the evolutionary process outlined above.
Pattern: Straightening of the channels have resulted in a loss of pattern variables such as belt-
width, meander wavelength, pool-to-pool spacing, and radius of curvature. The channel is currently
characterized by a low sinuosity of 1.07 to 1.15 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance) and no distinct
repetitive pattern of riffles and pools is present.
Profile: The average water surface slope for the dredged and straightened reaches measures
0.0046 for the main tributary and 0.0091 for the smaller, southern tributaries (rise/run). These values are
nearly equal to the valley slopes (0.0052 and 0.0101, respectively) resulting in a sinuosity of 1.1.
Typically, dredging and straightening will oversteepen a channel, reducing channel length over a
particular drop in valley slope, as is depicted in this case. In addition, dredging and straightening
channels disturbs perpendicular flow vectors that maintain riffles and pools, resulting in headcuts,
oversteepened riffles, and loss of pools.
Substrate: Channel substrate is characterized by silt- and sand-sized particles typical of this
region of North Carolina.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 8
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• 3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold
3.6.1 Stream Power
• Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing water and sediment load. One form
of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to aggradation, or
• deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the stream to transport
sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or stability thresholds for materials
• forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or degradation occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream power can be
used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment transport of streams.
Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream power) or per unit of channel bed area.
r The total stream power equation is defined as:
~ = PgQs
where S2 =total stream power (ft-lb/s-ft), p =density of water (lb/ft3), g =gravitational acceleration
• (ft/sz), Q =discharge (ft3/sec), and s =energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of water (y = 62.4 Ib/ft3) is
equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg. A general evaluation of power
for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge and water surface slope for the reach. As
slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase, stream power increases and more energy is available for
• reworking channel materials. Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus
stream power. Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular,
over-widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will decrease
stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to aggradation of the
stream bed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream power.
• Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power and relatively
coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto adjacent floodplains have
. lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable. Stream power assessments can be
useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and the deposition or erosion of sediments from
• the stream bed.
3.6.2 Shear Stress
• Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing water exerts
on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment supply (size and
• amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the stream bed and bank on
water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the ability of a stream to efficiently
. transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the bed is
defined as follows:

• i=yRs

Detailed Restoration Plan page 9
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

where T =shear stress (lb/ft2), y =specific weight of water, R =hydraulic radius (ft), and s =the energy
slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily provide a
good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local variability and
instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on channel form and irregularity.
For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be assumed from the following equation:
Tmax= 1.ST
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
os
Tmax = 2.65T(Rc ~bkf)
where ~ =radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope, dimension, and
pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity increase to maintain adequate
shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have higher shear stress values than required for
bedload transport will scour bed and bank materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with
lower shear stress values than needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel
aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the available power
divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and vegetation. The stream power
equation can thus be written as follows:
w = pgQs = Tv
where OJ =stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft2), T =shear stress, and v =average
velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
~ _ /Wbkf
where Wbkf= width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach the resisting
forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of relative magnitude of
these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of open channels is only imperfectly
understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have yet to be developed for
conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical
formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1) maximum
permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The former is advantageous
Detailed Restoration Plan page 10
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream power cannot be measured directly and
must be computed from various flow parameters. However, stream power and shear stress are generally
• better measures of fluid force on the channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and
• straightened, G-type reaches, 2) the reference reach, and 3) proposed on-Site conditions. Important input
values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear power and shear stress)
• are presented in Table 3. Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated for the existing
onsite stream reaches, the reference reach, and proposed conditions.

In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed channel should
exhibit stream power and shear stress values so that the channel is neither aggrading nor degrading.
Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed channel reaches are expected to maintain stream power
as a function of width values of approximately 0.25 and shear stress values of approximately 0.21
(slightly lower than that of the reference reach and existing degrading reaches).
Tahle 3. Stream Power (SZl and Shear Stress (til Values
Water Total Shear
Discharge surface Stream Hydraulic Stress Velocity
ftz/s Slo a ft/ft Power S2 S2/W Radius ti v ti v T
Existing Condrt~ons
G-h'Pe Downstream. ~ __L _... ~ ._. _ __. ~ __.. I _.. _~ _ ~ 1 1
6.5 0.0052 2.11 0.38 0.82 0.27 1.00 0.27 0.40
Reference Reach 11.0 0.0040 2.75 0.30 0.99 0.25 0.95 0.23 0.37
M Proposed Conditions
E-type ____ ~ 6.5 I 0.0044 ~ _ 1.78...........1 0.25 I 0.77 ~ 0.21 1 1.00 ..1.....0.21 ~ 0.32
• Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the dredged and straightened, G-type reach, than for
proposed E-type channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by bank erosion, channel
• incision, low width-depth ratios, and bank-height ratios greater than 3; degradation has resulted from a
combination of water surface slopes that have been steepened, channel straightening, dredging, and bank
. erosion. Stream power and shear stress values for the proposed channels should be lower than for
existing channels to effectively transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting,
resulting in stable channel characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are slightly higher than for the proposed
• channels; however, the valley and water surface slopes, and discharge are slightly higher for the reference
reach resulting in higher stream power and shear stress values. The reference reach is characterized by
• fully forested riparian fringes and is therefore able to resist stream power and shear stress of these
magnitudes. However, the proposed channels will be devoid of deep rooted vegetation; therefore,
• proposed targets for stream power and shear stress values should be slightly less than predicted for the
reference reach.

3.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
• Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual, the presence of

• Detailed Restoration Plan page 11
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

three clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland
hydrology) are required for a wetland jurisdictional determination.
Hydric soil limits were delineated in the field during October 2006. Based on field surveys and
groundwater models discussed below, jurisdictional wetland hydrology does not occur within
approximately 17.8 acres of the Site. Based on groundwater models, approximately 6.1 acres of cropland
located in the broad, expansive New River floodplain are currently characterized by jurisdictional wetland
hydrology (Figure 9, Appendix A). Areas within the Site which may have historically contained
jurisdictional wetlands have been significantly disturbed by row crop production; relocation, dredging,
straightening, and rerouting of onsite streams; ditching of fields; and removal of vegetation and are
currently effectively drained below jurisdictional wetland hydrology thresholds.
Historically, onsite wetlands may have supported communities similar to a Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
communities typically occur on alluvial floodplains of small blackwater streams that are intermittently,
temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Vegetative communities may have been dominated by species
contained within the reference forest such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), cherrybark oak
(Quercus pagoda), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), pignut
hickory (Carya glabra), and American holly (Ilex opaca) within an understory of sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), highbush blueberry (Yaccinium corymbosum), and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea). Onsite impacts have reduced hydrologic functions, biogeochemical functions,
and plant and animal habitat interactions of these communities.
3.7.1 Groundwater Modeling
Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize water table elevations under historic (reference},
existing, and post-restoration conditions. The study compared the output of two models (the Boussinesq
Equation and DRAINMOD) to estimate the lateral effect of agricultural drainage ditches and downcutting
stream channels within the Site on the depth to the groundwater table.
3.7.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions
Boussinesq Equation
The Boussinesq Equation represents atwo-dimensional general flow equation for unconfined aquifers.
The equation has been applied in the past to predict the decline in elevation of the water table near a
pumping well as time progresses. The equation is based primarily on hydraulic conductivity, drainable
porosity, and the saturated thickness of the aquifer. One form of the equation is as follows:
X = (K ho t/f)~'/ F(D,H)
where K =hydraulic conductivity (in/hr); ho =depth to aquiclude (in); t =duration (hours); f = drainable
porosity (dimensionless ratio); F(D,H) =profiles (graphs) relating ditch depth, water table depth, and
depth to the aquiclude (ho); and X =wetland impact distance (in).
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was originally developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and water
table control systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD predicts water balances
Detailed Restoration Plan page 12
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two drains of equal elevation. The model is capable of
calculating hourly values for water table depth, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, infiltration, and
• actual evapotranspiration over long periods referenced to measured climatological data. The reliability of
DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range of soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of
tests in North Carolina (Skaggs 1982), Ohio (Skaggs et al. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et al. 1985; Fouss et
. al. 1987), Florida (Rogers 1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et al. 1987)
indicate that the model can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates.
DRAINMOD has also been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et al. (1993). Methods for
evaluating water balance equations and equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs (1980).
DRAINMOD was modified for application in wetland studies by adding a counter that accumulates the
number of events wherein the water table rises above a specified depth and remains above that threshold
depth for a given duration during the growing season. Important inputs into the DRAINMOD model
include rainfall data, soil and surface storage parameters, evapotranspiration rates, ditch depth and
spacing, and hydraulic conductivity values.
. 3.7.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications
Boussinesq Equation
In this study, the Boussinesq Equation was applied to agricultural field ditches and entrenched stream
channels to predict where the linear distance of a drawdown in the groundwater exceeds 1 foot for 5
percent of the growing season. This percentage was selected based upon reference wetland groundwater
• modeling described below and guidance from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for the wetland impact distance with data for
the following variables 1) equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 2) drainable porosity, 3) an estimated depth
to the impermeable layer or aquiclude, 4) the time duration of the drawdown, 5) target water table depth
• (1 foot below the soil surface), and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) values were estimated using published conductivity data in the Coastal Plain
of North Carolina (Skaggs et al. 2002) and the Onslow County soil survey (USDA 1992). The soil layer
depths were obtained from descriptions in the Onslow County soil survey and were verified in the field.
• Drainable porosity was determined using published data (Skaggs et al. 1986) and records maintained by
the USDA-NRCS National STATSGO database (Map Unit User File [MUUF] computer program). The
• depth to aquiclude was obtained from published values for the Muckalee series (Skaggs et al. 1986).
• The time variable, t, is based on 5 percent of the Onslow County growing season or 11 days. For the
purpose of this study, the growing season is defined as the period between April 8 and November 5
(USDA 1992). Values for the function F(D,H), defined as a function of ditch depth, water table depth,
and depth to the aquiclude, were taken from plotted numerical solutions to the Boussinesq Equation
(Figure 2j, Skaggs 1976), where D = d/h0 and H = h/h0. The variable d is defined as the ditch elevation
• above the aquiclude. The variable h0 is the distance from the surface to the aquiclude. The variable h is
equal to the height after drawdown for the water above the aquiclude at distance X from the ditch. For
. the purposes of this analysis, h was defined as the distance between the aquiclude and a point 1 foot
below the surface. Minimum ditch depths were determined during cross-sectional analysis of agricultural
. field ditches.
• Detailed Restoration Plan page 13
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was used to model the zone of wetland loss resulting from the addition of the agricultural
field ditches and channel incision. This zone was estimated by determining the threshold drain spacing of
parallel ditches that would result in the area adjacent to the ditches meeting the wetland hydrology
criterion in just over one-half of the years simulated. Ditches spaced any closer than this threshold
distance would result in the entire area between the ditches experiencing a loss of wetland hydrology. If
ditches were spaced further apart than the threshold distance, there would be a strip between the ditches
which would still meet wetland hydrology criteria. One-half of this threshold spacing provides an
estimate of the drainage effect on each side o.f a single agricultural field ditch. This application of the
model recognizes that the water table midway between two ditches spaced at the threshold spacing will be
lower (i.e., the soil at that point will be drier) than would be the case at the same distance from a single
ditch (i.e., at a distance of one-half the threshold spacing from a single ditch). This results in a
conservative estimate of drainage impacts for a single ditch to the adjacent groundwater table. A second
ditch parallel to the first ditch at the threshold distance would cut off seepage from the zone beyond the
threshold distance and permit greater groundwater table drawdown at the midpoint than would occur if
this second ditch were not present. Therefore, the width of the strip of land that would experience
hydrologic conversion from wetland to upland hydraulic conditions would be less than a distance equal to
one-half the threshold spacings.
Wetland hydrology is defined for DRAINMOD as groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for
11 consecutive days during the growing season in Onslow County (USDA 1992). Wetland hydrology is
achieved in the model if target hydroperiods are met for one-half of the years modeled (i.e. 21 out of 42
years).
Additional inputs for soil parameters and relationships derived from soil water characteristic data such as
the groundwater table depth/volume drained/upflux relationship, Green-ampt parameters, and the water
contentlmatric suction relationship were obtained from published values (Skaggs et al. 1986). Hydraulic
conductivities and ditch depths were calculated as described above. Surface depressional storage was
estimated from published ranges (Skaggs et al. 1994 and Skaggs 1980) after visiting the Site. Drainage
coefficients for the ditches were calculated based on formulas provided with DRAINMOD.
Weather data fora 42-year period was obtained for North Wilmington, North Carolina in New Hanover
County. Potential evapotranspiration rates were calculated based on Thornthwaite's method and adjusted
using monthly factors derived from more reliable average values for crop evapotranspiration for the
Coastal Plain known from New Hanover County. The DRAINMOD simulation was conducted for the
time period from 1949 through 1991.
3.7.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results
Reference Wetland Model
For development of reference wetland standards, modeling was performed to predict historic wetland
hydroperiods (as a percentage of the growing season) in various undrained conditions. The reference
model was developed by effectively eliminating the influence of ditching and forecasting the average
hydroperiod over the number of years modeled. Two iterations were performed to evaluate changes in
wetland hydroperiod between 1) old field (post-farmland) stages of wetland development and 2) forested
stages of wetland development.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 14
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

~~
• Old field stages of wetland development were simulated by modifying soil drainage characteristics such
. as rooting functions in proximity to the B (clay) horizon, A horizon (plow layer) hydraulic conductivity,
and water storage capacity within the plow layer. The old field model provides a hypothetical
approximation of the potential hydroperiod exhibited immediately after channel restoration is conducted
• and drainage networks are removed.
• Forested stages were modeled to predict wetland hydroperiods that may occur within reference (relatively
undisturbed) wetlands in the region. The reference forest model is expected to provide a projection of
• wetland hydroperiods and associated functions that may be achieved over the long term (10 or more
years) as a result of wetland restoration activities and steady state forest conditions. The steady state
model application assumes increases in rooting functions, organic matter content, and water storage
capacity relative to post-farmland periods.
• The reference model predicts that, in Muckalee soils, old field stages of wetland development exhibit an
average wetland hydroperiod encompassing 8 percent of the growing season, respectively, over the years
• modeled (Table 4). This average hydroperiod translates to free water within 1 foot of the soil surface for
an 11 day period. During the 42-year modeling period, reference wetland hydroperiods exhibited a range
• extending from less than 2 percent (34 out of 42 years) to more than 16 percent (1 out of 42 years) of the
growing season, dependent upon rainfall patterns (Table 4).
•
•
Table 4. DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hvdroneriod
Number of Years Wetland H drolo Achieved 42- ear eriod
Duration of the Growing Season
Muckalee
Wetland Hydrology Achieved
Old Field Sta e*
Forested Sta a**
2 % 4 da s 34 37
4 % 8 da s 30 34
6 % 12 da s 28 33
8% 16da s 19 31
10 % 22 da s 8 25
12 % 26 da s 3 21
14 % 30 da s 2 19
16 % 34 da s 1 16
18% 38da s 0 14
20 % 42 da s 0 11
22 % 46 da s 0 9
24 % 50 da s 0 5
26 % 54 da s 0 5
28 % 60 da s 0 2
30 % 64 da s 0 2
. * Old Field Stage -immediately after backfilling and plugging ditches; relatively low surface water storage
** Forested Stage - ] 0 or more years after restoration; relatively high surface water storage
• As surface topography, rooting, roughness, and storage variables increase during successional phases, the
• model predicts that hydroperiods will increase to steady state forest conditions with an average wetland

• Detailed Restoration Plan page 15
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

hydroperiod of 12 percent in Muckalee soils over the 42 years modeled (Table 4). The average
hydroperiod translates to free water within 1 foot of the soil surface fora 26-day period in Muckalee soils.
Again, the hydroperiod ranges from less than 2 percent (2 out of 42 years) to more than 30 percent (37 out
of 42 years) dependent upon rainfall patterns. Therefore, the reference model suggests that groundwater
fluctuations must be tracked within a reference wetland site to accurately assess a target hydroperiod for
any given year.
As described above, the average wetland hydroperiod in Muckalee soils is forecast to exhibit a gradual
increase from less than 8 percent of the growing season immediately after Site implementation to as much
12 percent under steady state forest conditions. A gradual increase in hydroperiods may suggest that
water storage capacity (rooting functions, organic materials/debris accumulation, microtopography, etc.)
exhibits a significant effect on maintenance of wetland hydrology in on-Site wetlands. In old field stages
of succession, accelerated runoff may occur within the compacted soil surfaces. For purposes of this
preliminary model, runoff is assumed to occur at accelerated rates which reduce the influence of
evapotranspiration on wetland hydrodynamics. This accelerated drainage would be expected to decrease
as successional vegetation colonizes the Site.
Because wetland hydroperiods during old field stages of wetland development are projected to extend for
less than 12.5 percent of the growing season, wetland monitoring plans that extend for afive-year period
after restoration should utilize a minimum 5 percent wetland hydrology criteria to substantiate restoration
success. Alternatively, hydroperiods within the restored wetland area may be compared to the reference
wetland, with success criteria stipulating that restored wetland hydroperiods must exceed 75 percent of
the wetland hydroperiod exhibited by reference.
Methods may be employed to increase complexity in the soil surface (A-horizon plow layer) during
restoration activities. These modifications, including woody debris deposition and soil scarification, may
increase water storage capacity across the surface of relatively impermeable layers (B-horizon surface).
If water storage is not adequately established during early stages of wetland development, marginal or
non-wetland conditions may occur in elevated areas of the Site. Invariably, rooting influences on water
storage capacity will require an extended period of forest development to establish (assumed at greater
than 10 years).
Existing Site Conditions
Groundwater models were utilized to forecast the maximum zone of ditch and incised stream influence on
jurisdictional wetland hydroperiods. The maximum zone of influence was used to predict the area of
wetland hydrological restoration resulting from Site implementation. Ditch depths and spacing were
varied in the model until wetland hydroperiods were reduced relative to the reference groundwater model
predictions.
Both the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD have an ability to support different ditch morphology
and features, suggesting that use of these methods in evaluation of drainage impacts from agricultural
field ditches and stream channel incision is applicable with proper data inputs. Performing a comparison
of output from both models is recommended due to output predictions typically within the lower limits
(Boussinesq Equation) and upper limits (DRAINMOD) of the range of drainage influence likely to occur
in real world conditions. Groundwater model results are presented in Table 5.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 16
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 5. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
Zone of Influence feet
Ditch Depth
(feet)
Boussinesq Equation
DRAINMOD Model*
Drainage Impact Used for this Study
1 9 55 32
3 86 138 112
5 104 188 146
*Zone of influence equal to half of the modeled ditch spacing.
The Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD model predict a range of influence on the jurisdictional
wetland hydroperiod (5 percent of growing season) of 86 to 138 feet of lateral zone of influence fora 3-
• foot ditch (Table 5). The Boussinesq Equation value is expected to be at the low end of the drainage
impact and the DRAINMOD model value is expected to be at the high end of the drainage impact.
• Therefore, an average value for drainage impact was calculated from the Boussinesq Equation and
DRAINMOD results. Figure 9 (Appendix A) provides a depiction of modeled wetland hydroperiods
based on ditch depths and spacing under existing conditions. As the Site succeeds towards steady state
forest conditions, the zone of potential wetland loss is expected to be reduced due to projected, lower
infiltration and runoff rates.
Groundwater model simulations for existing conditions indicate that approximately 17.8 acres of hydric
• Muckalee soils within the Site are below jurisdictional wetland hydrology criteria and are considered
effectively drained due to the groundwater drawdown from relocation, dredging, straightening, and
• rerouting of onsite streams; ditching of fields; plowing of agricultural fields; and removal of vegetation
(Table 5 and Figure 9, Appendix A). Of these effectively drained areas, groundwater model simulations
• indicate that jurisidictional riverine wetland hydrology may be restored as the result of Site restoration
activities within approximately 11.0 acres of the Site (Figure 10, Appendix A). In addition,
approximately 6.1 acres of riverine wetland enhancement will be derived from Site implementation. The
remaining 6.8 acres of riverine hydric soil will continue to experience groundwater table drawdown from
drainage features including incised streams, bankfull benches, and the New River.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 17
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

4.0 CONSTRAINT EVALUATION
4.1 Surface Water Analysis and Hydrologic Trespass
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to predict the
feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or
adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with
provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing potential
for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year storms
under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities have been
implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak flood flows for Site
features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International) program and regional
regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry and cross-sections are digitized
from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a professional surveyor) using the HEC-
GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are adjusted as needed based on field-collected
data. Once corrections to the geometry are performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation Model) data
and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were obtained along Site
features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both onsite cross-sections and detailed topographic
mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM. Observations of existing hydraulic
characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the computed water surface elevations will be
calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for Site restoration
activities. A primary objective of the stream and wetland restoration design is maintenance of a no-rise in
the 100-year floodplain. Although a portion of the Site is located within a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodway, the floodway is limited to the mainstem New River channel.
No FEMA cross-sections or detailed mapping occurs along restoration reaches (the three unnamed
tributaries) within the Site. Therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map
Revision (CONK) are not expected to be necessary at this time. However, coordination with FEMA will
be conducted, if necessary, prior to initiating Site construction activities.
4.2 Protected Species
Federal S ep cies
Species with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened 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).
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in North
Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, 13 federally protected species
Detailed Restoration Plan page 18
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

are listed for Onslow County. The following table lists the federally protected species for Onslow County
and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each.
Table 6. Federally Protected Species for Onslow Coun
Habitat Present Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status*
Within Site Conclusion
Vertebrates
American alli ator Alli ator mississi iensis Threatened S/A Yes Not A licable

Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
No
No Effect
Eastern cou ar Puma concolor cou uar Endan ered No No Effect
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das Threatened No No Effect
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coriacea Endan ered No No Effect
Lo erhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endan ered No No Effect
Pi in lover Charadrius melodus Threatened No No Effect
Red-cockaded

wood ecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
No
No Effect
Vacrnlar Plante
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum Goole i Endan ered No No Effect
Golden sed e Carex lutea Endan ered No No Effect
Rough-leaved

loosestrife
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Endangered
No
No Effect
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus Threatened No No Effect
`Endangered = a taxon "m danger of exttnct~on throughout all or a s~gmncant portion oT its range" ; threatened = a taxon "likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A) = a species that is threatened due
to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are not biologically endangered or threatened and
are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Potential habitat may occur within the Site for American alligator; however, this species is threatened due
to similarity of appearance with another rare species, which does not occur in North Carolina, and is not
subject to Section 7 consultation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed and no known element
occurrences are documented for the Site, or within 2 miles of the Site.
One designated unit of Critical Habitat for piping plover is located in Onslow County on the Bogue Inlet,
which is greater than 30 miles southeast/seaward of the Site (USFWS 2001).
State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina State list as Endangered, Threatened, and
Special Concern (Amoroso 2002, LeGrand and Hall 2001) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of
1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). Based on NCNHP records, no state listed species are documented within 2.0
miles of the Site.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 19
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

4.3 Categorical Exclusion Document
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) document has been prepared and submitted for this project. The full
document is provided in Appendix B. A summary of issues associate with the CE document includes the
following.
• CZMA -The NCDCM has declined to take jurisdiction of the Site based on the absence of Areas
of Environmental Concern within the easement
• CERCLA - A limited Phase I assessment has been conducted
• National Historic Preservation Act -Concurrence received
• Uniform Act -Letter sent to landowner
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act -Not applicable; the project is not is a county claimed
by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
• Antiquities Act -Not applicable; the project is not on Federal lands
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act -Not applicable; the project is not on Federal or Indian
lands
• Endangered Species Act - No habitat for federally protected species within or adjacent to the Site
• Executive Order 13007 -Not applicable; the project is not is a county claimed by the Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians
• Farmland Protection Policy Act -Concurrence received
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act -Letters mailed with no reply from USFWS and NCWRC
had no objections
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act -Not applicable, the project will not convert recreational
lands
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act -Not applicable; the project is
not located in an estuarine system
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act -Letters mailed with no reply from USFWS and NCWRC had no
objections
Detailed Restoration Plan page 20
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• 5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
• Stream classification entails the development and application of regional reference curves to stream
reconstruction and enhancement. Regional reference curves can be utilized to predict bankfull stream
geometry, discharge, and other parameters in altered systems. Development of regional reference curves
for North Carolina was initiated in 1995. The curves characterize a broad range of streams within a
physiographic province. Small watersheds or deviations in valley slope, land use, or geologic substrates
• may not be accurately described by the curves; therefore, verification of individual watersheds may be
necessary. Reference reaches have been utilized in conjunction with Coastal Plain regional curves for
• detailed planning and characterization of this restoration project.
A relatively undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch approximately 15 miles northwest of the Site in Duplin
County was utilized as the reference reach. This reference reach is characterized by an E-type channel.
Distinct bankfull variables were identifiable in the reach and pattern/profile characteristics appear to have
• not been degraded, allowing for assistance with channel design.
• The Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics and Figure 11 (Appendix A) include a summary of
dimension, profile, and pattern data for the reference reach used to establish reconstruction parameters.
• Channel cross-sections were measured at systematic locations and stream profiles were developed via
total station.

5.1 Reference Channel
The approximately 230-linear foot reference reach was visited and classified by stream type (Rosgen
• 1996). The reference reach is characterized as an E-type, sinuous (1.37) channel with a silt dominated
substrate. E-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high
• sinuosity (1.3 to greater than 1.5). E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools
associated with a sinuous flow pattern. In North Carolina, E-type streams often occur in narrow to wide
• valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains (Valley Type VIII). E-type channels are typically
considered stable; however, these streams are sensitive to upstream drainage basin changes and/or
channel disturbance, and may rapidly convert to other stream types.
Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicates a bankfull cross-sectional area of 11.6
• square feet, a bankfull width of 9.3 feet, a bankfull depth of 1.2 feet, and awidth-to-depth ratio of 7.4
(Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics, Appendix A). Regional curves predict that the stream
• should exhibit a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 11.3 square feet for the approximate 1.27-
square mile watershed (Geratz et al. 2003), slightly below the 11.6-square feet displayed by channel
• bankfull indicators identified in the field. However, the 11.6-square feet cross-sectional area is within the
range of statistical error for present Coastal Plain regional curves. For a more detailed discussion on
bankfull discharge see Section 3.4.2 (Discharge).
Figure 11 (Appendix A) provides a plan view and cross-sectional data for the reference reach and depicts
S the bankfull channel and floodprone area. The reference reach exhibits abank-height ratio of 1.0, which
is representative of a stable E-type channel. In addition, the width of the floodprone area ranges from 150
. to 250 feet giving the channel an entrenchment ratio of 16.1 to 26.9, typical of a stable E-type channel.

. Detailed Restoration Plan page 21
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

Pattern: In-field measurements of the reference reach have yielded an average sinuosity of 1.37
(thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The valley slope of the reference channel (0.0055) is slightly
steeper than, but similar to that of the Site. Accompanying this sinuosity are several channel attributes
which are slightly lower than typical for E-type streams in the region. These include an average pool-to-
pool spacing ratio (Lp_p/Wbkf) of 4.6, a meander wavelength ratio (Lm~bkf) of 3.7, and a radius of
curvature ratio (R~/Wbkf) of 1.7. Meander geometry values for this reference reach are slightly low for E-
type channels within this region; however, the values are acceptable. These variables were measured
within a stable reach which did not exhibit any indications of pattern instability such as shoot cutoffs,
abandoned channels, or oxbows.
Profile: Based on elevational profile surveys, the reference reach is characterized by a valley
slope of 0.0055 (rise/run). Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide slopes to average
water surface slope are 3.2, 0.2, 0.7, and 0.6, respectively. Riffle slopes are steeper than typical for this
valley type, and run slopes are flatter than typical for this valley type. Steeper riffle slopes in conjunction
with shorter riffle lengths account for the moderate valley slope and allow for more moderate run slopes
resulting in a channel which is neither aggrading nor degrading.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by silt-sized particles.
5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which to model
restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically
stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (predisturbance) conditions of the
restoration site. Quantitative data describing plant community composition and structure are collected at
the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data for design of the restoration Site planting scheme.
The RFE for this project is located 10 miles southeast of the Site on a UT to the New River (Figure 1,
Appendix A). The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts
will attempt to emulate. Four circular, 0.1-acre plots were randomly established within the reference area.
Data collected within each plot include 1) tree species composition; 2) number of stems for each tree
species; 3) diameter at breast height (DBH) for each tree species; and 4) a list of understory species. Field
data (Table 7) indicates importance values of dominant tree species calculated based on relative density,
dominance, and frequency of tree species composition (Smith 1980). Hydrology, surface topography, and
habitat features were also evaluated.
Four 0.1-acre plots were established which best characterize expected steady-state forest composition.
Forest vegetation was dominated by ironwood, sweetgum, and chenybark oak. Understory species within
the RFE include canopy species as well as fetterbush, sweetbay, giant cane, Chinese privet, highbush
blueberry, and Japanese honeysuckle.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 22
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Tahle 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem

Number of Relative
Frequency Relative
Basal Areal Relative
Importance
Tree Species ~
Individuals Density
(%) Frequency
(ftz/acre) Basal Area
Value

Red maple
1 1.6 25 3.7 2.0 2.0 0.02
(Ater rubrum)
Ironwood
12 19.0 100 14.8 3.8 3.7 0.13
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Pignut hickory
4 6.3 50 7.4 8.1 7.9 0.07
(Carya glabra)
Dogwood
2 3.2 25 3.7 0.8 0.8 0.03
(Cornus sp.)
Ash
2 3.2 25 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.03
(Fraxinus sp.)
American holly
4 6.3 50 7.4 2.2 2.1 0.05
(Ilex opaca)
Sweetgum
15 23.8 100 14.8 16.1 15.7 0.18
(Liquidambar styraciJlua)
Yellow poplar
5 7.9 75 11.1 17.0 16.6 0.12
(Liriodendron tulipifera)
White oak
3 4.8 50 7.4 9.6 9.4 0.07
(Quercus alba)
Water oak
2 3.2 25 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.03
(Quercus nigra)
Laurel oak
2 3.2 50 7.4 15.1 14.7 0.08
(Quercus daurifolia)
Swamp chestnut oak
1 1.6 25 3.7 3.5 3.4 0.03
(Quercus michauxii)
Cherrybark oak
10 15.9 75 11.1 22.2 21.7 0.16
(Quercus pagoda)
TOTALS 63 100 675 100 102.4 100 1.00
Sum of four 0.1-acre plots
Detailed Restoration Plan page 23
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

6.0 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel;
2) enhancement of water- quality functions in the onsite, upstream, and downstream segments of the
channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream channels; 4) reestablishment of
historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions associated with a riparian corridor/stable
stream.
The complete restoration plan is depicted in Figures 12A and 12B (Appendix A). The proposed
restoration plan is expected to restore 6418 linear feet of stream, enhance (level II) 1205 linear feet of
stream, restore 11 acres of riverine wetland, and enhance 6.1 acres of riverine wetland within the Site
boundaries. Components of this plan may be modified based on construction or access constraints.
Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1) stream restoration/enhancement, 2) wetland
restoration enhancement, 3) soil scarification, and 4) plant community restoration. A monitoring plan and
contingency plan are outlined in Section 7 of this document.
6.1 Stream Restoration/Enhancement
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new location that
approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference
conditions. Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded channel and the proposed, stable channel are
listed in Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics and are depicted in Figures 8 and 13 in Appendix
A.
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan are expected to be developed during the next
phase of this project. Erosion control will be incorporated throughout the Site and will be outlined in the
construction sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Site are unconsolidated, alluvial sediments, which
do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance; therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses and immediate
planting with disturbance-adapted shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving process. In
addition, onsite root mats (seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed after
disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed to
minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent feasible. The number of transportation
access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long distances through the Site's
interior.
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
The entire Site is located within a floodplain suitable for design channel excavation on new location. The
stream will be constructed on new location and the old, dredged and straightened channel will be
abandoned and backfilled. Primary activities designed to restore the channel on new location include 1)
belt-width preparation and grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation
of channel plugs, 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel, 6) ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in-stream
structures and a drop structure at the Site outfall, and 8) construction of a forded channel crossing.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 24
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-width
corridor which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading will be
stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled. These segments
will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction of the
• underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon completion of
construction activities.
• After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be developed and the
S location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile. Pool locations and relative
frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local variations in the floodplain profile.
• Floodplain Bench Excavation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove the eroding material and collapsing
. banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the erosive potential of flood
waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull benches may be created by
• excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling eroded/abandoned channel areas with
suitable material. After excavation, or filling of the bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is
expected to be stabilized with suitable erosion control measures. Planting of the bench with native
floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood
waters, filter pollutants, and provide wildlife habitat.

Channel Excavation
• The channel will be constructed within the range of values depicted in Table of Morphological Stream
Characteristics in Appendix A. Figure 13 (Appendix A) provides proposed cross-sections, plan views,
• and profiles for the constructed channel.
The stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted with
shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or overhanging the
constructed channel is encouraged.
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the outer
• bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments, available root mats, and/or biodegradable,
erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote more rapid development of
• an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or collected onsite and inserted through the
root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.

Channel Plus
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs will consist of low-
permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive
• energy of surface flow events across the Site. Dense clays may be imported from off-site or existing
• material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for plug construction. The plug will be of
sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and channel bed.

• Detailed Restoration Plan page 25
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Channel Backfillina
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will be
performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will be filled to the
extent that onsite material is available and compacted to maximize microtopographic variability,
including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear depressions may
be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical areas may be obtained by
excavating shallow, closed linear, elliptical, or oval depressions along the banks of these planned, open-
channel segments. In essence, the channel may be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral pools
adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled channel sections. These pools are expected to stabilize and
fill with organic material over time. Vegetation debris (root mats, top soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.)
will be redistributed across the backfill area upon completion.
6.1.2 In-Stream Structures
Natural stream restoration design techniques normally involve the use of in-stream structures for bank
stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary activities designed to achieve these
objectives include the installation of log vanes and a drop structure.
Lo Vanes
The primary purpose of the log vanes is to direct high velocity flows during bankfull events towards the
center of the channel (Figure 14, Appendix A). Log vanes will be constructed utilizing large tree trunks
harvested from the Site or imported from offsite. The tree stem harvested for a log cross-vane arm must
be long enough to be imbedded into the stream channel and extend several feet into the floodplain. Logs
will create an arm that slopes from the center of the channel upward at approximately 5 to 7 degrees,
tying in at the bankfull floodplain elevation. Logs will extend from each stream bank at an angle of 20 to
30 degrees. A trench will be dug into the stream channel that is deep enough for the head of the log to be
at or below the channel invert. The trench is then extended into the floodplain and the log is set into the
trench such that the log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size to
completely block stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed), then a footer log will be
installed beneath the header log. Support pilings will then be situated at the base of the log and at the
head of the log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in place, filter fabric is toed into a trench on
the upstream side of the vane and draped over the structure to force water over the vane. The upstream
side of the structure is then backfilled with suitable material.
Drop Structure
A drop structure is proposed at the Site outfall to lower Site hydrology to its preconstruction elevation.
To avoid hydrologic trespass, the drop structure may be installed approximately 150 feet from the
downstream Site outfall. The structure should be constructed to resist erosive forces associated with
hydraulic drops proposed at the Site. A TerraCell drop structure, or other similar structure may be
installed. TerraCell is a light weight, flexible mat made of high density polyethylene strips. The strips
are bonded together to form a honeycomb configuration. The honeycomb mat is fixed in place and filled
with gravel or sand. Material in the TerraCell structure may be planted with grasses and shrubs for
additional erosion protection. The TerraCell structure will form a nickpoint that approximates geologic
controls in stream beds.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 26
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• 6.1.3 Braided Channel Development
Restoration of the eastern southern tributary is expected to entail 1) beltwidth preparation and grading, 2)
marsh depression excavation (soil borrow areas), 3) spoil stockpiling, 4) dredged channel backfill, 5)
• channel stabilization, and 6) vegetative planting. Minimal channel excavation is proposed at this time as
the proposed channel averages 0.3 to 0.5 feet in depth and reference reaches in the area are braided, D-
• type streams in aloes-gradient valley, without defined stream channels (USAGE et al. 2005). It is
anticipated that this stream type will develop on the Site without intervention. Use of heavy equipment
• and disruption of existing vegetation and soils on the Site can therefore be minimized.
• After the floodplain has been prepped through clearing, grubbing, and grading, the location of marsh
depressions, channel backfill areas, and any braided channel excavation areas will be staked and/or
clearly marked. Spoil material excavated during floodplain grading and marsh depression excavation is
• expected to be stockpiled adjacent to existing ditches that will be backfilled during Site construction.
Once beltwidth corridor preparation is complete, the proposed marsh depression areas will be excavated
to form closed, elliptical pools within the floodplain that would be expected to fill over time. Marsh
• depressions are expected to range between 1 and 3 feet in depth and approximately 25 to 50 feet in width.
The depressions should be located in the center or lower elevation portions of the floodplain to form a
backwater slough that will be incorporated into the braided channel complex. Aggradation of sediment
and/or organic matter is expected to fill the marsh depressions, resulting in a braided backwater slough
similar to reference reaches in the vicinity of the Site.
Material excavated from marsh depressions will either be stockpiled for use in ditch backfill, or will be
• placed directly into the ditch backfill reach. Trees and rooted debris will be removed to the maximum
extent feasible from excavated material prior to reinsertion of earthen material into the ditch. The ditch
• will be filled, compacted, and graded to the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetland surface.
Certain, non-critical ditch sections may remain open to provide additional flood storage and energy
• dissipation, dependent upon availability of onsite fill material. Open ditch sections and marsh depression
areas will be isolated between effectively backfilled reaches to reduce potential for long term, preferential
groundwater migration.
Braided channel construction will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible to reduce impacts to
. existing and future wetland surfaces. However, reaches that are devoid of surface roughness or potential
braided channel features may be altered through disking, ripping, or the excavation of multiple channel
• reaches approximately 0.3 to 0.5 feet in depth. Upon completion of channel excavation or soil surface
roughening, erosion control measures, such as seeding with erosion control vegetation and/or mulching,
• should be implemented. Additional stabilization may be achieved through the use of erosion control
matting, where necessary.

6.1.4 Forded Channel Crossing
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of one channel ford to allow access to portions of
• the property isolated by the conservation easement and stream restoration activities (Figure 14, Appendix
A). The approximate location of the proposed channel ford is depicted on Figure 12A (Appendix A).
• The ford is expected to consist of a shallow depression in the stream banks where vehicular and livestock
crossings can be made. The ford will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip-rap or suitable rock and
. will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the ford

• Detailed Restoration Plan page 27
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

will be at a minimum 15:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable
material, which is free of fines. The bed elevation of the ford will equal the floodplain elevation above
and below the ford to reduce the risk of headcutting.
6.2 Wetland Restoration/Enhancement
Alternatives for wetland restoration/enhancement are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland
system which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Restoration activities are
expected to restore 11.0 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and enhance 6.1 acres of jurisdictional
riverine wetland (Figure 10, Appendix A).
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soil have been impacted by channel incision; vegetative clearing;
earth movement associated with the dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site tributaries; ditching of
agricultural fields; and annual plowing of surficial soils. Wetland restoration/enhancement options should
focus on 1) the reestablishment of historic water table elevations, 2) excavation and grading of elevated
spoil and sediment embankments, 3) reestablishment of hydrophytic vegetation, and 4) reconstruction of
stream corridors.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
The existing channel depths average 5 feet, while the depth for the proposed channel averages
approximately 1 foot. Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have been drained due to
lowering of the groundwater tables and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream reaches.
Reestablishment of channel inverts at 0.8 to 1.2 feet in depth is expected to rehydrate Muckalee soils
adjacent to Site streams, resulting in the restoration of jurisdictional hydrology to riverine wetlands.
Excavation and Grading of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to the existing channel and area ditches have experienced both natural and unnatural
sediment deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during dredging, straightening,
and rerouting of Site streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain. Major flood events may have also
deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from onsite eroding banks and upstream
agricultural fields. The removal of these spoil materials and/or filling of onsite ditches/incised streams
with spoil material is a critical element of onsite wetland restoration.
Hydrophytic Ve etation
Onsite wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as land clearing,
livestock grazing, annual plowing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will be
revegetated with native species typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis will focus on
developing a diverse plant assemblage. Sections 6.4 (Plant Community Restoration) and 6.5 (Planting
Plan) provide detailed information concerning community species associations.
Reconstructing Stream Comdors
The stream restoration plan involves the reconstruction of three UTs to the New River by diverting this
stream flow through its historic floodplain. Existing channels will be backfilled so that the water table
may be restored to historic conditions. However, some portions of the existing channels may remain open
for the creation of wetland "oxbow lake-like" features. These features will be plugged on each side of the
Detailed Restoration Plan page 28
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• open channel and will function as open water systems. They are expected to provide habitat for a variety
of wildlife as well as create open water/freshwater marsh within the Site.
6.3 Fooodplain 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 these
systems. As discussed in the stream reconstruction section, efforts to advance the development of
• characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed. After
construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1 foot in vertical
asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Subsequently, community restoration will be initiated
• on complex floodplain surfaces.
• 6.4 Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of
• characteristic 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.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, 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. Based on Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions, the RFE most closely
resembles a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) community, which occurs on
• alluvial floodplains of small Blackwater streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally
flooded. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamps are typically underlain with soils of the Muckalee series
such as those present within riverine areas of the Site and the RFE.
Community associations that will be utilized to develop primary plant community associations include 1)
• Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and 2) stream-side assemblage (Figure 15, Appendix A). Planting
elements are listed below.

Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
1. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
3. Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
• 4. Green ash (Fraxinus americana)
5. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
• 6. Water oak (Quercus nigra)
7. American holly (Ilex opaca)

• Detailed Restoration Plan page 29
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
4. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Stream-side 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.
Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 12 feet of the channel throughout the meander belt-
width. Shrub elements will be planted along the reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer
bends. Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp is targeted for the majority of the Site including the floodplain
and the interstream flat. The following planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration.
6.5 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish 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.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various noncommercial elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a minimum density of
680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side assemblage will be planted at a
minimum density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 8 depicts the total number of stems and
species distribution within each vegetation association. 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 season.
A total of 33,000 diagnostic tree and shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
Table 8. Planting Plan
Vegetation
Association Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swam
Stream-side Assembla a
TOTAL
Area acres 28.7 3.8 32.5
S ecies Number lanted* % of total Number lanted** % of total Number lanted
American Sycamore 3300 15.5 -- -- 3300
Black Gum 3300 15.5 -- -- 3300
Green Ash 3300 15.5 -- -- 3300
Hackberry 3300 15.5 -- -- 3300
Water Oak 3300 15.5 -- -- 3300
Cherrybark Oak 3300 15.5 -- -- 3300
American Holly 1500 7 1800 15.4 3300
Elderberry -- -- 3300 28.2 3300
Buttonbush -- -- 3300 28.2 3300
Ironwood -- -- 3300 28.2 3300
TOTAL 21,300 100 11,700 100 33,000
'~ Planted at a density of 742 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 3079 stems/acre.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 30
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• 7.0 MONITORING PLAN
. Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is
proposed for the stream channel, as well as wetland components of hydrology and vegetation. A general
Site monitoring plan is depicted in Figure 16 (Appendix A).
7.1 Stream Monitoring
The Site stream reach is proposed to be monitored for geometric activity utilizing techniques outlined in
interagency guidance for North Carolina titled Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE 2003). Annual fall
monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a
water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be
presented will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5)
width-to-depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10)
stream substrate composition. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry
and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by
comparing data in each successive monitoring year. A photographic record that will include
preconstruction and postconstruction pictures has been initiated.
7.2 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 variables indicative of a stable stream system.
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream
channel stability. Specifically, the width-to-depth ratio should characterize an E-type and/or a borderline
E-type/C-type channel (< 18), bank-height ratios indicative of a stable or moderately unstable channel,
and minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width, and/or bank erosion along the monitoring
reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must
remain at approximately 1.3 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The field indicator of bankfull will
be described in each monitoring year and indicated on a representative channel cross-section figure. If
the stream channel is down-cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank
or slope stabilization methods will be employed.
Some areas within the design channel may be expected to form low-slope, braided, stream/swamp
complexes similar to Muckalee swamps in the area. These stream/swamp complexes would not be
considered unstable; however, footage of stream channel restoration in these reaches will be recalculated
from distance along the thalweg (1.3 sinuosity) to distance along the valley (1.0 sinuosity).
Stream substrate is not expected to coarsen over time; therefore, pebble counts are not proposed as part of
the stream success criteria.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure
of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 31
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

7.3 Hydrology Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within the Site and on a reference site to monitor
groundwater hydrology. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (USEPA 1990).
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria
Targeted hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 8-12% of the growing season
(continuously) within Muckalee soils (typical of riverine wetlands), during average climatic conditions.
This value is based on DRAINMOD simulations for 42 years of rainfall data in an old field stage. These
areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in these areas.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if wetland
hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including construction of
ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in support of jurisdictional
wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with USEPA guidelines
enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990), Compensatory Hardwood
Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993), Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE 2003), and CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only (Version 4.0) (Lee et al. 2006). A
general discussion of the restoration monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant
growth should be included in each annual monitoring report.
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
and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain
the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling
of vegetation will be performed between June 1 and September 30, after each growing season, until the
vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to 14 sample plots (10 meters by
10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site. Sample-plot distributions are expected to resemble
locations depicted in Figure 16 (Appendix A); however, best professional judgment may be necessary to
establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot,
vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be noted.
7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth
of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of
Detailed Restoration Plan page 32
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

. "Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree Species include planted species, species identified
through visual inventory of an approved reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community, and species
• outlined in Schafale and Weakley (1980).
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the first
three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be surviving in year
l
i
4 and 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5. P
anted spec
es must represent a minimum of 30
• percent of the required stems per acre total (96 stems/acre). Each naturally recruited Characteristic Tree
Species may represent up to 10 percent of the required stems per acre total. In essence, seven naturally
recruited Characteristic Tree Species may represent a maximum of 70 percent of the required stems per
acre total. Additional stems of naturally recruited species above the 10 percent and 70 percent thresholds
• are discarded from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30 percent is reserved for planted Characteristic
Tree Species (oaks, etc.) as a seed source for species maintenance during midsuccessional phases of forest
development.
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots
• over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with tree species approved by
regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation
• success criteria.
• 7.7 Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair and/or
• installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The
method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with
• success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream success include 1) structure failure, 2)
headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank erosion.
~~
u
Structure Failure
In the event that onsite structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
• replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream banks
and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but exhibit flow
• around, beneath, or through the header/footer pilings will be repaired by excavating a trench on the
upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures which have
• been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of header/footer pilings, will be removed and replaced
with a structure suitable for onsite flows.
~~
Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through onsite measurements [i.e.
bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage
caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation
of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane weir) and/or restoring stream
geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include
• channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative
transplants, and/or willow stakes.
• Detailed Restoration Plan page 33
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs at the Site resulting in elevated width-to-depth ratios,
contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be implemented. Bank
erosion contingency measures may include the installation of cross-vane weirs and/or other bank
stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a
channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable values.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 34
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• 8.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients
for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
• Amoroso, J. L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
• Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva: 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for Zeigenfuss soil and
Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml 49085.
Chang, Howard H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
• Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering, 37, 473-
475.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
• Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
• Dunne, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company.
N.Y.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
• Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengston, and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating Subsurface Drainage in the Lower
. Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30(6). (1979-1688).
• Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs, and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a Water Management Model for a
Louisiana Sugar Cane Field. Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 4:18-28.
• Geratz, J.W., W.V. Sweet. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 39:861-
• 871.
• Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
• Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological Society
(map scale 1:1,500,000).
• Detailed Restoration Plan page 35
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station.. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Sampling
Vegetation. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E. and S. P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. North Carolina Waterbody Reports
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.html [October 5, 2006]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water Management Model Evaluation for Shallow Sandy Soils. Transactions of the
ASAE 28(3): 785-790.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. 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, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Skaggs, R. W. 1976. Determination of the hydraulic conductivity-drainable porosity ratio from water
table measurements. Transactions of the ASAE 19(1): 73-80.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. Drainmod Reference Report. Methods for Design and Evaluation of Drainage
Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. Prepared for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. South National Technical Center. Fort Worth, Texas.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for North Central
Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 36
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

• Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions of the
ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.

Skaggs, R. W., and A. Tabrizi. 1986. Design Drainage Rates for Estimating Drain Spacings in North
Carolina. ASAE Paper Number: 84-2055.

Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting presentation
• Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
• Skaggs, R.W., D. Amatya, R.O Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1994. Characterizations and evaluation of
proposed hydrologic criteria for wetlands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49 (5): 501 -
510.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 2002. Methods to Determine Lateral Effects of a Drainage Ditch on Wetland
• Hydrology. ASAE Annual International Meeting / CIGR XVth World Congress. Paper Number:
020602
•
Smith, R. L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology, Third Edition. Harper and Row, New York. 835 pp.

Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx, and G. Wyseure. 1987. The Use of Simulation Models to Evaluate
the Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems. Proceedings of Third International Drainage
• Workshop, Ohio State University, pp. A67-A76.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
• Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. 2005. Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain
• of North Carolina. Available:
http://h2o.enr. state.nc.us/ncwetlands/documents/CoastalPlainSTreamMitigationFinaIDraftPolicy
Nov28.doc [December 7, 2005).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina.
• United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
• Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Critical Habitat for Piping Plovers (online).
Available: http://www.fws.gov/plover/ [June 24, 2005). United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

• United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North Carolina.

• Detailed Restoration Plan page 37
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
•

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
Rural Basins of North Carolina -Revised. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-
4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 38
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix A.
Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics
and Figures

Morphological Stream Characteristics Table
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Exisking Channel
Variables Main Channel Upstream Main Channel Downstream REFERENCE PROPOSED
Reach Reach
Stream Type GB G6 E8 E5I6
Drainage Area (mil) 0.3 0.3 - 0.6 1.27 0.3 - 0.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 3.6 3.6.6.1 11.0 3.6 - 6.1

D imension Variables
Bankfull Cross-Sect onal Area (Abp 4.0 6.2 11.6 3.8 - 6.5
Existing Cross-Sectional Area (A~~,~) 17.5 - 47.3 32.9 -54.8 11.6 3.8 - 6.5
Bankfull Width (Wpk~) Mean: 5.7 Mean: 5.5 Mean: 9,3 Mean: 7.0
Range: 5.10 - 6.90 Range: 5, 30 - 5.60 Range: ---- Range: 6.1 -7.9
Banktuli Mean Depth (Dya) Mean: 0.72 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 9.2 Mean: 0.7
Range: 0.6 - 0.80 Range: 1.10 -1.20 Range: ---- Range: 0.8.0.8
Bankfull Maximum Depth {D,,,,X} Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.50 Mean: 2.3 Mean: 1.1
Range: 0.70 -1.30 Range: 1.50 -1.50 Range: ----- Range: 1.0 -1.3
Pool Width (W~} Mean: 8.9 Mean: 9.8
No distinctive repetitive pattern of riffles and pools due to Range: 8.7 - 9.0 Range; 8.5 -11.1
Maximum Pool Depth {D~,)
staightening activities
Mean:
3.1
Mean:
1.8
Range: 2.2 - 4.0 Range: 1.5 - 2.0
IMdth of Floodprone Area (W,~) Mean: .7.85 Mean: 9.10 Mean: 22b Mean: 220
Range: 8.50 - 8.60 Range:. 8.50 - 9.70 Range: 150 - 250 Range: 150 - 250

Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio
~~°~~) Mean: 1.38 Mean: 1.66 Mean: 24.2 Mean: 28
Range: 1.20 -1.60 Ranga; 1.60. 1.70 Range: 16.1 - 26.9 Range: 11 - 31
Width! Depth Ratio (W„a10~) Mean: 8.08 Mean: 4.75 Mean: 7.4 Mean: 9
Range: 6.40 -11.80 Range: 4.50 - 5.00 Range: --- Range: 9 -10
Max. D ! D Ratio
air nki Mean: 1.39 Mean: 1.31 Mean: 1.9 Mean: 1.6
Range: 1.17 - 1.63 Range: 1.25 - 1.36 Range: - Range: 1.3 - 1.9
Low Bank Height /Max. D„i,r Ratio Mean: 4.37 Mean: 3.40 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0
Range: 3.10 - 6.43 Range: 3.07 - 3.73 Range: -- Range: 1.0 -1.3
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: 2,5 Mean: 2.5
Mean Depth (D~~r) Range: 1.8 - 3.3 Range: 1.8 - 3.3
Pool Width / Bankfuli No distin ctive repetiflve pattern of riffles and pools due to Mean: 1,0 Mean: 1.4
Width (1nlpooiNVuu) staightening activities Range: 0.9 - 1.0 Range: 1.0 -1.7
Pod Area ! Bankfull Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.6
Cross Sectional Area Range: 1.0 - 1.7 Range: 1.1 - 2.1

Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool S cin L
~ g ( ~'} Mean: 43 Mean: 47
Range: 32 - 55 Range: 31 - 77
Meander Length (L.~,) No distinctive repetitive No distinctive repetitive Mean: 71 Mean: 75
pattern of riffles and pools attern
f riffl
l
d Range: 55 - 82 Range: 46 - 164
}
Belt Width {W due to staightening p
o
es an
poo
s
due fo staightening activities Mean: 34 Mean: 31
ye activities Range: 21 - 36 Range: 1S - 77
Radius of Curvature (R,) Mean: 16.1 Mean: 21
Range: 13.7 -18.8 Range: 15 - 44
Sinuosity (Sin) 1.15 1,07 1.37 1.3 -1.4

Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean: 4,6 Mean: 5
Bankfull Width (L~IWykd Range: 3.4.5.9 Range: 4 - 7
Meander Length! No distinciive repetitive Mean: 7.6 Mean: 8
BankfuB Width (L,,,lWyW) pattern of riffles and pools No distinctive repetitive Range: 5.9 - 8.8 Range: 6 - 14
Meander Width Ratio due to staff htenin
g g pattern of riffles and pools
due to stai
htenin
activities
Mean: 3.7
Mean: 4
Nyyen/Wnrn) activities g
g Range: 2.3 - 3.9 Range: 2 - 7
Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 1.7 Mean: 2.2
Bankfull Width {RGWya) Range: 1.5 - 2.0 Range: 2 - 4

Profits Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (S~) 0.0046 0.0052 0,0040 0.0044
Valley Slope (S,~y~,) 0.0062 0.0052 0.0055 0.0457
Riffle Slope (S,;m,) Mean: 0.0129 Mean: 0.0057
Range: 0.0070 - 0.0160 Range: 0.0017 - 0,0097
Run Slope (Sn~) No distinctive repetit(ve
No distinctive repetitive Mean: 0.0008 Mean: 0.0044
pattern of riffles and pools
f Range: 0 - 0.0023 Range: 0 - 0.0154
d
i
t
ht
i
t pattern o
riffles and pools

Pod Slope (S~ ue
g
o s
a
en
ng
due to staightening activities Mean: 0.0029 Mean: 0.0026
activities Range: 0 - 0.0096 Range: 0 - 0.0132
Glide Slope (Ss~e) Mean: 0.0023 Mean: 0.0022
Range: 0.0021 - 0.0024 Range: 0 - 0.0084

' Profile Ratios
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 3.2 Mean: 1.3
Slops (S,~~/Ss.B) Range: 1.7 - 4.0 Range: 0.4 - 2.2
Run SlopeMlater Surface No distinctive repetitive Mean: 0,2 Mean: 1.0
Slope (Srun/Save) patiem of riffles and pools No distinctive repetitive Range: 0 - 0.6 Range: 0 - 3.5

Pool SlopeNVater Surface
due to staightening pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
Mean: 0.7
Mean: 0.6
Slope (S~~S„~) activities Ranga: 0 - 2.4 Range: 0 - 3.0
Glide SlopeNVater Surface Mean: 0.6 Mean: 0.5
Slope (S a,e/S~} Range: 0.5 - 0.6 Range: 0.1.9

, r
.~ ~ ti
~ E ~,
~, na ~ .. ~ scM tj, .o ~ Ys ~ ' ~ ,,,.o. , ~ ~1 ~~ '' ;,..
. ~ ~ l + J"-F.-~ I~ k 1
aw xo ."
.~
~ ..r,.a.. Y1ut !full'
•. ,....,~ ~ ~ ~:. _ .. .,R
A„
' Reference Stream >„ ',,, w ~ ~~P ~ ~ j ~~ ,.~
"'"` ~ ,~ Location ~ ~ ,~c ~ i ~~i,_~ ~ Directions to the Site
,~ ~ i ~ ~~ F
~ ~« °°~ E.,a°,a ~ ;~ ~gr~rj ~~ j-~~~ From Richlands
p~ "~ °~. a° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~- ~°~ ; ~ West on NC Route 24 - 3 miles
;.
l
~1
.~ , a ~' ,.... ~ Gv
', e~ iejson
S't Right
y _ c-
L
J' O
c~ f ?M L
.M. \ ,~ l -
4 I 1 y -- _ 51 a ~. 0. ~1+! ~ ~ ~ 9 ". led ~ ~. ~ t,nn4". ,
909 ~ F y„m nv 5 ~J\ .... _ 5 _._ _ i NI -
~ ,- rr~ ~ ~ .~n/' c, i may(!. .\ :_ 47 - .._..__ ..-.__ _~ _ ? '~` ____. ..-..-._
.
]"nKr~ Fp _~ _ i
~ ~ f .~
~ t~
ea/' ~ t ~ r o ~.L /.N1~p a urge,orv ~oEa n ~l
$ CeM~ • 1te
,.~~ ~ w~~. .. E~ Site Location -, ; I _
~,R ~.
,. ~
9, ~ ~ T
`` n~Ex
drew ona +
" xn ~ _
e ~ _
~u I }
~ r ~~
'' ~'~ ~ r.u: eru~..+u. I we - ;, y 2Q, _ ~- - >~wa..~c ~~if. ~./ I
~~~~ .~. ~ .~` ao 2° -a___ ~ G1-119hvd9 za ~ _ vj i ~„
ro `br ~~ •, ro -~-. F mmn , .-_ '--"`tom
s gl y. 25u
~~ ,yo-d7 .. ~ ~ .,`~ °~ ~ 11 i ~. ~ .. ~ - 24 ,.. I r~~.~,. Gl ~..
~~, ki.-... 7 f~',~ 111f1
}~< ~ xe ~ wer o ..
7HUwrrnn ~ G q ~ € J.~ ti~~~,.. wwxs s~oxE ao - ~ c Em..a..
w~ ' ~ t ,.
.A. ~.
h ~~ ~4, ~ ~,,.; Reference Forest ,.
~~,.w ~
~•-• ~ ~~ z~ ~ Location
1:158,400 ` ~ I ~~
~^
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 76 &77. Fo ` ~ . ~ ~ ~i~ ~
_.
~ I
~o of ~ 9, f ~a i
:~
~ p,.. ~ ;, A„a~ ~ o
_ ,
- ~ ~~
Dwn. by:
% ~`~. 21zs Rowland Pond Dr SITE LOCATION Ckd by: WGL FIGURE
i. ~\ ~~~ 91I9)2S5r1693 027592 JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE Date: WGL
i [phone] fax
Onslow County, North Carolina Noy zoos
,~.,,~~ r:.„~~,~....„~~~..i Project:
06-018

I Mocks ~ Cove city riper
...,
Hiil ~..
~ r
~ Outlaws ~ ~ ~., ~.. c~~oL y .Tuscarora gent
n Bnd~e Deep Run ~' ~~
Hymans c:
~ `~,.,~ ~ Clam
cus Albertson
® Jonestown, ~ Phillips ~ Jame
/ Crossroads i ~y`,
R em~' Tn
Reference Stream

Location ...

'
Site Location ~ ~ woo,is

` Thurr,•
J ~ within 14-Digit Targeted ~'

~- ~ - ".; _mfort Local Watershed ## ~±e

,,
P L I
Cab ~

~
N
in Pot rS !J`~c#xt~r~t

w
03030001010010 ~ Rav~

~~~,

Kenansville
Hill ~
Huffma \bvn ~ amr <,~ ~z4 '~ + „~~~~
a,
„ w;r ~
~*
~
I) E3ranc ,
~ `~ -~
~Q sl ~
_ - l 1(vtaysvtlle
Richlands
Cedar F
k f ~ Belgrade
or
Lyman ®Gum Branch 4~6 1

Fountain ~ - ~ 1
eppe \ I

~

(,harity -Chin ua in Half Moon M ton .-
~ - ~~
Reference Forest 'ne La rk
`K
lt
~
S LOCatIOn e
pm
Tar Landi ~ ,/'
~
s'Stella
'

" ~ ~~ Jacksonville snverdal'
r.
~ a
iin City _
Z- - f
_ - ~ is~
.~ t
~ ..Mid ~rk
Hubert
\ Peletie<r
o
Piney G een
Haw
('
illard -_ , '° t
-~ ~ " _ Swansborw~
;,Verona
Y-' Maple Hill ` J Padgett amp ea-r Creek.. "' ~xreat e~C k Ldg l
Nratha - ~ Lejeune /
,~~~~
_ ~ r
.van Eden ',~ ~~--` /
f i;?~ ' S- -' Z
. , - n~
ti` Dixon ~= ' !~'" f~ -.
p E R
r3.ar~aw ._`. ~ rr //
s~3~ t Heads Ferry PerY_~'~~
~' ;~ =` - olkstone
Ira ~nir ~~ '" "' _ ¢~ _ _
S' -' it , ~ ~P '"Chadwick Acres
1~ ` _ l E'
J' 'Holly Ridge ~, ~'
`„Ashton ( ~ _ /
))) i
Edgecombe.- ~ ~!f+.1orris Landing
--Vista ~
_ Woodside ~„/ ~' Surf City
fff ~Qloop point ,
' Topsail ~ -~ /
arlboro ~~ ~/ ~ /
Hampstead ~/~ 'Topsail Bench
e F{ayn ,:~ ~- ~/ ~/
~ /
Scotts'F-liil „tv ~,~?T~~-a~ .y
blur ~ ~'~Kirk(a ,g l~ r ~~
~ ~ ~/ ~ J '--'~
uwn. oy:
WGL FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pond Dr USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP Ckd by:
/~ \ 9iIIgw2S5risg~,3 C27592 JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE WGL
~ - ~~~ [phone] fax Date:
Onslow County, North Carolina Noy Zoos
~~..m~~~ t~n~N~~~~~r~~~.,~ Project:
`~~-71~

• • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • ! • • ~ • • ~ • • ~ i • • • • • •
N ~ ~ ~ :~
1 ~ ,~'
~..
r' f r~~ 1
r- , ~`~ ,~ Fr,,
• '

._.t
~~
~" ~~
~'~
w X 1 ~ ~
J -
s t'~ --•
~pJ
~ r
r' ~ ~ , t i r ~'~ r -
;`• '~' f ~ k ~ t
~'r
it f,~ r ~ ',.
~ ~- $ ~!
~~ { ~- ---.~ f - _ _
7
~ ~ ~
t
F
r- }+~~~?
f
~• s
Main Channel
~.,-~ __ ~
.~~~ '`~
~y rl
i _ ,-"~ ~
_: , _
`~
Southern ~.
Tributary ~,< .
West f'' :
_ ._;.~
rat •\ rJ
tit
I ~~`ti,
tii
~~ , l
Southern :~ `
Tributary ~ ~t
East _ - 'i ~
~~ ~~~ ~~ `Y~ '~
i " ~ '"~ ;`
'',, sa ~
Imo.
i ~~
r '~ ~
~~ f~-
1' ~ 0 265 530
t
L~~f 1
h
5
1
~?
Legend
Easement = 35 ac
®Drainage Area Main Channel = 0.59 sq. mi.
-Drainage Area Tributary = 0.12 sq. mi.
Drainage Area Tributary = 0.06 sq. mi.

1,060 1,590 2,120
Feet
2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
~'~(~ Willow Spring, NC 27592
1 `~ ~ [phone]
' ~ ~ [phone] (fax)
-f _'~
SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:wGL FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2006
Project:
06-018

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t • • • • • • • 1 • t • • i • • t
~- -.
2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
-~ Willow Spring, NC 27592
-~. \ [phone]
~~--~ [phone] (fax)
DRAINAGE AREA LAND USE
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:wGL FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2006
Project:
06-018

•••••••••••••s••••••••••••••••••

~,a
-~
sic Grazing
~~.;:
~-
2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
Willow Spring, NC 27592
i
~~ [phone]
~! `s [phone] (fax)
-~
EXISTING CONDITIONS
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:wGL FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2006
Project:
06-018
` .

• • • • • ~ • ! • ~ • ! • • • • • ~ ~ • ~ ~ • • ! i ~ • • • ~ •
2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
'~~ Willow Spring, NC 27592
4~ \ [phone]
--~ [phone] (fax)
SOILS
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:wGL FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2006 C
Project: V
06-018

Soil Profiles
Muckalee
llydric Floodplain Soils Adjacent to Downstream Channel
as Observed in the Field
0
Texture
Ap Loam
l0
20 ~ Cgl Loam
30 10 YR 4l1
2 Loam
C
g
with
lOYR 5/1
40 Mottles
10 YR 4/1
with Cg3 Sandy Loam
50 lOYR 5/i
Mottles
Depth in inches
Muckalee
Typical Profile as Described in the Onslow County
Soil Survey (NRCS 1992)
0 Tcxturc
10 YR 412 ' A Loam
-_- -
l0
l0 YR 5/1 Cgl Loam
20
30 _ -_ ---= ----
10 YR 5/1 Cg2 Sandy Loam
40 -:
10 YR 5/2
with Cg3 Sandy Loam
50 lOYR 6/1
Mottles
Depth in inches
Dwn by:
TYPICAL SO[L PROFILES CLF FIGURE
=c. eomna~~d ~o~d u~^~E
;., s, ,-~~sy' Date:
~~~=~ ~ ~ JARMANS OAK RESTORATION S[TE Nov zoos
„„~,, ,3~~~~
Onslow County, North Carolina
,,om E~.~~„ma~,a, ~. Project: 06-018

Legentl
Cross Section 39
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
r\:If urd Rex?uraa
Itr~!nlaiion~~(irn~cns!uon
NOTESlREVISIONS
s4
63
s2
m s1
~_
so
~ ss
0
58
>y 6~
ru ss
5s
Cross Section 17
--
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5
Station (feet)
Cross Section (Riffle) ! 5a ---~-
Abkf = 4.0 ., 53
Dave = 0.8 ~ 52 I
Wbkf=5.3 ~- ' S1
Dmax -1.0 i; i 50
Bank Height = 4.5 ~ 49
0 48 i
W!D = 7.0
Ent=1.4 W as ankful
FPA = 7.5 45
- Stream Type = G 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Cross Section 22
Cross Section (Riffle)
ei Abkf = 4.0
.. so Dave = 0.8
ss Wbkf=5.1
~ 58 ~,_~ it Dmax -1.3
9 57 Bank Height = 4.6
~ WID = 6.4
d 55
w ~ 'Ent=1.6
ss x as no u w ss za FPA = 8.0
Stream Type = G
Station (foot)
Cross Section 33
m
w
W
57
56

s4
53
52
51
50
as
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
Cross Section 48
Station (feet)
Cross Section (Riffle)
Abkf = 4.0
Dave = 0.7
Wbkr = 5.6
Dmax - 0.9
Bank Height = 3.7
W!D = 7,8
Ent =1.5
FPA = 8.fi
Stream Type = G
0 260 400
SCPLE IN FEET
Cross Section (Riffle)
Abkf = 6.1
Dave =1.2
Wbkf = 5.3
Dmax-1.5 ~
0
Bank Height = 4.6 ~
WID=4.5 'm
Ent =1.6 ru
50 -
as --
40
47
as
45
a4
43 rr an u
42
41
0 5 - 10 15 20 25 - 30 35
m
w
c
0
.'
ru
Cross Section 54
FPA = 8.5
Stream Type = G
Cross Section (Ri(fle)
Abkf = 4.0
Dave = 0.7 y
Wbkf=5.5 w
Dmax-1.0 c
Bank Height = 3.1 °
W!D = 7.4
Enl =1.2 w
FPA = 6.5
Stream Type = G
Station (feet)
Cross Section 6
ss
55
54 --
53
52
51
as Bankfull
48
47
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Crass Section (Riffle)
Abkf = 6.1
Dave =1.1
Wbkf = 5.6 ~
Dmax -1.5
Bank Height = 5.6 0
WID = 5.0
Ent=1.7 m
FPA = 9.7 W
Stream Type = G
Station (feet)
Cross Section (Riffle)
Abkf =1.9
Dave = 0.5
Wbkf = 3.9
Dmax - 0.6
Bank Height = 3.3
WID = 8.1
Ent =1.4
FPA = 8.1
Stream Type = G
Cross Section Riffle
Ab =1.9
Dave = 0.4
Wbkf = 4.4
Dmax - 0.4
Bank Height = 5.4
W!D =10.4
Ent =1.3
FPA = 5.6
Stream Type = G
Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina
Title:
EXISTING
CONDITION
DIMENSION
scale: FIGURE N0.
NA
Date:
NOV 2006 Q
Project No.: Q
06-018
as
44
43
a2
a1
4o
3s
36 PA
Ban
full
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Cross Section 10
Station (feet)
59
se
57
56
55
54 PA
53
sz
s1
so
D 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
~~^-- Willow Sprang, NC 27592
,' '.. [phone]
~- ~'~ [phone] (fax)
EXISTING CONDITIONS GROUNDWATER MODEL
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:wGL FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2006
Project:
06-018

_r ..
_
~ f
MPI. ~

.. "~~
i`
ii~
~.
~' ~~
~
1~'
f
~ .
b'"
-
~
,
~ ;~-. ..e

~ j Jf~
"++r ~

~. ~
Floodplain "::
_~
...~+;r Bench

': , Floodplain Floodplain
rs

_ Bench Bench
,;
'~ ~
~ ,~ ~ ;.
,.>~

-k
~. _
,
,~
~
s ~ ~~ -
~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~~ ~r y
_ ; ,~
t
4~
r>
.,_
- ~ ~
4
.~
Le end
9

asement = 35 ac _

„ ~ ,
`

,~
t
.~. ,
,`, ~
~
~ ~,'~

~ ~ ,;~
t ~"
- ,-
;
~TM
- Riparian Wetland Enhancement = 6.1 ac ~
"°"
~~~~~rx „; ! .'
z"' :.
~~ ~
~
'
~ .
'
_ Riparian Wetland Restoration = 11.0 ac ,
""""~°M~,w ~ u
~°
NY .gin _~ " "'
"
J
@,
fU
y
z ~ ~ ~~<<. ~.~F . ~r,i a ~~< <, C H~g~w y2 ~ '. ~- ~ .- 0 145 290 580 870 1,160
,,~~ ~~„i ~~~ a 4 '' ~ `'~ - Feet
~w
,' , 2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
Willow Spring, NC 27592
~~~ [phone]
[phone] (fax)
POST RESTORATION CONDITIONS GROUNDWATER MODEL
JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:wGL FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2006 ~ 0
Project:
06-018

160
140
120
100
n
$~
C
0
~ 60
40
20

7
i X- ec Po 1

~ XS c Riffle 1
I
I
\
X
Sec Pa
12
~;
~x\
/ ~
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i

\
_ ,,

\

foz
„ mt
m
m f9o
~ 99
0
j 98
Q)
w s~
96
10
iai
BKF
iao
w
~ ~
O B9 ~ ~ '~ i
~~
W 98
9,
10 29 30 40
Station (feet)
Riffle Crosssection 1
Cross Section RifFle
Abkf =11.6 square feet
Dave =1.2 feet
Wbkf = 9.3 feet
Dmax = 2.3 feet
Bank Height = 2.3 feel
WlD=7
FPA = 225
ENT = 24
Stream Type = E
40
Cross Section Pool ,a2
Apool =11.4 square feet
Dpool = 2.2 feet ~ too
Wpool = 8.7 feet ~-
c
0 98
W~
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (feet)
~.r
101
,1 100
~ 99
98
~ 97
0
~ 96
~ 95
W 94
93
0
50 100 150
Station (feet)
200
Pool Cross-section 2
250
Cross Section Pool
Apool =19.9 square feet
Dpool = 4.0 feet
Wpool = 9.0 feet
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
'Vlillll8i IZL'jlllll'i~ ~-
NOTESIREVISIONS
0 7 ~ ~ F~ n
Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina
Title:
Reference Dimension,
Pattern, and Profile
Scale: FIGURE N0

NA .
Date: A /~
NOV 2006 I I
Project No.:
06-01 S
Pool Cross-seclion 1
20 30
Station (feet)
15 23 35
Station (feel)

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
i ii
NOTESIREVISIONS
__
Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina
Title:
RESTORATION
PLAN
Scale: FIGURE N0.
11N=160 FT
Date;
NOV 2006
Project No.:
06-018

Axiom Environmental, Inc.

' I'~ I

NOTESIREVISIONS

Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina

Title:
RES P~NTION

Scale:
11N=160 FT FIGURE N0.
Date:
NOV2006
2
B
Project No.:
06-018

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
tiaturtl Et~xxu're~
~.~11,ruion ~; C'nn~ nay n ,
NOTES:
1. POOL-TO-POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND.
PROPO
PLOCOi
MAX. 1:1 SLOPE
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
~ NOTESIREVISIONS ~
Project:
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTIONNQTES:
1. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
USED TO BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL.
2. BANK PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING.
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina
CHANNEL PLAN VIEW NOTES:
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL.
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKE-0UT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH Wbkt ft. Wbot ft. Drill ff. Dthal ft. D ool ft. Wool ff. Wthal ft,
Main Channel Upstream 6.1 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.5 8.5 0.5
Main Channel Downstream 7,g 2.7 1.3 0.2 2.0 11.1 1.1
Unnamed Tributary 4,1 0.9 0.8 0.1 1.3 5.7 0.5
Title:
PROPOSED DIMENSION,
PATTERN, AND PROFILE
Scale: FIGURE N0.
NA
Date; A ^
NOV 2006 - I .`{/1
Project No.:
06-018
TYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE
I YNI(:AL (;hiANNEL PLAN VIEW

FINISHED
fL00DPLAIN
ELEV. 1
FILTER
24" MIN.
DIMENSION
BOULDERS
SECTION A-A
NOTES:
1. KEEP FORD CROSS FALL WITHIN 1-2 % OF STREAM GRADIENT.
2, FILL VOIDS BETWEEN 24" MININUM DIMENSION BOULDERS
WI AGGREGATE BASE COURSE CLASS A TO CREATE DRIVEABLE SURFACE.
FINISHED
FLOODPLAIN
ELEV.
AGGREGATE o ~ CLASSASTONE
BASE COURSE
CLASSASTONE LL CHANNEL BOTTOM
PLAN VIEW
PERMANENT CHANNEL FORD DETAIL PERMANENT CHANNEL FORD DETAIL
A~
0~
,~
A V\ m
1
CHANNEL 1
BANK ~I
I
I
I
LARGE
STONE I
SCOU
HOLE
1
I
R I
I
I
1
1
PLAN VIEW NOTE:
~ FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
SCALE: N.T.S. ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
~ CHANNEL
BANK
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1 I
I
I
I
pn.30" I
~~
A
LOG VANE
FILTER
FABRIC
LARGE
STONE
TOP OF BANK
BANKFULL
10-1
FL=W
0
N
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL I
S
LARGE
STONE
TOP OF BANK
CROSS-SECTION A-A
SCALE: N.T.S.
TYPICAL LOG VANE
BOTTOM OF
CHANNEL
PROFILE B-B
SCALD
LARGE
STONE
- LOG VANE
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
NOTES:
1. LOG VANES SHALL EXTEND BETWEEN 112 BANKFULL ELEVATION
AND BANKFULL ELEVATION.
2. EXPOSED VANE OCCUPIES 113 OF THE BANKFULL WIDTH OF
THE CHANNEL.
3. LOG VANES SHALL BE POSITIONED SO THE LOW END OF THE
EXPOSED LOG BEGINS ATTHE BOTTOM OF RIFFLE STATIONING.
4. LOGS SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE HARDWOOD SPECIES, RELATIVELY
STRAIGHT WITH A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 151NCHES AND
APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET IN LENGTH.
5. VANE LOGS SHALL BE BURIED IN BANK AND BED AT LEAST 5 FEET.
6. USE FILTER FABRIC TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
7. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO TOP LOG USING 3" 10d COMMON NAILS.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

~ I~~ 1

NOTESlREVISIONS

Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina

Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURES

Scale:
NA FIGURE N0.
Date:
NOV 2006
Project No.:
06-018

Plantin Plan
Vegetation
Association
Coastal Small Stream Scram
Stream-side Assembly re
TOTAL.
Area (acres) 28.7 9,g 32,5

S ecies Number
lanted*
%oftotal Number
lanced**
% oftotal
Number lanced
American s5~camorc 33(10 15,5 __ -_ 33f10
Black Gum 1100 15,j __ -- 3300
Gran Ash 3300 15.5 -_ .. 3;pil
Hackbcny 33(NI IS,i __ __ 3300
Watcroak 33011 15,5 -- __ 1100
ao
I
i ~ ~ ~
.SCALE IN FEET
0
Axiom Environmental, Inc.

' I' ~ I

NOTESIREVISIONS

Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina

Title:
PLANTING
PLAN

Scale:
1 " = 320' FIGURE N0.
Date:
NOV 2006
Project No.:
os-ore

Legend
• Groundwater Gauges
Vegetation Plots (10 meter X 10 meter)
Monitoring Reaches
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
II II
NOTESlREVISIONS
Project:
Jarmans Oak
Restoration
Site
Onslow County
North Carolina
000
~_~
SCALE IN FEET
Title:
MONITORING
PLAN
scale: FIGURE N0.
1" = 320'

Date:
NOV 2006
Projeci No.:
06-018
' '~fi. Il ~s~ 1

Appendix B.
Categorical Exclusion Document

Appendix B
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Apperdix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
• • •
Pro ect Name: Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
oun ame• onsiow
umber • contras # oososs-n
ro ect onsor: Restoration Sytems, t.LC
ro eCt ontact ame: Barrett Jenkins
ro eCt ontaCt refs: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107, Raleigh, NC 27604
r0•ect COntaCt -mail: harrett~restorationsystems.com
P Project Mana er: Guy Pearce
~ 1 ~ ~' • •
The Site is located in northwestern Onslow County within 14digit Tan7eted Local Watershed 03030001010010
approximately five miles northwest of Richlands. The Site encompasses approximately 36 acres consisting of
5,515 linear feet of existing first- and second-order eroded streams through agricultural land. Approximately 24
acres of hydric soils are present within the Site. Up to 6,640 linear feet of streams, 12 acres of riverine
wetlands, and 2.5 acres of noniiverine wetlands will be restored and the entire Site will be revegetated.
• • •
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
^ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
~~ (~-o~
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

• ~.
• •
Coastal Zone Mana ement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? /^ Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of ^ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ~ No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? ^ Yes
Q No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management / Yes
Program? ^ No
WA
Com rehensive Environmental Res onse Com nsation and Liabili Act C E R CLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery° project? ~ Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? ~ No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? Q No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ^ No
/ N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within the project area? ^ No
/ N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the ro'ect area? / No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPOlrHPO concur'? Yes
^ No
/ WA
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Pro a Ac uisition Policies Act Uni for m Act
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? / Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? / Yes
^ No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
^/ No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed: / Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ^ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? N/A
7 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

• •
American Indian Reli ious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as 'territory' by the Eastern Band of Yes
Cherokee Indians? / No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
/ N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Yes
Places? ^ No
/ N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
Anti uities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
/ No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antiquity? ^ No
/ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
Archaeol ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
/ No
2. wll there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
Endan Bred S ecies Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat / Yes
listed for the coup ? ^ No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
^/ No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Yes
Habitat? No
/ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect' the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? No
/ N/A
5. Does the USFWSMOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
/ N/A
6. Has the USFWSMOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy' determination? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
8 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" Yes
b the EBCI? / No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed Yes
prof? ^ No
/ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred Yes
sites? ^ No
/ N/A
Farmland Protection Polic Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired? / Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally / Yes
important farmland? ^ No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? / Yes
^ No
^ WA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any / Yes
water bo ? No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? / Yes
^ No
^ N/A
land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, Yes
outdoor recreation? / No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
^ No
/ WA
Ma nuson-Stevens Fishe Conservation and Mana ement Act Essential Fish Ha bitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ^ Yes
/ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
^ No
/ WA
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ^ No
/ WA
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
^ No
^/ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
^ No
~ N/A
Mi rato Bird Trea Act META
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
^/ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
^ No
/ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wildemess area? Yes
/ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? ^ No
/ N/A
9 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Environmental Documentation
for
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
EEP Contract Number D06069-A
Categorical Exclusion Form Items
CZMA
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has confirmed that the project is not in a CAMA
Area of Environmental Concern (see attached letter). We have been verbally informed by Mr.
Stephen Rynas of DCM that all such projects located in a CAMA County requiring a NW27
permit are consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program by virtue of DCM's review of
the Final Regional Conditions for Nationwide Permits in the Wilmington District (see page 21 of
the NW27 permit regional conditions). Also, the Jarmans Oak project is consistent with the
Onslow County Land Use Plan with respect to mitigation activities within the county.
CERCLA
See the attached Executive Summary of the limited Phase 1 Site Assessment.
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106)
See the attached letter from the State Historic Preservation Offzce.
Uniform Act
See the attached letters that were sent to the landowners.
• American Indian Religious Fxeedom Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee
• Indians.
• Antiquities Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal lands.
•
• Archaeological Resources Protection. Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal or Indian lands.
•
Endangered Species Act
• See the attached internal memo with the Biological Conclusion of No Effect. There is no
suitable habitat on the site for any of the Federally Endangered species known to occur in
• Onslow County.
Executive Order 13007
• Not applicable, as the project is not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians.
•
Farmland Protection Policy Act
• See the attached USDA Form AD-1006 and letter to the NRCS.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
See the attached letter to the USFWS and letter from the NCWRC. The USFWS made no
response and the NCWRC responded with no objection.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
Not applicable. The project will not convert recreation lands.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Not applicable. The project is not located in an estuarine system. See previous response from
NC Division of Coastal Management.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
See the attached letters to the USFWS and letter from the NCWRC. The USFWS made no
response and the NCWRC responded with no objection.
Other Miscellaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in The Jacksonville Daily News.

~J
r1
LJ
• ';~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1
I'~~aturil Resc~tzrces
Re<tc~rat~ic~n ~: Cr~n~ec~.-t3ic~n
August 4, 2006
1Vorth Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington. Regional Office
i
f
vision o
D
Coastal Management
• 1.27 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
ATTN: Jim Gregson, District Manager
• SUBJECT: CAMA Jurisdictional Determination for the Jarmans Oak Stream and
Wetland. Restoration Site in Onslow County.
Mr. Gregson:
On December 19, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
• issued a Request for Proposals for the full delivery of 5,000 stream and ~ 7 riverine
wetland mitigation units in the White Oak River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03030001.
• Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC was subsequently awarded a contract by
the EEP to provide .6640 SMUs and 12 Riverine WMUs at the Jarmans Oak Site.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion. of an environmental
• screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This.
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration. (FHWA) to
ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate. that_its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office to
• determine if our proposal will involve any Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). This
letter provides you with certain details of'the Jartnans Oak Stream and Wetland
• .Restoration Site, including the project's location, a general description of its
physiography, hydrography and .existing land uses, as well as the intended modifications
• to the site proposed by RS. We request you review the details provided and make a field
• Pilot Min • 11.01 Haynes Sc., Suite 10? • Rttlei~h, NC 2?603 • www.mscorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
n
U

aim Gregson, NCDCM
Page 2
August 4, 2006
determination of whether LAMA jurisdiction will be taken on any portion of the
proposed site.
Project Location & Descripfion
The Site is located at 34.923329N, -77.b30421 W, in northwestern Onslow County
less than Z miles east of the Onslow/Duplin County line. and; approximately S miles
northwest of the town of Richlands at the intersection of Highway'24 and Haw Branch
Road (Figure 1}. The Site encompasses approximately 35 acres of land that is currently
used for agricultural row crop production. Within the Site, approximately SS15 linear feet
associated with unnamed tn`butaries to the New River and 12 acres of historic
floodplainlxiverine wetlands exhibit restoration potential (Figure 4). Agricultural
practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation and.. relocation,
dredging, and straightening of on-site streams have resulted in degraded water quality,
unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and
reduced storage capacity and floodwater attenuation. The restoration goals of the project
are to improve water quality, enhance flood attenuation, and zestore aquatic and riparian
habitat.
Restoration. Means & Il~~ethods
Stream Restoration will include belt-width preparation, channel excavation, spoil
stockpiling, channel stabilization, channel diversion to newly constructed channels, and
abandoned channel backfill. 'Wetland Restoration will include the removal of fill
materials, .filling drainage ditches, the reestablishment of soil structure and micro
topographic variations, and redirecting. normal surface hydrology from entrenched. stream
channels back to Site floodplains. Natural vegetative communities. will be restored to the
entire property. The Site will be monitored for five years post construction to ensure
successful restoration and a permanent conservation easement over the entire property
will be held. by the State.
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your review, please feel free to contact me at 919-755-9490. Your valuable time and
cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Barrett 3enkins, Project Manager
Attachments: 3 maps
cc: Mr. Dave Schiller, Restoration Systems, LLC

z,~aP~~ SITE f:OCATION ~'~ ~ ~ou~
c ''~~' JARMANS OAK. RESTORATION SITE ~~. wog:
~" t~s~ 3n,-3aas roc
-• On-slow County, North .Carolina n7 zoos
~,t ..-~ 05-002.30:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
_ ... ~~w~~;.
{ ~ ?s~.+,pc, k5 ~ ~ ,,~° ... ~:. ~ >... ~ _.-:>,1 yr ~'?
,. s , ~
l
~,
~ ~, `^n-,, aa,~,n~`
cup t t ~E ~t~t~n ~ '~
_ J~ _ ~ i
,. .1
.t~ xsf ,y.; J .. .. _ ~ r.
~~ ~ .~
j ~ Site LOCation Ana
~~ / ~ ~ ~ .~ °: ~ ~ ~ within 14-Digit Targoted ~ ~ ~~
~_ - - . -
__
_:. . f~f~r F - _ Local Watershed ## ~ ' `
.~.. -
~, ~-. ~ 1 ~~ ~"~ ~ ` --~ 0~03C3{~f19f1~0£f10
' " ~ Ga~~;~~'' Pr. ~' ,, " .~
Ker;arrsvi{r_ x ~> 11
%iu3fm _r.e.
_ ~ .fi,,
f3;an v
~ 1'
'?}iat,SUlki~ a - ~
,~ ~ ~ R+ctztzrzcr~ _ ~. -- ~ ;lY,a J,S'a
.., -
~' 4 ~~ ~ -~ ~a'~r
_.. } c
~.~ ~. Ce:Par cq.~{ .: }~.,1~ G.,m ~r r .,. ~ ~I..c
_ ~ ' y r" al' ~-~ _
.:. ft;uniaira f ,. ,: ... -,. , a app+' •~.=: ..mow
.. , ~ .:ilSnquapin r,-' ~ l,8. '~Jrh Y - r„S ~'
~ - -`.',~read~ ~
t`
ti ~~ ~ ~ ~ y
_. ~ ,~ ~ a "".,
:.
~. '
~ :pfeSS ~rr'~x ~ ? lf~il. K S cveid.tsv'~1:~ri
1331
to C ~, ~ S Lns~ ~,_.~ ~ ~-
,,
`r
t,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~4ii~,~zo ,, Peietiar
t
,„
w. ,, ~ _ ~ re, Grnc~: ~
'i'•R3rq ~ ,` ~ ,
~, ~. 4 i ,
~r ~C
,.. ~ } ~ ,
.-- 'i'ii "' :.,,. ; VltOhu ~ ~ ~ ~,a
~ -^ ,~ja,9pte ~g ?r.. ~... 1ti -.;amp year ". ~ ar ~ t
r
l ~ :. .
i
. a~ ~- ~ ~. _ ~..
.,. ~PTj^
,~ ., r
~ >..
_, -
T
... t
...~
__
1 "'~- ~ ~'` .` ~ ~ - t ~ Tr '.aegis ~aa~~ ~':
T __ ...
,. _ ,.. ~~
4
-, ,
i - _s 1
eiena~- «. ,.
~ ~ ~ , _ ~ % ~7arw r~
'~ ~ :d
s. i "~••
L .~~~' _'. F~~tJ,,~, Jae f~ _
c~ ~cra'e~e /'' + ~~crrr,sZa!1(~zR~,
' ky A~~~nt~ ~# - .r
s
+, ''` s - i+ eta .%
~, Svrr
~ _
r
~~~ f {~ ,,/' Trs}~5a#t ~r~~
i ibar ~ %,~;.r.v~. w, ~ ... ..
~~- ~
~.
s7~~ z Y I
f ~'
S'J ~ 3 ~~
l
~ y
baro +~ >
-i
..~ -~= _.
USGS HYDRQLOGIC UMT MAP c><nc~ "~ ~cuRe
a 2,2!€ RaMarui Para Dr
w~. , rc z~~z WG!
ts,s~z,s,sss 3ARMANS 4AK REST(~RATlON SITE o~: r~
~_ ~s,g"".~s`~ On51ow County, Noah Carolina Apri-2Qf~ G
. OS-0Q2.30-

fJ F t c. ~ fyr } r ~(;~ ; ~ ~
g r !
I~ R .~ ~ f ~~n~~ ~' ; Legend r`r
- ~_ r ~ ,r `' - ~`"""~ "' ~ ~ ~ Easement = 36 ac r
~~ -~ r
_ 0 ~ 287.5 575 1,150 1,725 2,300 ` `E ~ •}~` ~ pAMa[n = 4.59 sq mt >~~~
Feet ~ ~,t" - -r
y
j 1
~~\ ~~ F3GURE
"'~°"'~"'"'°""'"'~""`• TC3PQGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA '"'~`
2726 Rowland Pond 4r
Willow5pring,NC27S9R JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE "~~-~~(20~
[phone]
[phone]faz 4nslow Conn#y, North Caroittla ~~
~~ ~ a. noaxx~ebl 05-002.30

rl
L

~~"•~'~
~~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division ofi Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 29, 2006
~~~~~~
Restoration Systems, L.L,C. OCT 0 2 ZOOS
Attn: M. Randall Turner
1101 IIaynes Street ~~1
B Y: -----= --------
Suite 107, Pilot Mill
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Re: Jarmon Oaks Mitigation Site, CAMA Jurisdictional Determination
Dear Mr. Turner,
After a site visit to the site of the Jarmon Oaks Mitigation project located in Onslow
County. I have determined that this site is not located. in an Area of Environmental Concern and
would not be required to obtain a CAMA permit. However, the proposed project shalt be
consistent with the Onslow County Local Land Use Plan. If you have any other questions or
concerns feel free to contact me at 910-796-7221.
cerely,ll
6~- w ~
Jon W Giles
DCM Field Representative
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Phone: [phone] l FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50°I° Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

environment.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS
For the most recent General Certification conditions, call the NC Division of Water Quality,
Wetlands/40i Certification Unit at (919} 733- 1786 or access the following website:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslncwetlandsicerts.html
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
STATE CONSISTENCY
Consistent.
Citations:
2002 Nationwide Permits -Federal Register Notice I S Jan 2002
2002 Nationwide Permits Corrections -Federal Register Notice 13 Feb 2002
2002 Regional Conditions -Authorized 17 May 2002
2~

:~
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheck®
Jarmans Oak Restoration Site
Onslow County
Richlands, NC 28574
Inquiry Number: 01718882.26r
July 19, 2006
EDR® Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: - 1-800-231-6802
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FQQYBPWERN

TABLE6 OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
• Execu#ive Summary------------------------------------------------------. ES1
Overview Map--------------------..________-------__--_-----_----______-- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 9
• Map Findings Summary---------------------------------------------------- 4
• Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 8
Orphan Summary_..___________________________________.._______------____- 7
Government Records Searched/Da#a Currency Tracking_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical Setting Source Addendum....___________________________..________ ____ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary____________________________________..__ ____ A-2
Physical Setting Source Map------------------------------------------- ----- A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings________________________________....__ ____ A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched________________________________ ____ A-11
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer -Copyright and Tredemark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reeasonably avaitablge tpo Epnevironmental Data
other sources. NO WARRAbN1Y EXPRESSED OR IMPLIEDrtIS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTIrON aWlTtl THIS REPOR7roENYRRONMENTALexist from
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LtMtTAT10N,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK lS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMtSS10N5, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT UMITATK)N, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILRY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
uMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Repoli "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk odes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmentat risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment perform by an environmental professianal can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any repent or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the ro of their res ectlve owners.
TC01718882.26r Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, inc {EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries {40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ONSLOW COUNTY
RICHLANDS, NC 28574
Latitude (North}:
Longitude {West):
Universal Tranven
UTM X (Meters}:
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
34.923300 - 34° 55' 23.9"
77.630400 - 77° 37' 49.4"
se Mercator: Zone 18
259713.0
3$67499.0
67 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:
East Map:
Most Recent Revision:
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
34077-H6 POTTERS HILL, NC
1980
34077-H5 RICHLAND5, NC
1980
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL_________________________Notlonal Priority List
Proposed NPt~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL________________. National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS____________________.Comprehenslve Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC-NFRAP_______________. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC01718882.26r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CORRACTS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Corrective Action Report
RCRA-TSDF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LQG_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-SQG_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS_____________________ ___ Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS______ __. Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD_______________________ __ Department of Defense Sites
FUDS______________________ __ Formerty Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS_______ ___ AListing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT_________________ __ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_______________________ __ Records Of Decision
UMTRA____________________ __ Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODL----------------------- -- Open Dump Inventory
7RIS_______________________ __ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA._____________________ __ Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FI FRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FiFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fung lade, i~
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS______________________ __.Sectlon 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS________________________ __ Integrated Compliance tnformation System
PADS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PCB Activity Database System
MLTS______________________ __ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES_____________________ __ Mines Master Index File
FINDS________________________Focility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS____________________ __. RCRAAdministrativeAction Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHW5________________________lnactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NC HSDS_________________ ___ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMD_______________________ ___ incident Management Database
SWFILF___________________ ___ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLL_________________________.old Landfill Inventory
LUST_____________________ ___. Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST_____________ ___ State Trust Fund Database
UST_______________________ ___ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST_______________________ ___RST Database
INST CONTROL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP_______________________ ___Responslble Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS__________ ___ DrycleaningSites
BROWNFIELDS_____________. Brownfields Projec#s Inventory
NPDES____________________ __. NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV_____________ Indian Reservations
INDIAN LUST________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks an Indian Land
INDIAN UST_________________. Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants___ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Historical Cleaners____. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
TC01718$8226r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappabie (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01718882.26r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

I
I~' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the fiollowing sites were not mapped:
Site Name Database{s)
J.D. KENNEDY GROCERY LUST, IMD
JARMAN OIL CO. LUST, IMD
NORWOOD MILLER PROPERTY {DOT) LUST, IMD
SPEEDY MART-UST LEAK #2 LUST, LUST TRUST, IMD
MOORE'S MINI MART # 3 LUST, IMD
SPEEDY MART-KEROSENE LUST, IMD
SPEEDY MART LUST, IMD
RHODES GRILL LUST, UST, IMD
THIGPEN CENTER LUST, LUST TRUST, IMD
K 1£ M SHELL LUST, iMD
RHODESTOWN GROCERY LUST, IMD
LARRY'S GARAGE LUST, UST, IMD
ONSLOW FEED AND GRAIN LUST, UST, IMD
SUPER MART LUST, UST, IMD
DUSEAULT PROPERTY LUST, IMD
RICHLANDS SUNOCO LUST TRUST
RHODESTOWN GROCERY LUST TRUST
HARGETTS STORE LUST TRUST
HALL'S PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT CO UST
DEBBIE Ti-11GPEN UST
JARMAN OkL CO. UST
MOORES MINI MART #3 UST
NC ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY UST
THOMAS & HORNE OIL CO INC UST
BEULAVILLE DRY CLEANERS UST
R & L GROCERY UST
MERVIN SUMNER UST
QUINNS SUPER VALUE UST
HOFFMAN'S GROCERY UST
NATIONAL CAR RENTAL UST
MACK MURPHY UST
AVIS CAR RENTAL UST
SANDY'S SERVICE CENTER UST
JONES SERVICE CENTER UST
SANDERS AUTO PARTS UST
RICHLANDS MILLING CO. UST
CARTER PACKING CO_ UST
MAC`S SHELL UST
RICHLANDS EXXON UST
TRI-COUNTY MARKETING, INC. IMD
SANDLINS OIL CO. IMD
TC01718882.26r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY4

OVERVIEW MAP - 01718882.26r
. '~
'~,
~:~
~ ~~~~
t~
~~

~ ;

„_~, %:,
i
i
~;:;: ;; ;
~.
* Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1 Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Jarmans Oak Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Onslow County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Richlands NC 28574 INQUIRY#: 01718882.26r
LAT/LONG: 34.9233 / 77.6304 DATE: July 19, 2006
Dcpynght -:~ 200o EDR, Inc. s 200u Tele Atlas Rel. 072005.
0 t/4 72 1 Ylks
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance '
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites ~~,
_ 700-year flood zone ~~
_~ 500-year flood zone
1® National Weiland Inventory
State Wetlands

DETAIL MAP - 01718882.26r
If `
L O U D S F t N
~_!
/J1
B~Ur
~ AV
t=`
_~
~~
z
C
g=~7iiC
~_. t 1NY
:t Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
L Manufactured Gas Plants
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Jarmans Oak Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Onslow County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Richlands NC 28574 INQUIRY #: 01718882.26r
LAT/LONG: 34.9233 / 77.6304 DATE: July 19, 2006
:cDlrtiOnt <' 2006 EDR, Inc >. 2006 Tele Atlas Rel. 078005.
o ins iB Y/4 Ylks
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
~' t00-year flood zone ~'
~_ 500-yearfiood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
FEDERAL RECORDS
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/$ 118 -1/4 114 -1l2 1!2 -1 > 7 Plotted
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
NPL RECOVERY TP NR NR NR NR NR
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
RCRA TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 fl 0 0 NR NR
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR
ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
LUST 0.500 0 0 4 NR NR
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR
NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR
TC01718882.26r Page 4

MAP FtN©INGS SUMMARY.
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) ~ 118 118 - 1/4 1f4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERY 1.000
INDIAN LUST 0,500
INDIAN UST 0.250
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000
EDR Historical Auto Stations TP
EDR Historical Cleaners TP
NOTES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
0 0 0 0 NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 NR NR NR 0
0 0 0 0 NR 0
NR NR NR NR NR 0
NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC01718882.26r Page 5

~ ~~~ ~,
Nat<ual Resources
Restoration & Conservation
August 2, 2006
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator
• State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 29699-4617
Subject: Request far Letter of Concurrence on Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site in
Onslow County.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley.
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has 1?een awarded a contract by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) to restore 12 acres of riverine wetland and bb40 linear feet of stream in the White Oak River Basin,
Cataloging Unit 03030001. The Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration. Site is located in Onslow
County, approximately 5 miles northwest of the Tawn of Richlands adjacent to Highway 24 (Figure 1}.
The site encompasses 36 acres of land currently under agricultural use (Figure 4). Agricultural practices
• including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation and relocation, dredging, and straightening
of an-site streams have resulted in degraded water quality, unstable channel characteristics (stream
• entrenchment, erasion, and bank collapse}, and reduced storage capacity and floodwater attenuation.
Restoration activities include the construction of a new stream channel and the restoration of natural
vegetative communities. Upon completion of construction the site will be monitored for five years and
placed under a permanent conservation easement held by the State.
There are no structures on or adjacent to the site. RS staff examined the records in your afflce and
determined that there are no Listed historic properties or archeological records on or within 0.5 miles of
the site. A letter of concurrence from your office is required as part of the Environmental Screening of
the project. I would appreciate receiving such a letter for this project at your earliest convenience.
Should you have any questions or if any additional infarmatian is needed to complete your review, please
• feel free to contact me at (919)-755-9490. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
• Sincerely, ~,t~._
Barrett Jenkins
• Project Manager
Attachments: Figure 1, Figure 4
• Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite i d7 • Raleigh, ABC 276{}4 • www.restorationsys~tems.cam, • Phone [phone] • Fax 919.755,9492

Directions to the Site
From Jacksonville ,~
North on US Route 258 - 16 miles ~ ~)'~~
Right on Haw Branch Road ~' '`y
Site is on Right
~-
r . `-
.u .. ~ _
. - .
~y~ ~, .• `,~ i
'y ` ,.,
,'.~ n
s ,
Site Location ~ -
.,
~..w;i...~ `'1.. ~ ~ e.
~.
.~ ~.~,
•~~ ,
1 a
~ •. ~
%~
`'
.,.... `, 1 ~ C - j
, ~`. , _.
i
~~. ~,
0 1 mi. 4 mi.
Z~
1:158,400
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 76 877. aL
Dwn. by:
WGL FIGURE
2,26 Rowland Pond or SITE LOCATION Ckd by:
Willow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
(9,9)2,5-1693 JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE
• ,- [phone] fax Date:
Onslow County, North Carolina April 2006
a~~ _, ,. , ea Project:
OS-002.30

d~..srw7~Q
~' ""' ~` .
~; ~ X
~~~ .
~lichacl F. rasky, Govemnr
l.is'octh C 1?vans, Secretary
Jaffrey J. grow, Uepulp Sucrckary
August 30, 2006
Barrett Jenkins
Restoration Systems, LLC
Pilot Mill
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
office of Archives and I Iixtgry
Divisicm of T-Iiistorical ILes~urces;
David Brook, Dirt+etor
Re: Request far Letter of Cancuxrence on Jarrxlans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, CGnslow
County, ER Ob-2133
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for your letter of August 2, 2006. ~~Ue have reviewed the information provided in the document and
offer the following comments.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic PLaces will be affected by the project. 'fie, therefore, recamvnend that na archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
'1'lIe above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Presea-~vadon's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106. codified at 3b CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments,
• please contact.ltenee Giedhill~Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above~referenced tracking number.
• Sincerely,
• ter Sandbeck
• cc: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Progxam
• t.ocafioa Mw7ing Adarcse Telephony/Fax
ADIYIINISTRATION 5417 N: B3~unC SitCCt, Ratagh NC 4637 Ma~7 Sccviec C.catc:, Ralei}j:~ NC 21699-4fs11 {91t~733-47G3J733-$6~3
RESTORA'tiON 5:5 N, i3launt Stmet, Italcigls NC 4G17 Mail Service Centtr, Rxleigfi NC 27699-4G17 {91'733-G547J735-48(11
• StIRVEY & PLANIJNG 5i 5 N.131ncnt 3treyt, t2aioigh, NC 4G17 i~iail i;etvice C.ztitter, itateig3t NC.27G9>"4GI7 (919)733-G54./715-4tS01
•
•
~~~~~~
B Y: ....................
Noah Carolina I~epartmlent o£ Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandtusk, Adtr~tuetratrt

Natural Resources
Restoration & Conservation
Mark Cavanaugh
M R Hogs
P. O. Box 398
Richlands, North Carolina 28574
Dear Mr. Cavanaugh,
April 4, 2006
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in
offering to purchase your property in Onslow County, North Carolina, does not have the
power to acquire it by eminent domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase
your property is based on what we believe to be its fair market value.
if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-7SS-9490.
Sincerely,
.~~
Barrett Je ins
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
(919}7SS-9490
PiloC Mill • l 101 Haynes S#_, Suite 107 • Raleigh, ~'C' 27fi(~ • www.restorationsystenis.cc~m • Ph<ine 919.755.9490 • Fax 9]9.75.9492

Natural Resources
Restoration & Conservation
Robin Rhodes, Esquire
P. 4. Box 87
Kenansville, North Carolina 28349
Dear Mr. Rhodes,
April 4, 2406
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in
offering to purchase your property in Qnslaw County, North Carolina, does not have the
power to acquire it by eminent domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase
your property is based on what we believe to he its fair market value.
if you have ar~y questions, please feel free to call me at 919-755-9490.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~~
Barrett Jenkins
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Pilot Mill • 1101 Ht~ynes St., Suite 1117 • Raleigh, ivC' 27fif}=k • wdrw.restor<~tic~nsysiems.ec>m • I'h<~ne 91~1.Ti5.~344t) • I?ax ~Ii~,7S5.9492

June 22, 2fl06
MEMO TO: Dave Schiller
FROM: M. Randall Turner U , , ' ~ 1
SUBJECT: Endangered Species Act Concurrence: Jarmans Oak Mitigation Site
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) recently revised its position on the availability of suitable habitat
for Cooley's meadow-rue and golden sedge at the Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration
site in Onlsow County (See Figuxe 1). When the original field reconnaissance was conducted
several months ago, our consultant erroneously concluded that suitable habitat was present for
both of these federally endangered species. This suitable habitat characterization is reflected in
RS' technical proposal, which was submitted to the EEP along with our cost proposal in April
2fl06. The purpose of this memo is to make you aware of this change so you can properly
explain the record to the EEP/FHWA.
Federally Protected Species
.Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the FWS at http:/!nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, 13 federally
protected species are listed for Onslow County. Of these 13 species only 5 had a chance of
occurring somewhere in the landscape near the project. These species include bald eagle, red-
cockaded woodpecker, Cooley's meadow-rue, golden sedge and the rough-leaved loosestrife.
The only habitat that will be disturbed includes open farm fields and narrow stream channels that
serve to drain the landscape. Neither red-cockaded woodpecker nor bald eagle will occur in such
habitats. The other eight species included sea turtles, the piping plover, eastern cougar, manatee
or the sea-beach amaxanth. It is obvious that suitable habitat for these eight species does not
occur anywhere near the Jarmans Oak site. That leaves the meadow-rue, sedge and Ioosestrife.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed and no known
federally protected species have been documented within or in the vicinity of the Site. The site is
actively farmed and this year the entire site is in corn production, including those portions of the
site that will be restored to wetlands (See Figures ~ and 6).
Biological Conclusion: A senior scientist at RS with many years experience with conducting
surveys for federally endangered species visited the site in April and walked extensively through
the site. His findings are that no suitable habitat for either plant species is found at the Jarmans
Oak site. Based upon the absence of suitable habitat for any of the listed species, it is reasonable
to conclude that the project will have No Effect on federally protected species.
Attachments
ce: Mr. Paul Parker

Directions to the Site
From Jacksonville r
North on US Route 258 - 16 miles Y ~ ~1~
Right on Haw Branch Road
Site is on Right
- .,, -
~~
~` ~ t;i` _ y r .
~, - _
i~ar
H, .. .n.. .... •Yi`
` : ~.
Site Location
\ ~ ,y-y Ir.
,. ~ .,
i ~ .
~. j
i
.~
~~' Y
y ,
r'~ .
, ~ /. ..
~ ,: .
0 t mi. 4 mi,
~~
1:158.600
Source: 1977 NoRh Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 76 &77.
~. -
'.4
Y
.;
i~ ~ ~ _ ,
3y .. - ~_ .. ..,... ._
Own. by:
WGL FIGURE
2126 Rowland Pone Dr SITE LOCATION ckd by:
WtllowSpring,NC27592 JARMANS OAK RESTORATION SITE wGl_
(919)2tS1693
_~.~ [phone] tax Date:
Onslow County, North Carolina April 2006
~~ .- -. ,........a ProjecC .... ...... ....

N~tiiral Resources
Restoration & Conservation
September 21, 2006
Mr. Jahn Gagnon
USDA,NRC5
Technical Services Office
730 N. Granville St., Suite B
Edenton, NC 27932
SUBJECT: Completion of NRCS Form AD-1006 for the Jarmans Oak Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project incompliance with the Farmland Protection Polic3' Act.
Mr. Gagnon,
)/nclosed is the completed Form AD-1006 for the proposed Jarmans Oak Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project in Onslaw County, NC. Sections VI and VII have been
completed and a copy of the form is included with this letter.
Thank you,
'~`"_
Barxett Jenkins
Project Manager
919-619-4865
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.zestoratiansystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

U:S. Department of Agriculhrro
FARi111~,AN[3 CfJiU'il.'~R~It3[V 1MP:A~7 RA'TLNC
PART l {To be completed by J=sdervl Agency] Dafe-ot t.,and tvatuatbn tta4uost ~
game Or Pcojoct Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland f3rrstoratbn Prc Feder ~"oy k' Fadorai Highway Administrstbn
~0l'4b~ Land ~ Straam,and Wetland Reatoratton ~'~ ~ ~~ Oraslow County,:Nortli Carotins
pAR~"tf (Ta bo c~xnpfsteri by NRCSj ateReques tsalvad'By-NRC9 g w ~ - p ~,
Roos ths:sR9 contatn.prlme, unfq~ue, atatewlde orioGat Err~~pponant farnland'r Yes • -No~
(tf rto, the NAPA drses not apply •- do not:eompiotg sddltloiral parts of thts;four»j. ~ ^ A,Erae irrtpated `Aderapa~'alm stze~"
Ai ~N ~ l ~ ~ .
~1u1~urCrop(~j ~
o R N Farrnatile t.agd to ovt. JurtsdtoUon
Aq'ea: ~~`'~ 'i ~,~" -- 96 7 3. ti Amours Of~t'amtland;Aa [)oWtBd to Ft?P '~
Acres: 3 3~5~ d 2.1 yy 6 ~'
Nama04t-And Evahaailo».3yctem Usod Na»le Of l:oc~! 5ke Assessment Systom Date Gami EvalupUOn Rst~pnsd 9Y tdR
lofed b
Fedora! A
eno
j
PART pl {To be cam
p
g
y
y _g A slto a s~;.~
A. Total ACroe To Se Convened DlreoBy 38.0
B: Total Acmes To tae Converted Indlreo !' ,0 _ _ _ _ ~ ~`r
A~i#"i'N(7-al~crJtnpi~tatl~kyNfeGS) i.~tid:~vsiua~laniniorrnatk~n '
A. Total Atue$ rktte Atxt ~E11 u~ Parrrr 'nd ~ ~_._,_
a: 'i'atal• `ra~StAtewlde And tov`at I E.Famdan ~ Z„ .-_____
G. Rs:xetrtOf'FBrmtat4d {n. County Oriocgt i3o Unit Ta t3e Converted ~~ .~ t `fie, ____ _
:.D. J?ercentagi*Qt KSmitand inlrnrt. Jurisdkxion:lAAth Same Or H f3alaAva Va u "13 .2
BART V {To•ke somptet6d by:NtCSj tend tvatuatinn CrNenon ~
RelEttfvg V~lud Ofi Farmland To B8. Converted $QAIa of O to 4QD Potnis) Z ~
PAI21' Vt (to bQ +x~rrtpleted by FodorAl AgonoS')
8tte AeaGSametit Crtterfa (lriese crAbrt§ are expiNk~d kt 7 t~R 658 6(b) tvisoc6r~um
polnfa
1. Area to filonurban Use 1 ~' ____
2. Pefime#er to Alotwrban Uae ~

3. Peroenf Qf Stte Being Farmed _ - _-
y -
____ _
"'~'~
4. Protac6on i?rovlded ~ State And t.ocat c3avarnmont ~ ,~
_
5. t)istanee From-Urban Bufit~p Area ~~ .~
. ~_._..
~,-
8. t)isfanea To Urban Su~pon Services
V _
7. Size O! Present Farrn Unk Compared 7o Aver
8. Crsatian0lNortfamiatite Farmland "~
9. Availabl>fq! Qf Form Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. tffgvts-43t ConvsraMin On Farm;Su rt.&arrrtoes ~ ~ '

_ 92, Csti~@t~l#ty.'VVitfsl;Kletlr~q~9ai~utaEUsa _
..`.
TOTAf.. 8RE ASS1aSSM1=NT POINTS 160 6~ 0 ~ ~
0 0
PARY VII (ro be completed by Federal Agency j
ftelatNe V~ue
O
! Farmland {From Pert Yj 100
~t
n
~e esa~e j ont l~rnm art a or a 160 fj ~ 0 0 0
TOTAL. POINTS {TotAJ of Above 2 /!rtes} 260 ~~ 0 0 0

Site Selected:
Date Of Setectton was A Local Etta Asseasma~i Used?
Yes 6~ ho
Reason For 8e6eotbn:

{Soe tnstructtorts on rovorse etdo) Form AD•1o06 (90-E3)
Tnle brd wu eacuarMCCIIY Prou+rcen iry NWronut Prodaalmi Sotvicoe Stae

~~ '~~:
' }-; 1

Natural Resources
• Restoration & Conservation

August 2, 2006
~ U. S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
. P. O. Box 3372b
Raleigh, NC 28801

ATT'N: Dale Suites, Fish and Wildlife Biologist

SUBJECT: Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Behalf of {I) Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act and {2) Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the Jarmans Oak
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site in Onslow County.
• Mr. Suites:
• On December 19, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Progt~m {EEP)
issued a Request far Proposals for the fu11 delivery of 5,000 stream and 17 riverine
• wetland mitigation units in the White Oak River Basin, Cataloging unit 03030001.
Restoration Systems, LLC {RS}, of Raleigh, NC was subsequently awarded a contract by
the EEP to pro~~ide 6640 SMUs and 12 riverine WMUs at the Jarmans Oak Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site.
•
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE} document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration {FHWA) to
ensure compliance with various federal envimnmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a preeondrtion to
FHW
i
A re
mbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
• Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office on
• behalf of the Fish and W ildlife Coordination Act {FWCA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act {MBTA}. This letter provides you with certain details of the Jarmans Oak Stream
• and Wetland Restoration Site project, including the project's location, a general
description of its physiography, hydrography and existing land uses, as well as the
• Pilot Mill • 1.101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Dale Suiter, USFWS
Page 2
812I200b
intended modifications to the site proposed by RS. You are encouraged to determine if
the actions proposed by RS maybe inimical to any resources embraced by the FWCA, or
the MBTA and provide comments to RS based on your evaluation. It is reasonable to
assume that the Service will comment if the actions proposed by RS are, in the Service's
opinion, likely to result in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA or the MBTA.
Project Location & Description
The Site is located at 34.923329, -77.630421, in northwestern Onslow County less than 2
miles east of the Onslow/Duplin County line and approximately S miles northwest of the
town of Richlands at the intersection of Highway 24 and Haw Branch Road (Figure 1).
The Site encompasses approximately 36 acres of land that is currently used for
agricultural raw crop production. Within the Site, approximately 5S 15 linear feet
associated with unnamed tributaries to the New River and t2 acres of historic
floodplainhiverine wetlands exhibit restoration potential (Figure 4}. Agricultural
practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation and relocation,
dredging, and straightening of on-site streams have resulted in degraded water quality,
unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and
reduced storage capacity.
Restoration Means & Methods
Restoration activities aze designed to restore, enhance and preserve stream segments and
wetlands that have been highly modified by historical agricultural practices. Stream
Restoration will include belt-width preparation, channel excavation, spoil stockpiling,
changes in pattern dimension and profile, channel stabilization, channel diversion to
newly constructed channels, and abandoned channel backfill. Wetland Restoration will
include the removal of fill materials, filling drainage ditches, the reestablishment of soil
structure and micro topographic variations, and redirecting normal surface hydrology
from entrenched stream channels back to Site floodplains. Natural vegetative
communities will be restored to the entire property. The Site will be monitored for five
years post construction to ensure successful restoration.
Summary of Anticipated Effects
The proposed stream and wetland restoration matrix will restore a dysfunctional stream
system to foil functionality and will restore wetland functions that have been absent for
many years. This work will provide the capacity to efficiently transport watershed flows
and sediment loads, will enhance flood storage capacity, provide nutrient abatement, and
will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Revegetation of the floodplain
will provide stream bank stability, reduce erosion, promote floodwater attenuation, and
improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat. In conclusion, the proposed actions are not likely
to result in Lang-term negative effects to fish or wildlife, but instead improve wildlife
habitat.

Dale Suiter, USFWS
Page 3
8/2/200b
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your review, please feel free to contact me at (919)-755-9490.
Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
~/ - ~C,,,-..~--,
Barrett Jenkins, Project Manager
Attachments: Figure 1, Figure 4
cc: Mr. Dave Schiller, ~testoration Systems, LLC

Natural Resources
Restoration & Consewation
August 2, 2006
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Falls Lake Office
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmore, NC 27522
AT1"N: David Cox, Technical Guidance Supervisor
~`,~~.-.
~, ~~~
;;
---,
r -----
SUBJECT: Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on
Behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for the Jarmans Oak Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site in Onslow County.
Mr. Cox:
On December 19, 2005, the Narth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP}
issued a Request for Proposals for the full delivery of 5000 stream and 17 Riverine
wetland mitigation units in the White Oak River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03030001.
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, NC was subsequently awarded a contract by
the EEP to provide 6640 SMUs and 12 riverine WMUs at the Jarmans Oak Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE} document. This
document is specifically required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office on
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). This letter provides you with
certain details of the Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site project, including
the project's location, a general description of its physiography, hydrography and existing
land uses, as well as the intended modifications to the site proposed by RS. You are
1'~lat Mill • 1101 Haynes St.. Suite 107 • Raleigh. [v'C 27((}4 • www.restorationsystems.corn • Phone [phone]~H) • fax [phone]

David Cox, I~TCWRC
. Page 2
8/2/2006

encouraged to determine if the actions proposed by RS may be inimical to any resources
embraced by the FWCA, and provide comments to RS based on your evaluation. It is
• reasonable to assume that you will comment if the actions proposed by RS are, in your
opinion, likely to result in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA.
•
Project. Location & Description

The Site is located at 34.923329, -77.630421, in northwestern Onslow County less than 2
~ miles east of the Onslow/Duplin County line and approximately 5 miles northwest of the
. town of Richlands at the intersection of Highway 24 and Haw Branch Road (Figure 1).
The Site encompasses approximately 36 acres of land that is currently used for
• agricultural row crop production. Within the Site, approximately 5515 linear feet
associated with unnamed tributaries to the New River and 12 acres of historic
floodplain/riverine wetlands exhibit restoration potential {Figure 4). Agricultural
practices including the maintenance and removal of riparian vegetation and relocation,
dredging, and straightening of on-site streams have resulted in degraded water quality,
unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and
reduced storage capacity.
Restoration Means & Methods

Restoration activities are designed to restore, enhance and preserve stream segments and
wetlands that have been highly modified by historical agricultural practices. Stream
Restoration will include belt-width preparation, channel excavation, spoil stockpiling,
changes in pattern dimension and profile, channel stabilization, channel diversion to
newly constructed channels, and abandoned channel backfill. Wetland Restoration will
~ include the removal of fill materials, filling drainage ditches, the reestablishment of soil
• structure and micro topographic variations, and redirecting normal surface hydrology
from entrenched stream channels back to Site floadplains. Natural vegetative
• communities will be restored to the entire property. The Site will be monitored for five
years post construction to ensure successful restoration.
•
Summary of Anticipated Effects

The proposed stream and wetland restoration matrix will restore a dysfunctional stream
system to full functionality and will restore wetland functions that have been absent for
• many years. This work will provide the capacity to efficiently transport watershed flows
and sediment loads, will enhance flood storage capacity, provide nutrient abatement, and
. will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Revegetation of the floodplain
will provide stream bank stability, reduce erosion, promote floodwater attenuation, and
improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat. In conclusion, the proposed. actions are not likely
to result in long-term negative effects to fish or wildlife, but instead improve wildlife
habitat.

David Cox, NCWRC
Page 3
8!2/2006
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your review, please feel free to contact me at (919)-7SS-9490. Your valuable time and
cooperation are much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Barrett Jenkins, Project Manager
Attachments: Figure 1, Figure 4
cc: Mr. Dave Schiller, Restoration Systems, LLC

~~~~~~.
8Y: ____________________
~ Noah Carolina ~Vi~dlife Resources Comm.~ssion
Richard B. Hamilton, Exectttivc Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Barrett Jenkins
Restoration Systems
1101 Hayes St., Ste. 107
Raleigh NC 27b04
From.: Steven H. Everhart, PhD, CWB
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
127 Cardinal Dove
Wilmington, NC 28405
r~,~.~-
Date: August 21, 2006 , .. .
RB: Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoradori in Onslow County
Biologists with the North. Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject project for
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Aet (48 Stet. 40 i, as amended; i d U.S.C. 66i et. sect.}, and Sections 403 and X104 of. the Clean
Water Act (as amended).
The project is located north of NC 24 and west of US 258 approximately 2 miles west of Richlands in Onslow
County. A letter and vicinity map was submitted for review offish and wildlife issues associated with the project.
The applicant proposes to restore natural form stream in an agricultural field The stream(s) is a tributary of the
New River. The mitigation site wilt satisfy needs far the NC F.ccssystem fit~hancetra;tit Program {EBP}.
'Tftere do not appeax to be any threatened or endangered species that would be impacted by the project. The New
River and the steams to be restored are classified as GNSW (nutrient sensitive waters) by the NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ).
The Wildlife Resources Commission does not object to this project as proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to
review and continent an this project. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding #hese
comments, please call me at (910) ?96-7217.
Malting Address: Division of Inland I+isheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1 72 2
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: (919} 707-4028

75016074 Affidavit of Publication
15138489 Jacksonville Daily News
Page 1 of 1 Jacitsolnville, NC
Personally appeared before me, a No#ary Public of the County of Onslow, State of North Carolina, on this the 20th day of July,
2006 ,. ~ y~ .
of The Daily News, who being duly sworn, states that the advertisement entitled INFORMATOONAt_ PUBLIC MEETING a #rue
copy of which is printed herewith, appeared in The Daily News, a newspaper published in the Cify of Jacksonville, NC, County of
Onslow, State of North Carolina, 1 day el~on the following dates:
July 20, 2006
NORTH CAROLINA
oNSI_ow couNTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR AN INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PURCHASE AND OR USE OF
PROPERTY FOR THE RESTORATION OF STREAMS AND WETLANDS.
Onsiow County -Restoration Systems proposes to purchase and/or use a 36-acre tract of land in Onsiow County, North
Carolina. The purpose of acquiringand/or using this property is to provide mitigation for impacts to streams and
wetlands that wil( result from existing or future devebpment in this area. Anyone desiring that an informational public
meeting be held for this proposed action may make such a request by regisfered fetter clo Barrett Jenkins to
Restoration Systems located at 1101 Haynes Stree# (Suite 107), Raleigh, NC 27604, Request must be made by August
20, 2006. 1f additional information is required, please contact Barrett Jenkins at 919- 755-9490. The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program reserves the right to determine if a public meeting wip be held.
July 20, 2006
Subscribed and sworn to this 20th day of Duty, 2006
Y''~- ~~'
l ~ ~~~~Q~~~ f'
Y o00
!Votary Public ~ to
,, A~~~a
My Gommissian Expires
July l i. 2007

Appendix C.
EEP Approval Letter

• ~~
;~,
r `
• March 30, 2007
• Restoration Systems, LLC
Attn: David Schiller
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
r Subject: Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
• White Oak River Basin -Cataloging Unit 03030001
Onslow County
• Contract # D06069-A
• Dear Mr. Schiller:
On January 2, 2007 Restoration Systems, LLC submitted the subject Restoration Plan for the
Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Restoration Full Delivery Project. The plan proposes to restore
6640 ft, and enhance 1205 ft along sections of 3 Unnamed Tributaries to the New River in the White
Oak River Basin. In addition, approximately 11 acres of riparian wetland will be restored and
approximately 6.1 acres of riparian wetland will be enhanced along the stream corridor(s).
r The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has completed its review of the restoration plan and
. has no additional comments at this time. Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits and/or
certifications and complete the implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project
• (Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with your 401/404 permit applications.
• If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at [phone]
or email at [e-mail].
Si cerely,
Guy C. e
• EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
• cc: files
~ ~'~~
NGDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27b99-Ib52 / 919-115-4476 i www nceep.net