20070810 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070510

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

~ 7 0 8 1 ~
Duke Swamp
Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
Gates County, North Carolina
:~ `.~ y ,
-~ ,
~.- Prepared for•
NCDENR -Ecosystem Enhancement Program
~~c()S~Stelil 2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
DRAFT REPORT
60% Completion
Project Number D06065-A
Apri12007
~t~ n
'~~~ ~~,~ -~ ~ '001
y~Tl~h~a" ~.~U

Duke Swamp
Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
Gates County, North Carolina
Prepared for NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
~.-
x F~r~system
f'1*~~(~kTRM
Design Report Prepared by Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Kayne Van Stell
Project Manager
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Project Engineer
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518

'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' Baker Engineering proposes to restore 5,4221inear feet (LF) of stream and 15 acres (AC) of riverine
wetlands along two unnamed tributaries to Duke Swamp. The Duke Swamp Site is located in Gates
County, approximately nine miles northeast of the city limits of Gatesville, NC, within cataloging
' unit 03010203, and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-01-01 of the Chowan
River Basin (Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2). The purpose of the project is to restore wetland functions to prior-
converted crop fields on the site and to restore stream functions to the impaired stream channels that
' flow through it.
~
Wetland functions on the site have been
impaired as a result of agricultural conversion. Streams
flowing through the site were channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and provide drainage
for adjacent agricultural fields. Field areas were graded to promote rapid surface drainage and spoil
from channel/pond excavation was spread on floodplain areas. As a result, nearly all wetland
functions were destroyed within the field areas. The channelized streams flowing through the site
function more as canals than as a Coastal Plain stream, with overall poor in-stream habitat and
channel form.
The ditches and channelized streams on the site transport surface and subsurface drainage from the
prior-converted crop fields, lowering the water table and keeping soil conditions favorable for
agricultural production. Examination of the available hydrology and soil data indicate that there is
good potential for the restoration of a productive wetland and stream ecosystem.
The Duke Swamp Restoration Project will restore a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" system, as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Due to the productivity and accessibility of these
systems, most have experienced heavy human disturbance. Wetland restoration of the prior-
converted farm fields on the site will involve raising the local water table and restoring a natural
flooding regime. The streams on the site will be restored to stable conditions and riverine wetland
functions will be restored to the adjacent hydric soil areas. Drainage ditches and farm ponds within
the restoration areas will be partially filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the
local water table. In addition, scarification of the fields and breaking of the local plow pan will
provide increased surface storage of water and provide favorable conditions for a variety of native
wetland plant species.

n
s
1
n
BAKER ENGINEERING I
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Table ES.1
Restoration Overview -Duke Swam Site see Exhibit 1.4
~~
'~
• • ~ i ~,
~ ~ ~
Wetland Restoration
Restoration of hydrology through filling of
Coastal Plain Small drainage ditches and features, restoration of
Stream Swamp - PC 0 AC 13.1 AC the UT1a stream channel, restoration of
field areas along UT1a flooding functions, restoration of natural
floodplain topography; planting of wetland
ve etation.
Coastal Plain Small Wetland Enhancement
Stream Swamp -along
5
1 AC
5
1 AC Enhancement of hydrology through
UT1b and UT2 (existing . . restoration of historic flow patterns and
'urisdictional wetlands connectivit between UT1b and UT2.
Wetland Enhancement
Coastal Plain Small Enhancement of hydrology through filling
Stream Swamp -existing of drainage canal and restoration of a
jurisdictional wetland
2.4 AC
2
4 AC meandering stable stream system;
pockets along UT1a in . enhancement of flooding functions; planting
open field areas and of native woody vegetation; lowering of
Pond 1. water level in Pond 1 to function as a
wetland.
Stream Restoration
UT1a 2,860 LF 3,983 LF Rosgen Priority Level I and II approaches to
restore a meanderin streams stem.
Stream Restoration
Restoration of the system will be achieved
through the removal of the spoil pile that
UT1b and UT2 880 LF / 924 LF / separates UTlb and UT2 and the filling of
880 LF 515 LF the channelized section of UTlb. This
approach will restore flows to historic
remnant channels and restore flooding
functions and connectivit .
Total 4,620 LF / 5,422 LF /
7.5 AC 20.6 AC
BAKER ENGINEERING
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT
!7

~I
i

t
1

1

1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................1-1
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location ...............................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................1-1
1.3 Report Overview .................................................................................................................1-2
2.0 Stream Restoration Background Science and Methods .....................................................2-1
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration .....................................................2-1
2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview ......................................................................................2-5
2.3 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology .......................................................................2-6
2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology .......................................................................2-7
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology ........................................................................2-10
2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology ..........................................2-11
2.7 In-Stream Structures ..........................................................................................................2-14
2.8 Vegetation .........................................................................................................................2-15
2.9 Risk Recognition ...............................................................................................................2-17
3.0 Wetland Restoration Background Science and Methods ...................................................3-1
3.1 The Importance of Wetlands ...............................................................................................3-1
3.2 Hydric soils .........................................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Wetland Vegetation .............................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Wetland Hydrology .............................................................................................................3-3
3.5 Wetland Hydrologic Analyses .............................................................................................3-4
3.6 Assessment of Existing Wetland Areas ...............................................................................3-5
3.7 Reference Wetlands .............................................................................................................3-6
3.8 Wetland Restoration Techniques .........................................................................................3-7
3.9 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream and Wetland Restoration ..............................3-10
4.0 Watershed Assessment Results .............................................................................................4-1
4.1 Watershed Delineation ........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Surface Water Classification ...............................................................................................4-1
4.3 Geology ...............................................................................................................................4-1
4.4 Land Use .............................................................................................................................4-1
4.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ..........................................................................................4-2
4.6 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................4-4
4.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ........................................................................4-4
4.8 Potential Constraints ............................................................................................................4-4
5.0 Existing Wetland conditions .................................................................................................5-1
BAKER ENGINEERING III
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

5.1 Wetland Assessment Results ...............................................................................................5-1
5.2 Soils .....................................................................................................................................5-2
5.3 Climatic Conditions .............................................................................................................5-3
5.4 Site Hydrology ....................................................................................................................5-4
5.5 Hydrologic Modeling ..........................................................................................................5-5
6.0 Stream Corridor Assessment Results ..................................................................................6-1
6.1 Reach Identification ............................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment ......................................6-1
6.3 Bankfull Verification ...........................................................................................................6-4
6.4 Stream Reference Site .........................................................................................................6-4
7.0 Restoration DESIGN .............................................................................................................7-6
7.1 Potential for Restoration and Approach ..............................................................................7-6
7.2 Design Criteria Selection .....................................................................................................7-7
7.3 Channel Design Parameters .................................................................................................7-8
7.4 Sediment Transport ...........................................................................................................7-11
7.5 In-Stream Structures ..........................................................................................................7-11
7.6 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology ...................................................................................7-12
7.7 Hydrologic Model Analyses ..............................................................................................7-13
7.8 Wetland Reference Site Overview ....................................................................................7-14
7.9 Vegetation Plan ...................................................................................................................7-1
7.10 Invasive Species Removal .................................................................:.................................7-2
8.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Stream Monitoring -Reach UTla .......................................................................................8-1
8.2 Stream Monitoring -Reaches UT1b and UT2 ....................................................................8-3
8.3 Wetland Monitoring ............................................................................................................8-3
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................................................8-4
8.5 Reporting Requirements ......................................................................................................8-4
8.6 Maintenance Issues ..............................................................................................................8-5
9.0 References ...............................................................................................................................9-1
BAKER ENGINEERING IV
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT
1

l
List of Exhibits
All Exhibits are located at the back of the report, immediately preceding the appendices.
' Exhibit 1.1 Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1.2 Site Location Map
1 Exhibit 1.3 Project Watershed Boundaries
Exhibit 1.4 Proposed Restoration Areas
Exhibit 2.1 Rosgen Stream Classification
Exhibit 2.2 Factors Influencing Stream Stability
E
hibit 2
3 Si
Ch
l E
l
i
M
d
l
x . vo
mon
anne
ut
on
o
e
' Exhibit 2.4 Restoration Priorities for Incised Channels
Exhibit 2.5 Channel Dimension Measurements
Exhibit 2.6 Design Criteria Selection
Exhibit 2.7 Examples of In-stream Structures
' Exhibit 5.1 Site Wetland Map
Exhibit 5.2 Project Site Soils Map
' Exhibit 5.3 Site Hydrology Map and Location of Water Table Monitoring Wells
Exhibit 6.1 Cross-Section Location Map
E
hibit 6
2 L
ti
f R
f
R
h
d R
f
W
tl
d
x . oca
on o
e
erence
eac
an
e
erence
e
an
' Exhibit 7.1 NC Coastal Plain Comparison between Bankfull Shear Stress and Channel Slope
Exhibit 7.2 NC Coastal Plain Comparison between Stream Power and Channel Slope
' Exhibit 7.3 NC Coastal Plain Comparison between Width-to-Depth Ratio and Channel Slope

BAKER ENGINEERING

1 V
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Bankfull Shear Stress Versus Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches.
Figure 2.2 Stream Power and Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches.
Figure 2.3 Width-to-depth ratio (W/D) and Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference
Reaches.
Figure 3.1 Typical Pattern of Restored Wetland Microtopography (Scherrer, 2000).
Figure 5.1 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells Compared to Local Rainfall
on the Duke Swamp Site (August 2006 through December 2006).
Figure 7.1 Fifty-eight year Model Simulation for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland Criteria for Conditions Encountered at Restoration Site.
Figure 7.2 Water Table Depths Recorded in a Monitoring Well Installed within the
Reference Site.
BAKER ENGINEERING VI
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

List of Tables
Table ES.1 Restoration Overview
Table 2.1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of
' Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)
' Table 2.2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of (Rosgen, 2001a)
Table 2.3 Functions of In-Stream Structures
' Table 4.1 Species Under Federal Protection in Gates County
Table 4.2 Federal Species of Concern in Gates County
' Table 5.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 5.2 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-Term Averages
' Table 5.3 Water Balance Data for Existing Conditions of the Project Site
Table 6.1 Reach Descriptions and Watershed Size
' Table 6.2 Existing Geomorphic Data for Duke Swamp Site -Stream Classification II
Table 6.3 NC Rural Coastal Plain Curve Equations
i
T
Table 7.1 Project Des
gn Stream
ypes
Table 7.2 Reference Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
Table 7.3 Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Duke Swamp Restoration Site
Table 7.4 Calculated Sediment Transport Data for Design Reaches
Table 7.5 In-stream Structure Types and Locations
' Table 7.6 Proposed Bare-root and Live Stake Species
Table 7.7 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture

n

BAKER ENGINEERING VII
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

List of Appendices
Appendix A SHPO Correspondence & Recorded Conservation Easement Deeds
Appendix B EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix C DRAINMOD Analysis Files & Restoration Site Water Table Data
Appendix D Existing Conditions Summaries, Cross-Sections, Bed Material Analyses, and
NCDWQ Stream Determination Forms
Appendix E Reference Reach Summary -Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County
Appendix F Wetland Delineation Forms
Appendix G Photographic Log
BAKER ENGINEERING VIII
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

f'.

I'.

t
t
t

1
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location
Baker Engineering proposes to restore 5,4221inear feet (LF) of stream and 15 acres (AC) of riverine
wetlands along two unnamed tributaries to Duke Swamp. Riparian buffers will be restored along
reach UTla and preserved along reaches UTlb and UT2. A perpetual conservation easement
consisting of 25.4 acres protects all stream reaches and riparian buffers. The project site is located in
Gates County in the Chowan River Basin as shown on Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2.
For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided the on-site streams into two reaches.
The reach locations are shown on Exhibit 1.2. Based on field evaluations of intermittent/perennial
status, the stream channels are considered perennial using North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stream assessment
protocols.
UT1 to Duke Swamp is a moderate size, perennial stream with a drainage area of approximately 3.0
square miles at the downstream end of the site (Exhibit 1.3). Historically, the site has been used for
agricultural production. Cleared areas in the upstream portion of the project area (UT1a) are
currently used for seasonally rotated crop production. The riparian vegetation in this area is
predominantly herbaceous that is regularly maintained by mowing. Mowing and crop production
have curtailed any efforts for native woody vegetation to establish along the stream banks which has
resulted in an inadequate riparian buffer throughout reach UT1a. The downstream portion of the site
(UTlb) is wooded with a mature bottomland hardwood swamp forest.
The UT1 stream has been channelized and dredged. This manipulation has created a channel that is
overly wide and overly deep for the given drainage area. There is little slope to the system (0.0003)
and essentially the channel is functioning as a long, linear pond, holding backwater from the
downstream swamp throughout the entire reach. In most cases the estimated cross-sectional area (21
ftz) from the coastal regional curve is below water surface. Feature formation is poor with very little
habitat diversity or woody debris.
UT2 to Duke Swamp is a small size, perennial stream with a drainage area of approximately 0.03
square miles and begins at the outlet of a small cypress pond north of the project boundary (Exhibits
1.2 & 1.3). The historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2 appears to have been altered
significantly. Backwater effects have been the result of an existing spoil pile that runs along the right
bank of UT1b in the forested wetland area. Flows are being diverted along this spoil pile and
blocking the natural connection between UT1 and UT2. UT2 begins as single thread system and
transitions into amulti-channel (DA) system which has been hydraulically impacted by the
channelization of UTlb. The stream has a mature bottomland hardwood swamp forest canopy along
its entire length as it connects with UTl.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The proposed restoration areas are shown in Exhibit 1.4. The proposed stream and wetland
restoration project will provide numerous ecological benefits within the Chowan River basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved
aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water
quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined below as project goals.
BAKER ENGINEERING 1-1
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Water Quality
• Reduce nutrient loading to receiving waters by establishment of riparian buffers.
• Reduce sediment supply by slowing/filtering surface runoff across riparian buffers.
• Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations by adding water turbulence in riffle areas.
• Improve streambank stability by lowering bank height ratios and establishing root mass.
• Increase pollutant retention through wetland filtering.
Water Quantity/Flood Attenuation
• Increase water storage/flood control by establishment of vegetated floodplain.
• Reduce downstream flooding by reconnecting stream with its widened floodplain capacity.
• Improve ground water recharge throughout floodplain areas by increasing infiltration rates,
• Improve/restore hydrologic connections by facilitating wetland/floodplain functionality.
Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat
• Improve substrate and in-stream cover by installing structures and large woody debris.
• Reduce water temperature by establishing riparian vegetation and increasing shading.
• Restore terrestrial habitat by improving connectivity between stream and wetland systems.
• Improve aesthetics by restoring ecosystem diversity and functionality.
1.3 Report Overview
This report has been arranged and formatted to maximize its utility. Readers unfamiliar with stream
and wetland restoration science and methodology may wish to review the background material in
Sections 2 and 3. Those familiar with Baker Engineering's design processes and procedures may
wish to focus on Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the report, which are specific to the project site. These
sections cover the site assessment findings, selection and application of design criteria, and site
design. Section 8 summarizes post-construction monitoring and evaluation procedures.
BAKER ENGINEERING 1.2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT
J

2.0 STREAM RESTORATION BACKGROUND SCIENCE AND
METHODS
' 2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration
A stream and its floodplain comprise a dynamic environment where the floodplain, channel, and
bedform evolve through natural processes. Weather and hydraulic processes erode, transport, sort,
' and deposit alluvial materials throughout the riparian system. The size and flow of a stream are
directly related to its watershed area. Other factors that affect channel size and stream flow are
geology, land use, soil types, topography, and climate. The morphology, or size and shape, of the
' channel reflect all of these factors (Leopold et al., 1992; Knighton, 1988). The result is a dynamic
equilibrium where the stream maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile over time, and neither
degrades nor aggrades. Land use changes in the watershed, including increases in imperviousness
' and removal of riparian vegetation, can upset this balance. Anew equilibrium may eventually result,
but not before large adjustments in channel form can occur, such as extreme bank erosion or incision
(Lane, 1955; Schumm, 1960). By understanding and applying natural stream processes to stream
restoration projects, aself-sustaining stream can be designed and constructed that maximizes stream
and biological potential (Leopold et al., 1992; Leopold, 1994; Rosgen, 1996).
In addition to transporting water and sediment, natural streams provide the habitat for many aquatic
organisms including fish, amphibians, insects, mollusks, and plants. Trees and shrubs along the
banks provide a food source and regulate water temperatures. Channel features such as pools, riffles,
steps, and undercut banks provide diversity of habitat, oxygenation, and cover (Dunne and Leopold,
1978). Stream restoration projects can repair these features in concert with the return of a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile. The following sections provide an overview of the primary channel
forming process and typical stream morphology.
' 2.1.1 Channel Forming Discharge
The channel forming discharge, also referred to as bankfull discharge, effective discharge, or
' dominant discharge, creates a natural and predictable channel size and shape (Leopold et al.,
1992; Leopold, 1994). Channel forming discharge theory states that there is a unique flow that
over a long period of time would yield the same channel morphology that is shaped by the
natural sequence of flows. At this discharge, equilibrium is most closely approached and the
' tendency to change is minimized (Inglis, 1947). Uses of the channel forming discharge include
channel stability assessment, river management using hydraulic geometry relationships, and
natural channel design (Soar and Thorne, 2001).
Proper determination of bankfull stage in the field is vital to stream classification and the
natural channel design process. The bankfull discharge is the point at which flooding occurs on
the floodplain (Leopold, 1994). This flood stage may or may not be the top of the stream bank.
On average, bankfull discharge occurs every 1.5 years (Leopold, 1994; Harman et al., 1999;
McCandless, 2003). If the stream has become incised due to changes in the watershed or
streamside vegetation, the bankfull stage may be a small depositional bench or scour line on the
stream bank (Harman et al., 1999). In this case, the top of the bank, which was formerly the
floodplain, is called a terrace. A stream with terraces at the top of its banks is considered to be
incised.

BAKER ENGINEERING 2-1
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

2.1.2 Bedform Diversity and Channel Substrate
The profile of a stream bed and its bed materials are largely dependent on valley slope and
geology. In simple terms, steep, straight streams are found in steep, colluvial valleys, while
flat, meandering streams are found in flat, alluvial valleys. colluvial valleys have slopes
between two percent and four percent, while alluvial channels have slopes less than two
percent. A colluvial valley forms through hillslope processes. Sediment supply in colluvial
valleys is controlled by hillslope erosion and mass wasting, i.e., the sediments in the stream bed
originated from the hillslopes. Sediments reaching the channel in a colluvial valley are
typically poorly sorted mixtures of fine and coarse grained materials ranging in size from sand
to boulders. In contrast, an alluvial valley forms through stream and floodplain processes.
Sediments in alluvial valleys include some coarse gravel and cobble transported from steeper
upland areas, but are predominantly fine-grained particles such as gravel and sand. Grain size
generally decreases with valley slope (Leopold et al., 1992).
2.1.2.1 Step/Pool Streams
A step/pool bed profile is characteristic of steep streams formed within colluvial valleys.
Steep mountain streams demonstrate step/pool morphology as a result of episodic
sediment transport mechanisms. Because of the high energy associated with the steep
channel slope, the substrate in step/pool streams contains significantly larger particles
than streams in flatter, alluvial valleys. Steps form from accumulations of boulders and
cobbles that span the channel, resulting in a backwater pool upstream and plunge pool
downstream. Smaller particles collect in the interstices of steps creating stable,
interlocking structures (Knighton, 1988).
In contrast to meandering streams that dissipate energy through meander bends, step/pool
streams dissipate energy through drops and turbulence. Step/pool streams have relatively
low sinuosity. Pattern variations are commonly the result of debris jams, topographic
features, and bedrock outcrops.
2.1.2.2 Gravel Bed Streams
Meandering gravel bed streams in alluvial valleys have sequences of riffles and pools that
maintain channel slope and bed stability. The riffle is a bed feature composed of gravel
or larger size particles. During low flow periods, the water depth at a riffle is relatively
shallow and the slope is steeper than the average slope of the channel. At low flows,
water moves faster over riffles, and the resulting turbulence provide oxygen to the
stream. Riffles control the stream bed elevation and are usually found entering and
exiting meander bends. The inside of the meander bend is a depositional feature called a
point bar, which also helps maintain channel form (Knighton, 1988). Pools are typically
located on the outside bends of meanders between riffles. Pools have a flat slope and are
much deeper than the average depth of the channel. At low flows, pools are depositional
features and riffles are scour features.
At high flows, the water surface becomes more uniform: the water surface slope at the
riffles decreases and the water surface slope at the pools increases. The increase in pool
slope coupled with the greater water depth at the pools causes an increase in shear stress
at the bed elevation. The opposite is true at riffles. With a relative increase in shear
stress, pools scour. The relative decrease in shear stress at riffles causes bed material
deposits at these features during the falling limb of the hydrograph.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

' 2.1.2.3 SandBedS~reams
While gravel bed streams have riffle/pool sequences, with riffles composed of gravel-size
particles, sand bed channels are characterized by median bed material sizes less than 2
millimeters in diameter (Bunte and Abt, 2001). Bed material features called ripples,
dunes, planebeds, and antidunes characterize the sand bedform. Although sand bed
' streams technically do not have riffles, the term is often used to describe the crossover
reach between pools. We use "riffle" in this report as equivalent to the crossover section.
The size, stage, and variation of sand bedforms are formed by changes in unit stream
' power as described below. These bedforms are symptomatic of local variations in the
sediment transport rate and cause minor to major variations in aggradation and
degradation (Gomez, 1991). Sand bedforms can be divided between low flow regimes
' and high flow regimes with a transitional zone between the two. Ripples occur at low
flows where the unit stream power is just high enough to entrain sand size particles. This
entrainment creates small wavelets from random sediment accumulations that are
triangular in profile with gentle upstream and steep downstream slopes. The ripple
dimensions are independent of flow depth and heights are less than 0.02 meters.
As unit stream power increases, dunes eventually replace ripples. Dunes are the most
' common type of sand bedform and have a larger height and wavelength than ripples.
Unlike ripples, dune height and wavelength are proportional to flow depth. The
movement of dunes is the major cause of variability in bed-load transport rates in sand
bed streams. Dunes are eventually washed out to leave an upper-flow plane bed
1 characterized by intense bedload transport. This plane bed prevents the patterns of
erosion and deposition required for dune development. This stage of bedform
development is called the transitional flow regime between the low flow features and the
' high flow regime features (Knighton, 1998).
As flow continues to increase, standing waves develop at the water surface and the bed
develops a train of sediment waves (antidunes), which mirror the surface forms.
Antidunes migrate upstream by way of scour on the downstream face and deposition on
the upstream face, a process that is opposite of ripples and dunes. Antidunes can also
' move downstream or remain stationary for short periods (Knighton, 1998).
2.1.3 Stream Classification
The Rosgen stream classification system categorizes essentially all types of channels based on
measured morphological features (Rosgen, 1994, 1996). The system presents several stream
types based on a hierarchical system. The classification system is illustrated on Exhibit 2.1.
The first level of classification distinguishes between single and multiple thread channels.
Streams are then separated based on degrees of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity.
Slope range and channel materials are also evaluated to subdivide the streams. Stream types
are further described according to average riparian vegetation, organic debris, blockages, flow
regimes, stream size, depositional features, and meander pattern.
Bankfull stage is the basis for measuring the width/depth and entrenchment ratios, two of the
most important delineative criteria. Therefore, it is critical to correctly identify bankfull stage
when classifying streams and designing stream restoration measures. A detailed discussion of
bankfull stage was provided in Section 2.1.1.

BAKER ENGINEERING 2-3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

2.1.4 Stream Stability
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed
while maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or
aggrade (Rosgen, 1994). Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly over long
periods of time while maintaining their form and function. Instability occurs when scouring
causes the channel to incise (degrade) or excessive deposition causes the channel bed to rise
(aggrade). A generalized relationship of stream stability proposed by Lane (1955) is shown as
a schematic drawing in Exhibit 2.2. The drawing shows that the product of sediment load and
sediment size is proportional to the product of stream slope and discharge or stream power. A
change in any one of these variables causes a rapid physical adjustment in the stream channel.
2.1.5 Channel Evolution
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following
disturbance. This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can
result from channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of
streamside vegetation, and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these
disturbances occur in both urban and rural environments. Several models have been used to
describe this process of physical adjustment for a stream. The Simon (1989) channel evolution
model characterizes evolution in six steps, including:
I. sinuous, pre-modified,
II. channelized,
III. degradation,
IV. degradation and widening,
V. aggradation and widening, and
VI. quasi-equilibrium.
Exhibit 2.3 illustrates the six steps of the Simon channel evolution model.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that interacts
frequently with its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in
stream power that causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955).
According to research summarized by the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working
Group (FISRWG), incision eventually leads to over-steepening of the banks and, when critical
bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to
channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving upstream in the form of a head-cut.
Eventually the mass wasting slows and the stream begins to aggrade. Anew low-flow channel
begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream
with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the
deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its original form with a new
floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
2.1.6 Priority Levels of Restoring Incised Rivers
Though incised streams can occur naturally in certain landforms, they are often the product of
disturbance. High, steep stream banks, poor or absent in-stream or riparian habitat, increased
erosion and sedimentation, and low sinuosity are all characteristics of incised streams.
Complete restoration of the stream, where the incised grade of the channel is raised so that an
abandoned floodplain terrace is reclaimed, is ideally the overriding project objective. There
may be scenarios, however, where such an objective is impractical due to encroachment into
the abandoned floodplain terrace by homes, roadways, utilities, etc. A priority system for the
BAKER ENGINEERING 2.4
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

1 f
restoration of incised streams, developed and used by Rosgen (1997), considers a range o
options to provide the best level of stream restoration possible for the given setting. Exhibit 2.4
illustrates various restoration/stabilization options for incised channels within the framework of
' the Rosgen's priority system. Generally:
Priority 1- Re-establishes the channel on a previous floodplain (i.e., raises channel elevation);
' meanders a new channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a stable
stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised channel. This option
requires that the upstream start point of the project not be incised.
Priority 2 - Establishes a new floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation (i.e., excavates a
new floodplain); meanders channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic
of a stable stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised.
Priority 3 - Converts a straight channel to a different stream type while leaving the existing
channel in place by excavating bankfull benches at the existing bankfull elevation. Effectively,
the valley for the stream is made more bowl-shaped. This approach uses in-stream structures to
dissipate energy through astep/pool channel type.
Priority 4 -Stabilizes the channel in place using in-stream structures and bioengineering to
decrease erosion of the stream bed and stream bank. This approach is typically used in highly
' constrained environments.
1 2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview
Restoration design of degraded stream reaches first involves accurately diagnosing their current
condition. Understanding valley type, stream type, channel stability, bedform diversity, and potential
for restoration is essential to developing adequate restoration measures (Rosgen, 1996). This
I combination of assessment and design is often referred to as natural channel design.
The first step in a stream restoration design is to assess the reach, its valley, and its watershed to
understand the relationship between the stream and its drainage basin and to evaluate the causes of
stream impairment. Bankfull discharge is estimated for the watershed. After sources of stream
impairment are identified and channel geometry is assessed, a plan for restoration can be formulated.
' Design commences at the completion of the assessment stage. A series of iterative calculations are
performed using data from reference reaches, pertinent literature, and evaluation of past projects to
develop an appropriate stable cross-section, profile, and plan form dimensions for the design reach.
' A thorough discussion of design parameter selection is provided in Section 2.5. The alignment
should avoid an entirely symmetrical layout to mimic natural variability, create a diversity of aquatic
habitats, and improve aesthetics.
Once a dimension, pattern, and profile have been developed for the project reach, the design is tested
to ensure that the new channel will not aggrade or degrade. A discussion of sediment transport
methodology is provided in Section 2.6.
' After the sediment transport assessment, additional structural elements are then added to the design to
provide grade control, protect stream banks, and enhance habitat. Section 2.7 describes these in-
' stream structures in detail.
Once the design is finalized, detailed drawings are prepared showing dimension, pattern, profile, and
location of additional structures. These drawings are used in the construction of the project.

BAKER ENGINEERING 2-5
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Following the implementation of the design, a monitoring plan is established to:
• Ensure that stabilization structures are functioning properly
• Monitor channel response in dimension, pattern and profile, channel stability
(aggradation/degradation) particle size distribution of channel materials, and sediment
transport and stream bank erosion rates
• Determine biological response (food chains, standing crop, species diversity, etc.)
• Determine the extent to which the restoration objectives have been met.
2.3 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology
Geomorphic characterization of stream features includes the bankfull identification, bed material
characterization and analysis, and stream classification.
2.3.1 BankfullIdentification
Correct identification of bankfull is important to the determination of geomorphic criteria such
as stream type, bank height ratios, width to depth ratios, and entrenchment ratios. Baker
Engineering's field techniques for bankfull identification are as follows:
• Identify the most consistent bankfull indicators along the reach that were obviously
formed by the stream, such as a point bar or lateral bar. Bankfull is usually the back of
this feature, unless sediment supply is high. In that case, the bar may flatten and bankfull
will be the front of the feature at the break in slope. The indicator is rarely the top of the
bank or lowest scour mark.
• Measure the difference in height between the water surface and the bankfull indicator.
For example, the indicator may be 2.2 feet above water surface. Bankfull stage
corresponds to a flow depth. It should not vary by more than a few tenths of a foot
throughout the reach, unless a tributary enters the reach and increases the size of the
watershed.
• Go to a stable riffle. If a bankfull indicator is not present at this riffle, use the height
measured in the previous step to establish the indicator. For example, measure 2.2 feet
above water surface and place a flag in both the right and left bank.
• Measure the distance from the left bank to the right bank between the indicators.
Calculate the cross-sectional area.
• Obtain the appropriate regional curve (e.g., rural Piedmont, urban Piedmont, Mountain,
or Coastal Plain) and determine the cross-sectional area associated with the drainage area
of the reach.
• Compare the measured cross-sectional area to that predicted by the regional curve. If the
measured cross-sectional area is not a close fit, look for other bankfull indicators and test
them. If there are no other indicators, look for reasons to explain the difference between
the two cross-sectional areas. For example, if the cross-sectional area of the stable riffle
is lower than the regional curve area, look for upstream impoundments, wetlands, or a
mature forested watershed. If the cross-sectional area is higher than the regional curve
area, look for stormwater drains, parking lots, or signs of channelization.
It is important to perform the bankfull verification at a stable riffle using indicators from
depositional features. The cross-sectional area will change with decreasing stability. In some
streams, bankfull indicators will not be present due to incision or maintenance. In such cases, it
BAKER ENGINEERING _ 2_g
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

is important to verify bankfull through other means such as a gauge station survey or reference
bankfull information that is specific to the geographic location. The gauge information can be
used, along with regional curve information, to estimate bankfull elevation in a project reach
that lacks bankfull indicators.
2.3.2 Bed Material Characterization
Baker Engineering typically performs bed material characterization using a modified Wolman
procedure (Wolman, 1954; Rosgen, 1996). A 100-count pebble count is performed in transects
across the streambed, with the number of riffle and pool transects being proportional to the
percentage of riffles and pools within the longitudinal distance of a given stream type. As
stream type changes, a separate pebble count is performed. The median particle size of the
modified Wolman procedure is known as the d;~~. The d;~~ describes the bed material
classification for that reach. The bed material classification is shown on Exhibit 2.1 and ranges
from a classification of 1 for a channel d;~ of bedrock to a classification of 6 for a channel d;~, in
the silt/clay particle size range.
The modified Wolman pebble count is not appropriate for sand bed streams. When working in
sandbed systems, a bulk sampling procedure is used to characterize the bed material. Cores
(two to three inches deep) are sampled from the bed along the entire reach. These cores are
taken back to a lab and dry sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. This information is
used to classify the stream and to complete the sediment transport analysis.
i 2.3.3 Stream Classification
Cross-sections are surveyed along stable riffles for the purpose of stream classification. Values
for entrenchment ratio and width/depth ratio, along with sinuosity and slope, are used to
classify the stream. The entrenchment ratio (ER) is calculated by dividing the flood-prone
width (width measured at twice the maximum bankfull depth) by the bankfull width. The
width/depth ratio (w/d ratio) is calculated by dividing bankfull width by mean bankfull depth).
Exhibit 2.5 shows examples of the channel dimension measurements used in the Rosgen stream
classification system.
Finally, the numbers associated with each bed material classification used are used to further
classify the stream type. For example, a Rosgen E3 stream type is a narrow and deep, cobble-
dominated channel with access to a floodplain that is greater than two times its bankfull width.
2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology
Baker Engineering uses a modified version of stream channel stability assessment methodology
developed by Rosgen (2001a). The Rosgen method is a field assessment of the following stream
channel characteristics:
• Stream Channel Condition
• Vertical Stability
• Lateral Stability
~ Channel Pattern
• River Profile and Bed Features
• Channel Dimension Relations
• Channel Evolution.
This field exercise is followed by the evaluation of various channel dimension relationships. The
evaluation of the above characteristics leads to a determination of a channel's current state, potential
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-~
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

for restoration, and appropriate restoration activities. A description of each category is provided in
the following sections.
2.4.1 Stream Channel Condition Observations
Stream channel conditions are observed during initial field inspection (stream walk). Baker
Engineering notes the follow characteristics:
• Riparian vegetation -concentration, composition, and rooting depth and density
• Sediment depositional patterns -such as mid-channel bars and other depositional features
that indicate aggradation and can lead to negative geomorphic channel adjustments
• Debris occurrence -presence or absence of woody debris
• Meander patterns -general observations with regard to the type of adjustments a stream
will make to reach equilibrium
• Altered states due to direct disturbance -such as channelization, berm construction, and
floodplain alterations.
These qualitative observations are useful in the assessment of channel stability. They provide a
consistent method of documenting stream conditions that allows comparison across different
sets of conditions. The observations also help explain the quantitative measurements described
below.
2.4.2 Vertical Stability -Degradation/Aggradation
The bank height and entrenchment ratios are measured in the field to assess vertical stability.
The bank height ratio is measured as the ratio of the lowest bank height divided by a maximum
bankfull depth. Table 2.1 shows the relationship between bank height ratio (BHR) and vertical
stability developed by Rosgen (2001a).
Table 2.1
Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)
'' ~ ~ ' ~
Stable (low risk of degradation) 1.0 -1.05
Moderately unstable 1.06 -1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation) 1.3 -1.5
Highly unstable > 1.5
The entrenchment ratio is measured as the width of the floodplain at twice the maximum
bankfull depth. If the entrenchment ratio is less than 1.4 (+/- 0.2), the stream is considered
entrenched (Rosgen, 1996).
2.4.3 Lateral Stability
The degree of lateral containment (confinement) and potential lateral erosion are assessed in the
field by measuring the meander width ratio (MWR) and the Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI) (Rosgen, 2001a). The MWR is the meander belt width divided by the bankfull channel
width, and provides insight into lateral channel adjustment processes depending on stream type
and degree of confinement. For example, a MWR of 3.0 often corresponds with a sinuosity of
1.2, which is the minimum value for a stream to be classified as meandering. If the MWR is
BAKER ENGINEERING Z_g
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

' less than 3.0, lateral adjustment is probable. BEHI ratings along with near bank shear stress
estimates can be compared to data from monitored sites and used to estimate the annual lateral
' stream bank erosion rate.
2.4.4 Channel Pattern
' Channel pattern is assessed in the field by measuring the stream's plan features including radius
of curvature, meander wavelength, meander belt width, stream length, and valley length.
Results are used to compute the meander width ratio (described above), ratio of radius of
' curvature to bankfull width, sinuosity, and meander wavelength ratio (meander wavelength
divided by bankfull width). These dimensionless ratios are compared to reference reach data
for the same valley and stream type to assess whether channel pattern has been impacted.
2.4.5 River Profile and Bed Features
A longitudinal profile is created by measuring and plotting elevations of the channel bed, water
' surface, bankfull, and low bank height. Profile points are surveyed at prescribed intervals and
at significant breaks in slope such as the head of a riffle or the head of a pool. This profile can
be used to assess changes in river slope compared to valley slope, which affect sediment
transport, stream competence, and the balance of energy. For example, the removal of large
woody debris may increase the step/pool spacing and result in excess energy and subsec{uent
channel degradation. Facet (e.g., riffle, run, pool) slopes of each individual feature are
important for stability assessment and design.
2.4.6 Channel Dimension Relations
I The bankfull width/depth ratio provides an indication of departure from reference reach
conditions and relates to channel stability. A greater width/depth ratio compared to reference
conditions may indicate accelerated stream bank erosion, excessive sediment deposition, stream
' flow changes, and alteration of channel shape (e.g., from channelization). A smaller
width/depth ratio compared to reference conditions may indicate channel incision and
downcutting. Both increases and decreases in width/depth ratio can indicate evolutionary shifts
in stream type (i.e., transition of one stream type to another). Table 2.2 shows the relationship
between the degree of width/depth ratio increase and channel stability developed by Rosgen
(2001a).

1

1

Table 2.2
Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)

Very stable 1.0
Stable 1.0 -1.2
Moderately unstable 1.21-1.4
Unstable > 1.4
While an increase in width/depth ratio is associated with channel widening, a decrease in
width/depth ratio is associated with channel incision. For incised channels, the ratio of channel
width/depth ratio to reference reach width/depth ratio will be less than 1.0. The reduction in
width/depth ratio indicates excess shear stress and movement of the channel toward an unstable
condition.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-9
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

2.4.7 Channel Evolution
Simon's channel evolution model (introduced in Section 2.1.5) relies on a qualitative, visual
assessment of the existing stream channel characteristics (bank height, evidence of
degradation/aggradation, presence of bank slumping, direction of bed and bank movement,
etc.). Establishing the evolutionary stage of the channel helps ascertain whether the system is
moving towards greater stability or instability. The model also provides a better understanding
of the cause and effect of channel change. This information, combined with Rosgen's (1994)
priority levels of restoration aids in determining the restoration potential of unstable reaches.
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology
Baker Engineering uses a combination of approaches to develop design criteria for channel
dimension, pattern, and profile. These approaches are described in the following sections. A flow
chart for selecting design criteria is shown in Exhibit 2.6.
2.5.1 Upstream Reference Reaches
The best option for developing design criteria is to locate a reference reach upstream of the
project site. A reference reach is a channel segment that is stable-neither aggrading nor
degrading- and is of the same morphological type as the channel under consideration for
restoration. The reference reach should also have a similar valley slope as the project reach.
The reference reach is then used as the blueprint for the channel design (Rosgen, 1998). To
account for differences in drainage area and discharge between a reference site and a project
site, data on channel characteristics (dimension, pattern, and profile), in the form of
dimensionless ratios, are developed for the reference reach. If the reach upstream of the project
does not have sufficient pattern, but does have a stable riffle cross-section, only dimension
ratios are calculated. It is ideal to measure a reference bankfull dimension that was formed
under the same environmental influences as the project reach.
2.5.2 Reference Reach Searches
If a reference reach cannot be located upstream of the project reach, a review of a reference
reach database is performed. A database search is conducted to locate known reference reaches
in close proximity to the project site. The search includes streams with the same valley as the
project reach and stream type as the design. If references are found meeting these criteria, the
reference reach is field-surveyed for validation and comparison with the database values which
may have been originally collected and provided by a third party. If a search of the database
reveals no references which meet the appropriate criteria, a field search is performed locally to
identify a reference reach which has not yet been surveyed.
Potential reference reaches are identified by first evaluating U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic quadrangles and aerial photography for an area. In general, the search is limited to
subwatersheds within or adjacent to the project watershed. In certain cases, a reference reach
may be identified farther away that matches the same valley and stream type as the proposed
design of the project site. In such a case, care is taken to ensure that the potential reference
reach lies within the same physiographic region as the project reach. Potential reference sites
identified on maps are then field-evaluated to determine if they are stable systems of the
appropriate stream and valley type. If appropriate, reference reach surveys are conducted.
When potential sites are located on private property, landowner permission is acquired prior to
any survey work being conducted.
BAKER ENGINEERING Z_tp
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

2.5.3 Reference Reach Databases

If a reference reach is not found in close proximity to the project site, a reference reach
database is consulted and summary ratios are acquired for all streams with the same valley and
stream type within the project's physiographic region. These ratios are then compared to
literature values and regime equations along with ratios developed through the evaluation of
successful projects.
2.5.4 Regime Equations
Baker Engineering uses a variety of published journals, books, and design manuals to cross-
reference North Carolina database values with peer-reviewed regime equations. Examples
include Fluvial Forms and Processes by Knighton (1998), Mountain Rivers by Wohl (2000),
and the Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (Copeland et al., 2001) by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The most common regime equations used in our designs
are for pattern. For example, most reference reach surveys in the eastern United States show
radius of curvature divided by bankfull width ratios much less than 1.5. However, the USAGE
manual recommends a ratio greater than 2.0 to maintain stability in free-forming systems.
Since most stream restoration projects are constructed on floodplains denude of woody
vegetation, we often use the USAGE-recommended value rather than reference reach data.
Meander wavelength and pool-to-pool spacing ratios are examples of other parameters that are
sometimes designed with higher ratios than those observed on reference reaches, for similar
reasons as described for radius of curvature.
2.5.5 Comparison to Past Projects
All of the above techniques for developing ratios and/or regime equations are compared to past
projects built with similar conditions. Ultimately, these sites provide the best pattern and
profile ratios because they reflect post-construction site conditions. While most reference
reaches are in mature forests, restoration sites are in floodplains with little or no mature woody
vegetation. This lack of mature woody vegetation severely alters floodplain processes and
stream bank conditions. If past ratios did not provide adequate stability or bedform diversity,
they are not used. Conversely, if past project ratios created stable channels with optimal
bedform diversity; they will be incorporated into the design.
Ultimately, the design criteria are selections of ratios and equations made upon a thorough
' evaluation of the above tasks. Combinations of approaches may be used to optimize the design.
The final selection of design criteria for the restoration site is discussed in Section 7.0.
2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology
The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is that the
' project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby being
a "transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type channel. For sand-bed channels,
empirical relationships from stable sand-bed channels in North Carolina are used for this analysis.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or both.
Sediment transport competency is a measure of force (lbs/ft2) that refers to the stream's ability to
move a given grain size. Quantitative assessments include shear stress, tractive force, and critical
' dimensionless shear stress. Since these assessments help determine a size class that is mobile under
certain flow conditions, they are most important in gravel bed studies in which the bed material
ranges in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are mobile during bankfull conditions).
In sand-bed systems, all particle sizes are mobile during bankfull flows; therefore, there is no need to
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-11
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

determine the maximum particle size that the stream can transport. Comparing the design shear stress
values for a project reach to those computed for sand-bed reference reaches does provide a useful
comparison to determine if the stresses predicted for the design channels are within the range of those
found in stable systems.
Shear stress placed on sediment particles within a stream channel may be estimated by the following
equation:
1: = yRS, where Equation (1)
z =shear stress (lb/ftZ)
y =specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R =hydraulic radius (ft)
S =average channel slope (ft/ft)
Shear stress values are calculated for each design reach and plotted against values from sand-bed
reference stream data from the Coastal Plain, as shown in Figure 2.1. If the predicted design shear
stress values fall within the range of values documented for stable reference channels, it is assumed
that shear stresses within the design reaches will be appropriate to maintain a stable channel.
Figure 2.1
Bankfull Shear Stress Versus Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches.
0
300 -
.

,~ 0.250

• ~ Sand Bed Reference Reaches i
I
N
0
200 - - - - 95% Confidence Merval _ _ = ' " ,
~
. --'t
_-

m 0.150 ___.-'~ - ~_-_
_' ---"-
`
+. ~
, _
.
- , , -
~ 0.100 _
___----""~ -' ~ '"~
,. -~ . * " "
'
~ 0.050 _ ;'' ~_--'
~ rt=o.e~ I
__
__--"" I
0
000
.
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005
Slope (ftlft)
For sand-bed streams, sediment transport capacity is a much more important analysis tool than
competency. Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment
past across-section per unit of time, expressed in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment transport
capacity can be assessed directly, using actual monitored data from bankfull events, if a sediment
transport rating curve has been developed for the project site. Since this is extremely difficult, other
empirical relationships are used to assess sediment transport capacity. The most common capacity
equation is stream power. While stream power can be calculated a number of ways,
geomorphologists most commonly use:
BAKER ENGINEERING 2.12
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

i
Equation 2 does not provide a sediment transport rating curve; however, it does describe the stream's
' ability to accomplish work (i.e. move sediment). For this analysis, stream power values are
calculated and plotted against the range of stream power values documented for stable reference
streams, as shown in Figure 2.2. If the design values fall within the range of values given for stable
' reference streams, then the analysis provides confidence that the design stream will be able to
transport its sediment load.
' Figure 2.2
Stream Power and Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches.

r

12.000
N 10.000
£ 8.000
3
6.000
0
a
~ 4.000
v~ 2.000
0.000
w = yQS/W, where
Equation (2)
w =mean stream power in W/m2
y =specific weight of water (9,810 N/m3); y = pg where p is the density of the water-
sediment mixture (1,000 kg/m3) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/sZ)
Q =bankfull discharge in m3/s
S =design channel slope (dimensionless)
W =bankfull channel width in meters
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft2 = 14.56 W/mz
• t~ Sand Bed Reference Reaches
-' ~
- - - 95% Confidence htenral , - ' " ~ , -±
'- ~ ,
_- ~.~~ i
" _~
. ~ ~ ----"
"- ~ ~ _, --
_-'" ~ -
• rt•oso~~
----- . ~
"-- ~ ,-"'t-'
~~~~ --
0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005
Slope (ft/ft)
As an additional check of stream design stability, the design width-to-depth ratios (W/D) are plotted
against slope and compared with data from sand-bed reference reaches in the Coastal Plain. Data
collected on sand-bed systems in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina indicate a strong correlation
between W/D and slope, with W/D decreasing as channel slope increases. The design W/D ratios are
compared with reference reach data in Figure 2.3, which shows bankfull W/D ratio versus channel
slope. If the design points for the design reaches fall within the range of W/D values shown for
reference reaches under similar slope conditions, it is even more likely that the design dimensions of
the restored channels will remain stable.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-13
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Figure 2.3
Width-to-depth Ratio (W/D) and Channel Slope for Coastal Plain Reference Reaches.
20
18
16
14
12
O
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)
2.7 In-Stream Structures
There are a variety of in-stream structural elements used in restoration. Exhibit 2.7 illustrates a few
typical structures. These elements are comprised of natural materials such as stone, wood, and live
vegetation. Their shape and location works with the flow dynamics to reinforce, stabilize, and
enhance the function of the stream channel. In-stream structures provide three primary functions:
grade control, stream bank protection, and habitat enhancement.
2.7.1 Grade Control
Grade control pertains mainly to the design bed profile. A newly excavated gravel stream bed
with a slope greater than 0.5 percent is seldom able to maintain the desired slopes and bed
features (riffles, runs, pools and glides) until apavement/sub-pavement layer has been
established. Stone and/or log structures installed at the bed elevation and at critical locations in
the plan view help to set up the new stream bed for long-term vertical stability. Over time, as
the new channel adjusts to its sediment transport regime and vegetative root mass establishes
on the banks, the need for grade control diminishes.
2.7.2 Bank Protection
Bank protection is critical during and after construction as bank and floodplain vegetation is
establishing a reinforcing root mass. This vegetation establishment lasts for several years, but
vegetation is typically providing meaningful bank protection after two to four growing seasons.
Bank protection structures generally provide both reinforcement to the stream banks and re-
direction of flow away from the banks and toward the center of the channel.
2.7.3 Habitat Enhancement
Habitat enhancement can take several forms and is often a secondary function of grade control
and bank protection structures. The flow of water over vanes and wing deflectors creates scour
pools, which provide diversity of in-stream habitat. Boulder clusters form eddies that provide
BAKER ENGINEERING 2.14
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

1
1

resting places for aquatic species. Constructed riffles and vane structures encourage
oxygenation of the water. Root wads provide cover and shade, and encourage the formation of
deep pools at the outside of meander bends.
2.7.4 Selection of Structure Types
Table 2.3 summarizes the names and functions of several in-stream structures.
Table 2.3
Functions of In-Stream Structures (Rosgen, 2001b)
~ ~
~ ~ . ' ~ ~ .~
Cross Vane 1 1 2
Single Arm Vane 1 2
J-Hook Vane 1 2
Constructed Riffle 1 1 2
Log Weir 1 2
Wing Deflector 2 1 1
Boulder Cluster 1
Root Wad 1 1
Brush Mattress 1 2
Cover Log 1
The selection of structure types and locations typically follows dimension, pattern, and profile
design. In some situations, structure installation comprises the main, or possibly only, effort
required to restore a stream. More often, structures are used in conjunction with grading,
realignment, and planting in an effort to improve channel stability and aquatic habitat.
2.8 Vegetation
The planting of additional and/or more desirable vegetation is an important aspect of the restoration
plan. Vegetation helps stabilize stream banks, creates habitat and a food source for wildlife, lowers
water temperature by stream shading, improves water quality by filtering overland flows, and
improves the aesthetics of the site.
The reforestation component of a restoration project typically includes live dormant staking of the
stream banks, riparian buffer plantings, invasive species removal, and seeding for erosion control.
The stream banks and the riparian area are typically planted with both woody and herbaceous
vegetation to establish a diverse streamside buffer. Establishing vegetation along the stream banks is
a very desirable means of erosion control because of the dynamic, adaptive, and self-repairing
qualities of vegetation. Vegetative root systems stabilize channel banks by holding soil together,
increasing porosity and infiltration, and reducing soil saturation through transpiration. During high
flows, plants lie flat and stems and leaves shield and protect the soil surface from erosion. In most
settings, vegetation is more aesthetically appropriate than engineered stabilization structures.
r
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-15
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Stream banks are delineated into four zones when considering a planting scheme:
1. Channel bottom -extending up to the low flow stage. Emergent, aquatic plants dominate
bank range, extending from the low flow stage to the bankfull stage
2. Lower bank -frequently flooded, extending from the low flow stage to the bankfull stage. A
mix of herbaceous and woody plants including sedges, grasses, shrubs and trees
3. Upper bank -occasionally flooded, but most often above water. Dominated by shrubs and
small trees.
4. Riparian area -infrequently flooded, terrestrial, and naturally forested with canopy-forming
trees.
The most appropriate source of plant material for any project is the site itself. Desirable plants that
need to be removed in the course of construction should be salvaged and transplanted as part of the
restoration plan. The next best alternative is to obtain permission to collect and transplant native
plants from nearby areas. This transplant process ensures that the plants are native and adapted to the
locale. Finally, plants may need to be purchased. They should be obtained from a nearby reputable
nursery that guarantees that the plants are native and appropriate for the locale and climate of the
project site.
2.8.1 Live Staking
Live staking is a method of revegetation that utilizes live, dormant cuttings from appropriate
species to cheaply, and effectively establish vegetation. The installation of live stakes on
stream banks serves to protect the banks from erosion and at the same time provide habitat,
shade and improved aesthetics. Live staking must take place during the dormant season
(November to March in the southeast US). Live stakes can be gathered locally or purchased
from a reputable commercial supplier. Stakes should be at least''/z inches in diameter and no
more than 2 inches in diameter, between 2 and 3 feet in length, and living based on the
presence of young buds and green bark. Stakes are cut at an angle on the bottom end and
driven into the ground with a rubber mallet.
2.8.2 Riparian Buffer Re-Vegetation
Riparian buffers are areas of perennial vegetation adjacent to rivers and streams and are
associated with a number of benefits. Buffers are important in nutrient and pollutant removal
in overland flow and may provide for additional subsurface water quality improvement in the
shallow groundwater flow. Buffers provide habitat and travel corridors for wildlife populations
and are an important recreational resource. It is also important to note that riparian buffer areas
help to moderate the quantity and timing of runoff from the upland landscape and contribute to
the groundwater recharge process.
Buffers are most valuable and effective when comprised of a combination of trees, shrubs, and
herbaceous plants. Although width generally increases the capacity of riparian buffers to
improve water quality and provide greater habitat value, even buffers less than 85 feet wide
have been shown to improve water quality and habitat (Budd et al., 1987). An estimated
minimum width of 30 feet is required for creating beneficial forest structure and riparian
habitat.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2_tg
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT
1

In stream and wetland restoration, where buffer width is often limited, the following design
principles apply:
~ Design for sheet flow into and across the riparian buffer area.
• If possible, the width of the riparian buffer area should be proportional to the watershed
area, the slope of the terrain, and the velocity of the flow through the buffer.
' • Forest structure should include understory and canopy species. Canopy species are
particularly important adjacent to waterways to moderate stream temperatures and to
create habitat.
' • Use native plants that are adapted to the site conditions (e.g., climate, soils, and
hydrology). In suburban and urban settings riparian forested buffers do not need to
resemble natural ecosystems to improve water quality and habitat.
'
2.9 Risk Reco nition
g
It is important to recognize the risks inherent in the assessment, design, and construction of
environmental restoration projects. Such endeavors involve the interpretation of existing conditions
to deduce appropriate design criteria, the application of those criteria to design, and, most
importantly, the execution of the construction phase. There are many factors that ultimately
determine the success of these projects and many of the factors are beyond the influence of a
designer. To compile all of the factors is beyond the scope of this report. Further, it is impossible to
consider and to design for all of them. However, it is important to acknowledge those factors such as
daily temperatures, the amount and frequency of rainfall during and following construction,
subsurface conditions, and changes in watershed characteristics, that are beyond the control of the
designer.
Many restoration sites will require some post-construction maintenance, primarily because newly
planted vegetation plays a large role in channel and floodplain stability. Stream restoration projects
are most vulnerable to adjustment and erosion immediately after construction, before vegetation has
had a chance to become fully established. Risk of instability diminishes with each growing season.
Streams and floodplains usually become self-maintaining after the second year of growth. However,
unusually heavy floods often cause erosion, deposition and/or loss of vegetation in even the most
stable channels and forested floodplains.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the
as-built and monitoring reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any
of the conditions listed above, shall be discussed.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-17
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

3.0 WETLAND RESTORATION BACKGROUND SCIENCE AND
METHODS
3.1 The Importance of Wetlands
Wetlands are unique landscape features that can provide numerous benefits to ecosystems. They are
usually delineated based on three components: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic
vegetation. Natural wetlands are generally formed when the geology and hydrology of an area allow
for surface or groundwater to accumulate near the soil surface. Wetlands offer unique habitats for
flora and fauna, remove nutrients and other contaminants, allow for surface water storage, and
recharge groundwater aquifers. Wetlands help to reduce the impacts of floods, improve water quality,
and provide aesthetic and recreational benefits (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; King et al, 2000). The
functions performed by wetlands are site-specific, depending on the location in the ecosystem and
environmental conditions.
Many natural processes or anthropogenic activities can impact wetlands. Wetland restoration seeks to
restore wetland functions to areas that currently possess hydric soils but no longer support wetland
hydrology or vegetation. Wetland restoration design must take into consideration each of the three
components of wetlands (soils, hydrology, and vegetation). The following sections will provide an
overview of the restoration process used by Baker Engineering.
3.2 Hydric soils
Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons (Federal
Register, July 13, 1994). Soil development is directly affected by the hydrology of an area, as well as
by its climate, parent material, time, soil organisms, and topography. Anaerobic conditions result in
specific soil biogeochemical processes, such as the retention of organic matter, the chemical reduction
of nitrogen (N03), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), sulfur (S), and carbon (C). When a soil is saturated,
aerobic microorganisms deplete the remaining oxygen in the system. As oxygen becomes more and
more limiting, anaerobic organisms begin to utilize oxidized soil components that are further reduced
(Mausbach et al, 1994). The first reaction that occurs under anaerobic conditions is the reduction of
nitrate. As the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential continues to decrease, manganese is reduced,
then iron, and finally, sulfur and carbon. The soil pH, temperature, and mineral content are all
important factors in the rates of transformation (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). These reduction
processes result in characteristic hydric soil indicators, such as the retention of organic matter, gleyed
soils, soils with low-matrix chromas, sulfur odor, etc.
There are two main types of hydric soils: organic soils and mineral soils. Organic soils, or Histosols,
are soils that have more than 30 percent organic matter to a depth of 40 centimeters and that develop
under nearly continuous saturation or inundation (Buol et al, 1989). These soils are also called peat
or mucks. All organic soils are considered to be hydric except for Folists, which occur on dry slopes.
Hydric soils with less than 30 percent organic matter are classified as mineral soils. When saturated
or inundated for extended periods of time, mineral soils develop characteristic indicators, which are a
result of depletion of oxygen within the soil (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; US Department of
Agriculture (USDA), 1996a). The reduction of nitrogen, iron, and manganese forms hydric soil
indicators that are referred to as redoximorphic features (Vepraskas, 1996). Redoximorphic features
include, but are not limited to: gleyed soils, soils with low-matrix chroma, redox concentrations,
oxidized rhyzospheres, and iron and manganese concretions.
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-1
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT
Ir1
II

Wetlands are commonly referred to as the kidneys of the landscape (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).
The analogy is applicable because wetlands filter the water that flows through them, trapping
sediment and sequestering nutrients, including carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous (Craft, 2000).
' Wetland soils may be factors in changing the global cycles of nitrogen, sulfur, methane, and carbon
dioxide. Wetland soils help to return excess nitrogen to the atmosphere through denitrification. The
use of fossil fuels has greatly increased the amount of atmospheric sulfate. When these sulfates are
' washed out of the atmosphere into wetlands, they can be reduced and even removed permanently
from the sulfur cycle (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Carbon can be sequestered into wetland soils,
helping to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations.
When hydric soils are converted to agriculture, changes to the soils' chemistry and structure often
occur. Once drained, wetland areas are typically graded smooth to improve surface drainage, a
process that removes much of the sites' natural topographic variability. The organic content of the
' soils often decreases due to the oxidation caused by aeration. Concentrations of major and micro-
nutrients are often increased due to the application of fertilizers. "Loose" soil structures of many

' wetland soils are typically converted to more blocky and massive structures, due to years of
mechanized equipment traffic. Plow pans, or layers of highly compacted soil, are often present
approximately 12 to 18 inches below the surface.
' Assessment of on .site hydric soils begins with collected soil survey data from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Since soil survey data are collected on a regional scale, on-site
investigations begin by evaluating the accuracy of NRCS mapping. Soil borings are conducted across
the restoration site to confirm the presence of hydric soil series and the boundaries. Soil profiles are
' recorded for each location. For hydrologic analysis purposes, measurements of in-situ saturated
hydraulic conductivity are also conducted. Under high water table conditions, the auger hole method,
as described by van Beers (1970), is used. Under lower water table conditions, a constant head
' permeameter (amoozemeter) is used. Measurements are made at representative locations across the
site to determine the variability in hydraulic conductivity across the site.
3.3 Wetland Vegetation
Wetland hydrology and hydric soils create what can be considered a harsh environment for many

' biotic organisms. Since many wetlands are only periodically inundated or saturated, water levels may
not be consistently high or low. Many aquatic plants are not able to flourish when wetlands
temporarily dry, and many xeric species are not able to adapt to conditions that are periodically wet.
Wetland plants have adapted to life in this unpredictable environment.
' Wetland plants, also referred to as hydrophytic vegetation, possess a range of adaptations that enable
them to tolerate or avoid water stress. The three major types of adaptations are morphological,

' physiological, and reproductive. Morphological adaptations enable plants to increase the oxygen
either by growing into aerobic environments or by allowing oxygen to penetrate the anoxic
supply
,
zone (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Various morphological adaptations that vascular plants may
exhibit are buttressed tree trunks, adventitious roots, shallow root systems, floating leaves,
hypertrophied lenticels, and/or multi-trunks.
Physiological adaptations to wetland environments include oxidized rhizospheres, changes in water
uptake, nutrient absorption, and respiration. Some species are capable of transferring oxygen from
the root system into the adjacent soil, producing oxidized rhizospheres surrounding the root. Under
saturated conditions, many hydric plants have no change in their nutrient uptake, whereas flood-
intolerant species lose the ability to control nutrient absorption (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).
Reproductive adaptations allow wetland vegetation to establish and grow within inundated soil
conditions. Some of these adaptations include prolonged seed viability (including production of a
large seed bank), timing of seed production in the non-saturated season, production of buoyant seeds,
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

flood-tolerant species, and germination of seeds while fruit is attached to the tree. These
reproductive, morphological, and hydrophytic adaptations allow wetland plants to flourish in
relatively harsh environments and create communities of plants adapted to wetland conditions.
Plant communities generally exist along a topographic gradient. Hill tops or southwest-facing slopes
tend to have the most xeric vegetation, whereas bottomlands tend to have the most mesic species.
These topographic gradients tend to have plant communities directly associated with them. It should
be noted that some species will be found in both xeric and mesic community types. Plant
communities are based on species assemblages and not on individual species. Hydrophytic
vegetation is defined by the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual as "the sum total of macrophytic
plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation
produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling
influence on the plant species present" (USACE, 1987). According to the manual, species that have
an indicator status of Obligate Wetland Plants (OBL), Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW), or
Facultative Plants (FAC) are considered to be typically adapted for life in wetlands or anaerobic soil
conditions. Typically, a wetland plant community contains more than 50 percent of the dominant
species as OBL, FACW, or FAC species.
When restoring wetlands, Baker Engineering utilizes native plants to approximate the community that
would naturally live within that physiographic community type. Species selection is based on
reference wetland vegetation analyses, professional knowledge of availability and viability of specific
plants, and expected post-restoration hydrologic conditions. Special emphasis is placed on re-
creating acommunity type that is adapted to the conditions of the restoration site. The re-creation is
accomplished by planting hard mast tress, lightly-seeded trees, and various understory or midcanopy,
woody species. The utilization of hard mast species creates additional wildlife food sources and
allows for late, successional species to become established. The utilization of lightly-seeding species
allows for the faster development of wildlife cover and habitat. The planting of understory species
helps to ensure a more diverse plant community that will provide long-term benefits to wildlife.
3.4 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is often sited as the primary driving force influencing wetland development,
function, and persistence (Gosselink and Turner, 1978; Sharitz et al., 1990) and also one of the
hardest variables to assess and predict accurately. Hydrology drives the development of hydric soil
characteristics, water and soil chemistry, and hydrophytic plant communities. Most functions
commonly attributed to wetlands (water filtering, nutrient cycling, sediment trapping, ecosystem
diversity, etc.) are a direct result of the hydrologic characteristics of wetland systems. For these
reasons, Baker Engineering places significant emphasis on the correct assessment of wetland
hydrologic conditions, under both pre- and post-restoration conditions.
Assessment of wetland hydrology begins by touring the project site to observe hydrologic conditions.
When possible, site tours are conducted during dry times (several weeks following the last rainfall
event) and wet times (immediately following large rainfall events). Evaluation of site conditions
during dry periods provides valuable evidence about existing site function and indicates the
hydrologic variability across the site. Wetland hydrology assessments during dry periods focus on the
following key questions:
1. Are there areas that are currently exhibiting wetland hydrology? These areas require special
attention and will likely be subject to regulatory permit conditions.
2. Where are the areas of the site that appear especially dry? These areas will likely require the
greatest attention to restore wetland hydrology.
3. What are the sources of water on the site that can be manipulated during restoration?
Sources may include groundwater discharge, run-off, surface water flows, and stream flows.
Various design techniques are available for storing more water within the restoration site to
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

' increase wetness. The primary source of water available will directly affect the type of
design that will be most effective at restoring wetland hydrology.
' Evaluation during wet periods allows for observations regarding runoff patterns, areas of ponding and
water storage, flow routing, and surface flow interactions. Wetland hydrology assessments during
wet periods focus on the following key questions:
' 1. How is runoff currently being rooted across the site? Most degraded sites have been
topographically manipulated to direct runoff to a drainage outlet as quickly as possible.
Restoration must reduce the loss of water from the site and restore water storage functions of
' natural wetland sites.
2. Are there any surface water sotcrces that could be ttsed in the restoration design? Sources
may include ephemeral and intermittent ditches, drainage swales, and overland flow.
3. If steam flow or overbank flow is believed to have once contributed to wetland hydrology, can
' these sources be restored? Evaluation of stream channels primarily involves the evaluation of
bankfull stage in relation to existing bank heights, whether streambed elevations can be
' altered, and hydrologic trespass.
When necessary for accurate assessment of existing hydrologic conditions, monitoring wells are
installed to document local water table conditions. Wells are installed to a depth of approximately 40
inches, following the procedures outlined under USACE's Wetland Research Program (WRP)
Technical Note ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 (July, 2000). Monitoring wells are typically installed as
combinations of automated and manually-read wells. Automated wells are installed in areas where
precise measurement of hydrologic conditions is necessary. Such areas may include areas near
' drainage features, where the prediction of the drainage effect is needed, areas where the hydrologic
functioning is difficult to predict through visual assessments, and areas where the hydrologic status of
an area is questionable (i.e., does wetland hydrology exist?). Manually-read wells are typically read
' on a monthly basis and are used to supplement the data collected with automated wells. Manual wells
are typically installed in areas where the hydrologic status is predictable based on visual assessments,
but measured data will allow for more conclusive evaluation of pre- and post-restoration conditions.
' Manual wells, installed as piezometers, can also be installed in nests to determine the direction of
groundwater movement.
Accurate site mapping is essential to the evaluation of site hydrology and restoration design.
' Topographic maps of the site are produced using either ground or aerial survey methods. Digital
elevation models (DEMs) are developed that include topographic contours (typically 1.0 foot

' contours or less), locations of all drainage features and outlets, structures, existing wetland areas, and
monitoring well locations. DEMs are used to visually depict the hydrologic features of the site,
develop hydrologic model inputs, and evaluate proposed restoration practices.
3.5 Wetland Hydrologic Analyses
Hydrology data collected at the proposed restoration site is essential for documenting the hydrologic
conditions of the site at the time of collection; however, data collected over several months to a year
are limited for evaluating the site's long-term performance under varying rainfall and climatic
conditions. Existing condition data alone also provides little insight into how the site will perform

' once restoration activities are completed. For these reasons, hydrologic modeling is often used to
further evaluate the potential restoration site.
The most common hydrologic model used by Baker Engineering to evaluate wetland hydrology is
DRAINMOD (version 5.1). DRAINMOD has been identified as an approved hydrologic tool for
' assessing wetland hydrology by the NRCS (1997). DRAINMOD was developed by NC State
University for the study and design of water management systems on poorly-drained, shallow water
table soils. A combination of methods is used in the model to simulate infiltration, drainage, surface
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-4
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

runoff, evapotranspiration, and seepage processes on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis.
DRAINMOD was modified by Skaggs et al., (1991) for application to wetland determinations by the
addition of a counter that calculates the number of times the water table rises above a specified depth
and remains there for a given period during the growing season. For more information on
DRAINMOD and its application to high water table soils, review Skaggs (1980).
DRAINMOD is used to develop hydrologic simulation models to represent conditions at a variety of
locations across the proposed restoration area. Model parameters are selected based on field
measurements and professional judgment about site conditions. Rainfall and air temperature
information are collected from the nearest automated weather station. If automated weather stations
are too far away, automated rain gauges may be installed on site. Soil parameters are determined
from on-site evaluations of soil stratification and in-situ-measured hydraulic conductivity.
Measured field parameters are entered into the model, and initial model simulations are compared
with observed data collected from monitoring wells. To calibrate the model, parameters not
measured in the field are adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and
geomorphic conditions, until model simulations most closely match observed well data.
It is important to note that DRAINMOD uses simplifying assumptions to estimate water table depths.
When applied to a site with complex hydrologic processes, the model can be used to assess overall
trends and relationships but is unlikely to offer exact predictions of water table hydrology.
Calibration of the model is aimed at matching the relative response of water table drawdown and the
overall depth that the water table reaches at different times during the year. Once these objectives are
met, the model is assumed to adequately reflect the hydrologic response of the site to varying
precipitation and climatic events.
Once model simulations are developed that reflect the existing conditions of the site, other
simulations may be developed to represent the hydrology of the site after restoration practices have
been implemented. Inputs that describe the drainage features of the site are altered to represent the
restoration conditions. Inputs typically include: drainage feature spacing (increased due to the
removal of ditches), drainage feature depth (typically decreased when restoring an associated stream
and raising the streambed or filling and plugging drainage ditches), surface storage (increased through
scarification practices), and crop inputs (conversion to trees instead of row crops). Model simulations
are used to predict the changes in water table hydrology as a result of the proposed restoration
practices.
DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and develops summaries that describe the
loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. To compare long-term results, the
amounts of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the existing
condition can be compared with simulations run for the proposed restoration practices. Infiltration
represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil and is lost via drainage or runoff.
Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to the
drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches the
drainage ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation
of water from the soil or through the transpiration of plants. Comparisons may include average
annual amounts, annual maximums and minimums, and even day-to-day comparisons of hourly water
table hydrographs.
3.6 Assessment of Existing Wetland Areas
Conditions across a potential restoration site will often vary dramatically. While much of the site
may be targeted for restoration due to lack of wetland hydrology and functions, there may be areas of
the site that still support wetland hydrology and wetland functions to some degree. These areas
require special consideration as part of a proposed restoration design.
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-5
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

The proposed project area is reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent
federal regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" [33 CFR
328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)]. Within the project area, locations that display one or more wetland
components are reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands using hydrophytic vegetation,
permanent or periodic inundation or saturation, and hydric soils.
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NRCS Soil Surveys,
and USGS Quadrangle maps, a pedestrian survey of the project area is made to investigate suspect
areas and to delineate all wetlands and waters of the U.S. The project area is examined utilizing the
jurisdictional definition detailed in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual. Supplementary
information to further support wetland determinations is found in the National List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands: Soictheast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
Baker Engineering collects data on the three wetland components and completes USACE wetland
determination field sheets for each identified wetland area. These sheets document the wetland
conditions that were observed on-site, including the presence of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The wetland systems are also classified using the Classification
of the Natccral Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, by Schafale and Weakley
(1990). This classification system includes descriptions of all the natural community types in North
Carolina (112 types and subtypes), including vegetation, soils, physical environment, dynamics,
distinguishing features, examples, and associated rare plants. Wetlands are also classified using the
Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wetlands (HGM) by Brinson (1993). Since HGM subtypes are
still being developed for North Carolina, HGM principles are used to describe the geomorphic setting,
water sources, hydrodynamics, and functioning of identified wetland systems.
Where jurisdictional wetlands are identified, the wetland boundary is flagged with marking tape, at
intervals of 25 to 50 feet. Baker Engineering follows the USACE Wilmington District procedures for
survey and recordation of wetland boundaries. Surveys of wetland boundaries are conducted with
either sub-meter accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment or total station survey
equipment. A professional land surveyor (PLS) oversees any detailed land surveys. Wetland
drawings are prepared using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or computer aided design
and drafting (CADD) applications and submitted to USACE and the NCDWQ for jurisdictional
determination and verification when required.
3.7 Reference Wetlands
Reference wetlands are natural wetland systems that are similar in function and geomorphic setting to
the proposed restoration site. Reference wetlands can be used as templates for the proposed
restoration design. Data collected from reference wetland sites, including vegetation communities,
hydrologic characteristics, and topographic features, can provide valuable information for the
evaluation of proposed restoration practices. Analysis of the vegetation communities within the
reference site is used as a tool for developing the planting plan for the restoration site. Reference
wetlands can also be used for comparison purposes to determine whether the restored wetland site is
on a trajectory for success during the required monitoring period.
The reference wetland site should be located as close to the proposed restoration site as possible. The
reference wetland should be of the same hydrogeomorphic classification as the proposed restoration
site, and generally located within the same climatic, physiographic, and ecological region. Soil
characteristics should closely match those of the proposed restoration site. Fully functioning wetland
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-6
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

systems appropriate for reference sites may be difficult to locate in some areas; as a result, reference
sites are often located some distance from the restoration site.
Once a potential reference site is located, Baker Engineering secures landowner permission to further
evaluate the area as a potential reference site. On-site evaluations are similar to those previously
described for jurisdictional wetland areas on restoration sites and include the documentation of
vegetation communities, soil series, and visual observations regarding wetland hydrology. USACE
wetland determination field sheets are completed for the reference wetland.
If the reference site is found to be appropriate for the restoration project, several groundwater wells
are installed across the reference site to capture the range of hydrologic conditions. Automated and
manual wells are generally installed in combination, with automated wells installed at the wettest and
driest extremes of conditions and manual wells installed in more average conditions. This approach
allows for accurate documentation of the hydrologic range of conditions across the site. Well data are
downloaded monthly throughout the required monitoring period.
3.8 Wetland Restoration Techniques
Restoration techniques will vary by the type of wetland to be restored and the goals of the restoration.
The purpose of this section is to describe some of the techniques that Baker Engineering commonly
uses to restore lost functions and values on wetland restoration sites.
3.8.1 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Hydrology
The restoration of appropriate hydrology is the cornerstone of any wetland restoration project.
Without the appropriate hydrology, all other wetland functions will be compromised. Several
commonly used techniques are described below.
Restoration of Stream Channels -Many wetland restoration sites will contain stream channels
that have been channelized and straightened. Channelization of streams lowers the baseflow
water elevation in the channel, lowers the adjacent water table, increases the loss of water from
the site through both increased surface and subsurface drainage, and decreases the frequency
and severity of flooding events on adjacent lands.
The restoration of stream channels to restore wetland hydrology involves raising the streambed
elevation such that the stream is reconnected to the abandoned hydric floodplain (i.e.,
agricultural fields). This process raises the local water table by raising the elevation of the
drainage outlet, and restores a natural flooding regime to the site. For more information on
stream restoration practices, see Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5.
Filling and Blocking of Drainage Features -Drainage features may include ditches, channels,
swales, and subsurface drains. Ditches are the most common drainage feature encountered on
agricultural sites. Ditches are generally constructed on parallel spacings that are based on the
drainage characteristics of the soils. Ditches and subsurface drains provide an outlet for
subsurface drainage that is often several feet lower than the surrounding ground elevation. The
effect is that groundwater moves toward the ditches where it is discharged, thus lowering the
water table elevation.
Filling and blocking of drainage features removes the drainage effect they provide. The choice
between partially blocking and completely filling the drainage features is primarily driven by
the amount of soil that must be disposed of during construction. When there is an excess of soil
to be disposed of, ditches and swales are completely filled. When the quantity of soil for
disposal is limited, ditches and swales are blocked by partially filling, or plugging, the features
at specific locations. Plugs are at least 50 to 100 feet in length, and soil material placed for the
plugs is compacted with heavy equipment, used on site during construction. The actual length
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-7
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

' d fill
of the plugs will be based on the predicted hydraulic conductivity of the compacte
material. The spacing between plugs will vary, depending on the slope of the site and the
' amount of soil for disposal.
Once ditches have been filled in or plugged, additional fill material will be piled over the filled
ditch to a height of no more than six inches, to allow for subsidence and settling of the fill over
' time. Without additional material, settling of the fill could cause the drainage feature to
partially reform over time and affect the hydrology of the site.
Subsurface drains, such as tiles and plastic pipe, are located and excavated so that they no
' longer function. Once drains have been removed, excavated soil material is placed back in the
excavated trench and compacted.
' Run-off Diversions - In some areas, it is beneficial to construct shallow diversions and swales
to direct surface water run-off into the site. This practice is commonly used when restoration
areas are adjacent to long hill slopes, where significant amounts of run-off may be produced
during large rain events. The diversions are used to direct the run-off to areas of the restoration
' site where the additional water inputs are most needed.
Shallow D~ressions and Floodplain Pools - To increase the diversity of hydrologic conditions
across the site, shallow depressions and floodplain pools can be excavated or created by leaving
' sections of ditches only partially filled in certain areas. The depressions are constructed to
mimic the function of natural sloughs and pools commonly found across many wetland
' ecosystems. These areas provide increased surface storage of precipitation and floodwaters,
improve biotic diversity, and provide breeding areas for a number of amphibian and reptile
species.
Depressions and pools are generally constructed to be less than one foot deep. The size of
' depressions can vary, depending on the site; however, depressions 200 feet by 100 feet are
typical of many sites. The depressions are designed to hold water for extended periods, ranging
1 from several weeks to many months. For many amphibian species, it is crucial that the pools
dry up completely during the late summer months. These ephemeral pools are typically
constructed in higher elevation areas away from the active stream channel. For other species,
pools that retain some degree of ponded water throughout the year are most beneficial. These
' features, which represent backwater sloughs, oxbow ponds, and floodplain pools, are typically
constructed near the active stream channel, where the high water table conditions and frequent
flooding will maintain water levels in the pools.
' Restoration of Microtopography - In order to improve drainage and increase agricultural
production, farmed wetland soils are often graded to a smooth surface and crowned to enhance
run-off. Microtopography contributes to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity and
' patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956; Bratton, 1976; Ehrnfeld, 1995).
The introduction of microtopography also increases surface storage on the site, reducing run-off
and erosion and enhancing infiltration.
Microtopography is established on the restored site after design grades have been achieved,
using the procedures described by Schemer (2000). The equipment should leave a furrow
approximately seven feet wide and six inches deep, and a corresponding mound approximately
seven feet wide and six inches high. The equipment should be run in parallel lines
approximately 25 feet apart, and then over the same area in "figure 8" patterns to create a
random pattern of interconnected and isolated furrows and ridges, as shown in Figure 3.1.
' The actual distance between furrows and mounds and the height of the mounds can~be adjusted
depending on the targeted amount of surface storage to be restored.

BAKER ENGINEERING 3-8
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Figure 3.1
Typical Pattern of Restored Wetland Microtopography (Scherrer, 2000).
0
.~
{ u~ ~--
3.8.2 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Soils
Soil Scarification and Tillage -Disking and tillage practices commonly used in agriculture can
be used to break the plow pan and reduce compaction of the soil caused by years of agricultural
production. Tillage practices will also be used to remove any field crowns, restoring a more
natural topography to the site. When necessary, rippers will be used to till to depths of 12 to 18
inches to break any compacted pan layers.
Soil Amendments -Samples of top soil from the site can be collected and tested to determine
soil fertility and chemical properties. If necessary, soil amendments (fertilizer, lime, etc.) will
be applied at rates appropriate for the target vegetation. For land which has been in agricultural
production for a number of years, it is likely that soil fertility will be high and amendments will
not be necessary.
3.8.3 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Vegetation
Tree Planting- Techniques -Under typical conditions, bare-root tree species will be planted
within all areas of the site conservation easement. Bare-root vegetation is typically planted at a
target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8 by 8 foot grid. Experience has shown this density
to be favorable for overall survival of at least 320 planted stems at the end of 5 years, which is a
common success criterion for mitigation sites. Planting of bare-root trees is conducted during
the dormant season, which lasts from late November to early March for most of the state.
Species selection is based on reference wetland vegetation analyses, professional knowledge of
availability and viability of specific plants, and expected post-restoration hydrologic conditions.
Species selection for revegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Tree
species selected for restoration will generally range from weakly tolerant to tolerant of
flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is
saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately tolerant species are able to
survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the growing season.
Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for
extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
BAKER ENGINEERING 3_g
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

' Observations are made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to
be planted. Planting zones are determined based on these assessments, and planted species will
' be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting
area.
When feasible, trees are transported to the site from the nursery and stored on-site in a
refrigerated cooler prior to planting. If on-site refrigeration is not available, trees are planted
within two days of being transported to the site. Soils across the site are sufficiently disked and
loosened prior to planting. Trees are planted by manual labor, using a dibble bar, mattock,
' planting bar, or other similar method. Planting holes for the trees are made sufficiently deep to
allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil is loosely compacted around
trees once they have been planted to prevent them from drying out.
Permanent Seed Mixtures -Permanent seed mixtures are applied to all disturbed areas of the
project site. Different mixtures may be specified for different areas of the site, depending on
the wetness and degree of stabilization required at the site. Mixtures will also include
' temporary seeding to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders and rapid
ground cover following application. Temporary seeding is applied to all disturbed areas of the
site that are susceptible to erosion, including constructed streambanks, access roads, side-
' slopes, spoil piles, etc.
3.9 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream and Wetland Restoration
' A stream and its wetland floodplain (referred to here as the riparian area) comprise a dynamic
environment where the floodplain, wetland areas, channel, and bedform evolve through natural
processes. Weather and hydraulic processes erode, transport, sort, and deposit alluvial materials
throughout the riparian system. The size and flow of a stream are directly related to its watershed
area. Other factors that affect channel size and stream flow are geology, land use, soil types,
topography, and climate. The morphology, or size and shape, of the channel reflects all of these
factors (Leopold et al., 1992; Knighton, 1998). The size and flow of the stream channel also
' influence the size and functioning of wetland areas adjacent to the channel. The result is a dynamic
equilibrium in which the stream maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile over time, and adjacent
wetland areas evolve with the meandering of the stream across its floodplain. Land use changes in
' the watershed, including increases in imperviousness, removal of riparian vegetation, and drainage of
adjacent wetlands can upset this balance. Anew equilibrium may eventually result, but not before
large adjustments in channel form can occur, such as extreme bank erosion or incision (Lane, 1955;
Schumm, 1960). These adjustments in channel form often have negative effects on associated
wetland areas, as processes of channel incision increase drainage of adjacent areas. By understanding
and applying the processes of riparian form and function to stream and wetland restoration projects, a
' self-sustaining riparian system can be designed and constructed that maximizes ecosystem function
and potential.
' In riparian systems, wetland functions cannot be restored without also addressing the restoration of
stream functions; therefore, it is crucial that the degraded stream system be restored to the appropriate
dimension, pattern, and profile while allowing the stream access to the abandoned floodplain and
associated wetland areas. In this way, the stream becomes one of the primary sources of water and
' nutrient inputs to the wetland system. As such, the development of stream and wetland design
components becomes an iterative process.
1

BAKER ENGINEERING 3-10
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

4.0 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT RESULTS
4.1 Watershed Delineation
The Duke Swamp Restoration Project is located in Gates County, approximately nine miles northeast
of the city limits of Gatesville. The area lies within cataloging unit 03010203, and NCDENR sub-
basin 03-01-01 of the Chowan River Basin (Exhibit 1.1).
The watershed areas for the project reaches were determined by delineating watersheds on the USGS
7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. The drainage areas for the site were difficult to determine due to
level of altered drainage patterns and lack .of topographic relief in the area. The UTl drainage area at
the outlet of the project area is estimated to be approximately 3.0 square miles and the UT2 drainage
area is approximately 0.03 square mile. Exhibit 1.3 shows the watershed boundaries for the project.
4.2 Surface Water Classification
NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes,
which define the best uses to be protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking
water supply). These classifications carry with them an associated set of water quality standards to
protect those uses. All surface waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C
(fishable/swimmable) waters. The other primary classifications provide additional levels of
protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water supplies (WS). Class C
waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Classifications and their associated
protection rules may also be designed to protect the free flowing nature of a stream or other special
characteristics.
The project will involve two sections of unnamed tributaries (UT1 &UT2) to Duke Swamp, which
flow into Lassiter Swamp. Duke Swamp, in this area, is classified as "C" waters, indicating that the
streams are considered to support aquatic life and secondary recreational uses. These waters also
have a nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) designation, meaning that such waters are subject to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDENR, 2006). Restoration of the site would
reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients being discharged into the system, improving the overall
water quality in Duke and Lassiter Swamps.
4.3 Geology
The Duke Swamp Site is located in central Gates County in the Coastal Plain physiographic region of
North Carolina. The underlying geology of the project area is within the Yorktown and Duplin
formations. The Yorktown formation consists of fossiliferous clay and varying amounts of bluish
gray fine-grained sand, shell material. The Duplin formation consists of medium to course grained
bluish gray shelly sand, sandy marl, and limestone (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological
Survey, 1998).
4.4 Land Use
The land uses within the project area consist of row crop agriculture and forest. The watershed is
mostly rural with land uses that include crop agriculture, forested areas and some residential property.
Kellogg Fork Road (SR1320), a paved roadway, bounds the project site on the upstream portion. An
unpaved farm road crosses the UTla with a culvert.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-~
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT '

4.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
' Some populations of plants and animals are declining, either as a result of natural forces or difficulty
in competing with humans for resources. Plants and animals with a federal classification of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
' Federally classified species listed for Gates County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result
of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
u
~'.

1

1

J
Federally protected species listed as occurring in Gates County by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) as of August 15, 2006, are listed in Table 4.1. A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements of these species follows the table, along with a conclusion
regarding potential project impact.
Letters were sent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) in July 2006, requesting each agency comment on the proposed project.
USFWS has no comments on the proposed project. Correspondence with these resource agencies was
previously provided to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
Table 4.1
Species Under Federal Protection in Gates County
~ 1 '

~ ~
Vertebrates
Alligatoridae Alligator American T (S/A) 6-4-1987 T No /No Effect
mississippieniss Alligator
Picidae Picoides Red-cockaded E 10-13-1970 E No /No Effect
borealis woodpecker
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or
fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
S/A Threatened due to similar appearance
4.5.1 Federally Protected Species

1

4.5.1.1 Vertebrates
American Alligator
Alligators are large, lizard-like reptiles with broadly rounded snouts. Adults are 6 to 12
feet long and can reach lengths of 15 feet or more. They are blackish in appearance, but
have pale crossbands on the back and vertical markings on the sides. Alligators inhabit
rivers, swamps, estuaries, lakes, and marshes throughout the southeastern United States,
from North Carolina to Texas.
BAKER ENGINEERING

' 4-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

A Biological Conclusion is not required, since Threatened Due to Similarity of
Appearance [T (S/A)] species are not afforded full protection under the ESA; however,
there is no suitable habitat present within the project boundaries, and the project is not
expected to have any impact on this species.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and
west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
and Missouri. The red-cockaded woodpecker is now found only in coastal states of its
historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North
Carolina moderate populations occur in the Sand Hills and southern Coastal Plain. The
few populations found in the Piedmont and northern Coastal Plain are believed to be
relics of former populations.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is approximately eight inches long with a wingspan of 14
inches. Plumage includes black and white horizontal stripes on its back, with white
cheeks and under parts. Its flanks are streaked black. The cap and stripe on the throat
and side of neck are black, with males having a small red spot on each side of the cap.
Eggs are laid from April through June. Maximum clutch size is seven eggs with an
average of three to five.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and 120
years old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. Dense stands are avoided.
A forested stand must contain at least 50 percent pine, lack a thick understory, and be
contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
These birds forage in pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees
that are 10 inches or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded
woodpecker is up to 500 acres. The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites. While other woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees where the wood is rotten
and soft, the red-cockaded woodpecker is the only one that excavates cavities exclusively
in living pine trees. The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often
suffer from a fungus called red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk,
causing the inner wood to become soft. Cavities generally take one to three years to
excavate. The red-cockaded woodpecker feeds mainly on beetles, ants, roaches,
caterpillars, wood-boring insects and spiders, and occasionally fruits and berries.
Mature pinewoods and pocosin species are not present in the immediate area of the
proposed project. It is concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
4.5.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 4.2 includes FSC species listed for
Gates County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed
species does not apply to NCDENR EEP activities.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Table 4.2
Federal Species of Concern in Gates County
Ammodramus henslowii susurrans Eastern Henslow's sparrow FSC SR
Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis FSC SC
Dendroica virens waynei Black-throated green
warbler FSC SR
Corynorhinus rafrnesquii macrotis Rafinesque's big-eared bat FSC T
Ludwigia ravenii Raven's seedbox FSC SR-T
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice FSC SR-T
Trillium pusillum var. virginianum Virginia least trillium FSC E
Sagittaria weatherbiana Grassleaf arrowhead FSC SR-T
4.6 Cultural Resources
Baker Engineering sent a letter on July 31, 2006 requesting that the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) review the potential for cultural resources in the vicinity of the Duke
Swamp restoration site. A response letter dated August 23, 2006 indicated that SHPO had reviewed
the proposed project and was not aware of any historic resources which would be affected by the
project. A copy of the SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix A.
4.7 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
Baker Engineering obtained an EDR Transaction Screen Map Report, dated August 2, 2006, that
identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites within the distance required by the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction Screen Process (E 1528). The
overall environmental risk for this site was determined to be low. Environmental sites, including
Superfund (National Priorities List [NPL]); hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities;
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System
(CERCLIS); suspect state hazardous waste, solid waste, or landfill facilities; or leaking underground
storage tanks were not identified by the report in the proposed project area. During field data
collection, there was no evidence of these sites in the proposed project vicinity. A copy of the EDR
Report is included in Appendix B.
4.8 Potential Constraints
Baker Engineering assessed the Duke Swamp project site in regards to potential fatal flaws and site
constraints. No fatal flaws have been identified during project design development.
4.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
Baker Engineering has entered into an agreement for the acquisition of a perpetual conservation
easement with the landowners of the Duke Swamp Tributary Project. The conservation
easement plat and documents have been reviewed and approved by the State Property Office.
At the publication of this report, the required signatures have been obtained from the
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-4
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

landowners and the easement documents were recorded at the Gates County courthouse on
April 2, 2007. Copies of the recorded conservation easement deeds are located in Appendix A.
4.8.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Panels 370103-0134B and 370103-O150B classify the Duke Swamp project site as a Zone A
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Lands classified as Zone A-SFHA are subject to
inundation during the occurrence of 1% annual chance (100-year) flow. Flood flows may reach
the area either from the upstream contributing watershed or due to backwater flooding from
downstream water bodies. Detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed for areas
classified as Zone-A, and base flood (100-year) elevations for these areas have not been
determined by FEMA.
One of the factors that affect the hydrology of the Duke Swamp project site is its downstream
boundary condition. A defined drainage channel approximately 4 feet deep runs through the
center of the site. At the downstream end of the site, the invert of the drainage channel rises to
meet the existing floodplain (overbank) elevation, transitioning into the swamp and wetland
area of the Duke Swamp stream. This downstream condition causes base flow levels through
the Duke Swamp site to be regulated by the highest terrain elevation between the upstream area
of the site where there is a defined channel and the area downstream of the site that forms part
of the Duke Swamp wetland area. Flood stages through the site occurring during low flows will
be defined by the magnitude of discharge received from the upstream contributing watershed.
However, during high flows the entire site will be flooded with backwater from the Duke
Swamp wetland area immediately downstream, and flood levels will be defined by downstream
flood elevations.
A hydraulic model was constructed within the HEC-RAS software environment to study flow
behavior through the site under the 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year flows. For this hydraulic model,
it was required to set a downstream boundary flood elevation which the model would use as
datum to perform its calculations. For this site, the downstream boundary flood elevation would
be the water surface elevation at the highest point of the downstream end of the site, which is
equivalent to the flood elevations at the downstream Duke Swamp stream and swamp/wetland
area. However, since flood levels have not been determined by FEMA for the Duke Swamp
stream and wetland area, information on flood elevations for the Duke Swamp area for the
various flows under study were not available.
Lacking specific flood elevations to set as the hydraulic model's downstream boundary
condition, the model was run numerous times, varying the downstream boundary flood
elevation from the minimum expected during dry periods (terrain elevation of the highest point
at the downstream end of the site) to the highest expected during the 100-year flood (terrain
elevation enclosing the limits of the 100-year floodable area shown in the FEMA FIRM map;
this elevation is at least 3 feet above floodplain level at the downstream Duke Swamp area).
The model was run for the 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year flows, and for each flow magnitude the
hydraulic simulation was repeated varying the downstream boundary elevation increments of
0.25 ft. This procedure was done for both existing and proposed site conditions.
The results from this hydraulic analysis showed that for the entire range of boundary conditions
tested, construction of the proposed stream restoration project will not increase flood levels
upstream nor downstream of the site, for any of the 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year flows.
No specific base flood elevations have been determined for Zone A areas.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-5
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

4.8.3 Site Access
The site is connected to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) right of way
(ROW) (SR 1320) and a farm road which can be accessed for construction and post-restoration
monitoring.
4.8.4 Utilities
The site has an underground fiber optic line that runs along the NCDOT ROW (SR 1320) on
the project side but will not impact the design/construction and will be avoided.
4.8.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Rare, threatened, and endangered species occurrences were examined as part of the existing
conditions survey (Section 4.6). It is anticipated that no rare, threatened, or endangered species
will be affected by this project.
4.8.6 Cultural Resources
No known cultural or archaeological sites are recorded within the property boundary. It is
anticipated that this project will have no impact on such sites.
4.8.7 Farm Operations
' The Duke Swamp Site Parcel is actively used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the project
must not interfere with the operational needs of the farm. The final project design will need to
incorporate one stream crossing and field access.
4.8.8 Soils
Soils have been investigated and no constraints or fatal flaws were identified.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-6
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

5.0 EXISTING WETLAND CONDITIONS
5.1 Wetland Assessment Results
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States
in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent
federal regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR
328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)). The areas in the project area that displayed one or more wetland
characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics
included:
1. Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
2. Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation.
3. Hydric soils.
5.1.1 Wetland Impacts
Under existing conditions, the field areas proposed for wetland restoration are drained by a
series of lateral ditches, drain tiles, and excavated ponds that provide conditions favorable for
agricultural production. Most wetland areas that once existed on the site were drained and
manipulated to promote agricultural uses. Approximately 3,740 LF of stream were channelized
within the project area to improve surface and subsurface drainage and to decrease flooding.
As a result, the open field areas of the site have been designated "prior-converted," or PC, by
the NRCS (Exhibit 5.1).
5.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings
The adjacent areas on both sides of UT1a have been cleared of woody vegetation along the
entire reach. The stream bank areas of UTla are periodically maintained by mowing. A small
amount of wooded buffer is present at the downstream end along reach UT1b but the channel is
overly wide with side cast spoil present on both sides. The site agricultural areas proposed for
restoration are drained and mapped primarily as "A" list hydric soils (Nawney series). Nawney
soils are classified as poorly drained soils that formed in loamy fluvial sediments. The site is
mapped as PC wetlands by the NRCS.
Based on available map sources (U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle;
USDA, NRCS Soils Survey for Gates County; and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory), the
ditched channel (UTl) and delineated wetlands within the project area are depicted on Exhibit
5.1. Specific field review by Baker wetland scientists on November 21, 2006 and GIS mapping
developed for the project (2-foot Topographic Contours; 2005 Color Aerial Photography;
Exhibit 5.1) confirmed that current jurisdiction, per the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual, is limited to the ditched channel and vegetated banks, excavated ponds (open water
and vegetated littoral zones), and several small wet pockets within the field areas. Former
wetlands adjacent to the stream channel no longer support hydrophytic vegetation and have
been designated PC by the NRCS. Jurisdictional waters were delineated in the field using
hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with sub-meter accuracy. The flagged
jurisdictional boundaries are depicted on Exhibit 5.1.
BAKER ENGINEERING 5_~
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

As a result of the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Rapanos and United States v.
Carabell, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are developing a
policy that will clarify the methods that describe and document jurisdictional determinations.
This policy may impact jurisdictional determinations, in cases where there are intermittent or
ephemeral streams or wetlands adjacent to intermittent, ephemeral or perennial streams. In
light of the pending release of formal guidance on this issue, when there are these types of
waters present on a site, the USACE Wilmington District will not issue a final determination
until the final or additional interim guidance is issued by headquarters. USACE has not been
given a timeframe for the issuance of any formal guidance. The Wilmington District will
continue to make jurisdictional determinations, based on existing procedures, for waters not
affected by the rulings. These include:

ii

• Traditional navigable waters (Section 10);
• Isolated, non-navigable, intrastate (SWANCC);
• Wetlands or waters abutting Section 10 waters; and
• Natural tributaries that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing,
bodies of water such as streams and rivers.
The pending guidance affects procedures for processing stand-alone jurisdictional
determinations. The Wilmington District is continuing to process and issue permits without
delay. If forthcoming guidance should change USACE jurisdiction, then permit holders can
request a revised jurisdictional determination; and corresponding permit requirements, such as
mitigation, may be re-visited.
5.2 Soils
Soils types at the site were evaluated using NRCS Soil Survey data for Gates County (USDA 1996b),
along with on-site evaluations to verify areas of hydric soil. A map depicting the boundaries of each
NRCS soil type is presented in Exhibit 5.2. The majority of the site is mapped as the Nawney Series.
The Nawney series is a Hydric "A" soil and consists of poorly drained soils that formed in loamy
fluvial sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Nawney soils are typically found on flood plains
throughout Gates County and are frequently flooded for long periods. Nawney soils have moderate
water capacity and permeability.
Table 5.1
Project Soil Types and Descriptions (from Gates County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, 1996)
~ ~ 1~ ~
Nawney Flood plains A Poorly drained soils that formed in loamy fluvial sediments.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent with moderate water capacity
and permeability
Noboco Broad smooth - Well drained soil with slopes from 0 to 2 percent. Permeability
upland areas and water capacity are moderate.
Goldsboro Smooth ridges - Moderately well drained. Permeability and water capacity is
moderate with slopes from 0 to 3 percent.
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

The Noboco, and Goldsboro series are mapped on small areas along the boundary of the site. Noboco
soil is found on the southern boundary of the project. These soils are well drained and have a
moderate permeability and available water capacity. They are typically found on broad smooth
upland areas. Goldsboro soils are found in the northeast section of the project boundary. This is a
moderately well drained soil with moderate permeability and water capacity. Noboco and Goldsboro
soils are located on higher elevation areas of the site outside the boundaries of the proposed wetland
restoration areas.
While on-site investigations indicated variations in soil profile, all areas proposed for restoration were
found to exhibit hydric indicators. Typical hydric indicators included a gleyed and a reduced matrix
in the sub-soil, indicating that the soils were formed under reduced conditions and that the site once
functioned as a wetland system.
5.3 Climatic Conditions
The average growing season (defined as the period in which temperatures are maintained above 28
degrees Fahrenheit under average conditions) for Gates County is 232 days, beginning on March 25
and ending November 11. Gates County has an average annual rainfall of 50.39 inches (NRCS,
1996). In much of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, approximately 36 inches of water are lost to
evapotranspiration during an average year (Evans and Skaggs, 1985). Since average rainfall exceeds
average evapotranspiration losses, the Coastal Plain experiences a moisture excess during most years.
Excess water leaves a site by groundwater flow, runoff, channelized surface flow, or deep seepage.
Annual losses due to deep seepage, or percolation of water to confined aquifer systems, are typically
less than one inch of water for most Coastal Plain areas and are not a significant loss pathway for
excess water. Although groundwater flow can be significant in some systems, most excess water is
lost via surface and shallow subsurface flow.
Monthly precipitation amounts observed from January through December 2006 are compared with
Gates County WETS table average monthly rainfall, in Table 5.2. Precipitation data collected during
the monitoring period from August 2006 through January 2007 indicate that slightly lower than
average rainfall occurred, however, monthly variability was high. Rainfall for the beginning of the
monitoring period was lower than average, yet higher than average rainfall occurred during
November at the end of the growing season.
Table 5.2
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-Term Averages
' ~ ~i ~
Jan-06 2.28 4.49 -2.21
Feb-06 1.33 4.26 -2.93
Mar-06 0.64 4.71 -4.07
Apr-06 2.91 3.52 -0.61
May-06 2.96 4.56 -1.6
Jun-06 g,gs 3.95 4.9
Jul-06 g,gg 4.52 4.36
Aug-06 2.13 4.85 -2.72
Sep-06 2,4 4.45 -2.05
Oct-06 4.55 3.65 0.9
Nov-06 8.19 3.28 4.91
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT
1

1

1

I1

Dec-06 2.61 4.15 -1.54
Sum 47.73 50.39 -2.66
5.4 Site Hydrology
The presence of hydric soils over much of the project site is evidence that the site historically
supported a wetland ecosystem. As is the case in much of the Coastal Plain, local drainage patterns
have been altered over the last two centuries to increase drainage and promote agricultural
production. Exhibit 5.3 demonstrates the amount of ditching and channelization that has been
performed on UT1, the main stream that runs through the property. During conversion of the site,
stream channels and wetland systems through the site were channelized to improve drainage. The
existing hydrology of the site is controlled by a channelized stream (UT1) which bisects the project
boundaries. There are three irrigation ponds and approximately 6.5 acres of existing wetlands within
the project limits. Precipitation that falls on the farm field areas diverts to the drainage ditches and
channelized stream.
Five automated groundwater wells were installed in or near the project area to evaluate current
hydrologic conditions across the site, as shown in Exhibit 5.3. These wells provide a base for
comparing pre- and post-restoration hydrology on the site. Water table data were collected from the
five automated groundwater wells, from August 2006 through January 2007; therefore, the majority
of the data were collected during the dormant season. The automated wells were installed in open
field areas targeted for restoration, within existing wet pockets in the fields and in the swamp at the
lower end of the site. The wells were installed to a depth of 40 inches, and automated loggers
(Infinities USA pressure transducer units) were programmed to record water table levels every 12
hours.
Well #1 is located in the middle of the existing swamp system at the western end of the project site.
In this area, the swamp was saturated or flooded for the entire period of monitoring from August to
January and is considered to be in a jurisdictional wetland area. Well #2 is located along the northern
side of UTl. This area is lower in topography than the wells on the eastern side of the project limits.
Flooding and backwater conditions from the downstream swamp drive the hydrology of this area.
During the monitoring period, the water table has been just below the surface, due to consistent
rainfall and backwater flooding from the swamp. Well #3 is located adjacent to the southern side of
the UT1 and the third pond located in the middle of the project limits. The location of Well #4 is
midway between the second and third ponds. Well #5 is located next to UT1 and the first pond, at a
slightly higher elevation than the other wells. The greatest drainage effect of the channelized stream
is shown in the hydrographs of Well #3 and #5, where there are periods during which the water table
is at the surface during high rainfall but quickly recedes after the rain ends. The peaks of the
hydrograph correlate well with the rain events (Figure 5.1). Data collected from these well locations
represent the range of conditions across the project site.
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-4
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Figure 5.1
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells Compared to Local Rainfall on the Duke Swamp
Site (August 2006 through December 2006).
Date
8/29/2006 9/28/2006 10/28/2006 11 /27/2006 12/27/2006
0
e
1

R
e 2

~ 3

50
0
4
30

20

10
a
m
c
0
m
10
r~- -
2
m -
0
`° 30
3 -

-40
-50 -+- Well #1 ~ Well #2 t Well #3 ~- Well #4 -~- Weil #5

-60
8/29/2006 9/28/2006 10/28/2006 11 /27/2006 12/27/2006
Date
5.5 Hydrologic Modeling
To further investigate the current hydrologic status of the site and provide a means for evaluating
proposed restoration plans, hydrologic models were developed to simulate site hydrology.
DRAINMOD (version 5.1) was used to develop hydrologic simulation models to represent conditions
across the proposed restoration area. DRAINMOD was identified as an approved hydrologic tool for
assessing wetland hydrology by the NRCS (1997). For more information on DRAINMOD and its
application to high water table soils, review Skaggs (1980).
Model parameters were selected based on field measurements and professional judgment about site
conditions. Rainfall and air temperature information were collected from the nearest automated
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-5
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

weather station, in Elizabeth City (Elizabeth City, NC, COOP: 312724). Missing data from the
Elizabeth City station were supplemented with data from the Roanoke Rapids (COOP: 317319) and
Scotland Neck (COOP: 318500) weather stations. Measured field parameters were entered into the
' models, and initial model simulations were compared with data collected from the monitoring wells.
To calibrate the model, parameters not measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically
encountered under similar soil and geomorphic conditions, until model simulations most closely
' matched observed well data.
Trends in the observed data were well represented by the model simulations; however, it should be
noted that a limited amount of observed data were available for comparison. It is important to note
that DRAINMOD uses simplifying assumptions in the estimation of water table depths. When
applied to a site such as the Duke Swamp Site, with complex hydrologic processes, the model can be
' used to assess overall trends and relationships but is unlikely to offer exact predictions of water table
hydrology. See Appendix C for DRAINMOD Analysis Files & Restoration Site Water Table Data.
DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and produces summaries that describe the
loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Table 5.3 summarizes the average
annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the
existing condition of the project area, based on 58-year simulations. The average amounts for the
simulated areas, as well as the minimum and maximum values, are presented in the table. Infiltration
represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil and is lost via drainage or runoff.
Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to
drainage ditches or underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows over land and reaches drainage
ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost through direct evaporation of water
from the soil or through the transpiration of plants.
From the data provided, it is clear that a significant amount of the rainfall on the site is lost to
evapotranspiration, which is typical for farm fields in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Drainage
is also a significant loss pathway for water under the existing farm conditions. Restoration of the site
will involve restoring a floodplain area, plugging the network of drainage ditches, raising the bottom
elevation of the stream, and increasing the amount of surface storage available to pond water. In this
way, the respective amounts of drainage and runoff are decreased, and the excess water allows the
water table to remain higher throughout the year, thus restoring wetland hydrology.
Table 5.3
Water Balance Data for Existing Conditions of the Project Site

Precipitation 47.5 (62.1 to 34.6) 100
Drainage 17.3 (11.6 to 26.3) 36.4 (24.4 to 55.4)
Runoff 6.7 (1.24 to 17.0) 14.1 (2.6 to 35.8)
Evapotranspiration 23.4 (17.2 to 29.6) 49.3 (36.2 to 62.3)
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-6
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

6.0 STREAM CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT RESULTS
6.1 Reach Identification
For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided the Duke Swamp tributaries into two
reaches labeled UTl and UT2 to Duke Swamp. The reach locations are shown in Exhibit 1.2. The
reaches are shown as perennial blue-line streams on the USGS topographic map. UT1 begins at a
culvert under SR1320 and ends inside the forested wetland boundary. UT2 begins at the outlet of a
small cypress pond on the northwestern corner of the project site. Based on field evaluations of
intermittent or perennial status, conducted during the proposal phase of the project, the UT1 and UT2
stream channels were determined to be a perennial stream (based on a minimum score of 30 for
perennial streams and the presence of biological indicators), using the NCDWQ Determination of the
Origin of Perennial Streams guidelines (see forms in Appendix D). The total current length of
streams on the project site is 4,620 LF.
6.2 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment
Baker Engineering performed general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and
produced a contour map based on survey data in order to create plan set base mapping. Cross-section
surveys of the stream reaches were also performed to assess the current condition and overall stability
of the channels. Cross-section locations are shown on Exhibit 6.1. The following report subsections
summarize the survey results for all project reaches. The watershed sizes were calculated at the
terminus of the project and summarized in Table 6.1. Appendix D contains summaries of existing
condition parameters, cross-section survey results, and bed material distribution graphs for the site.
Table 6.1
Reach Descriptions and Watershed Size
.~ 1 ~
UT1 [o Duke Swamp 3,740 2.9 47
UT2 to Duke Swamp 880 0.03 37
6.2.1 UT1 to Duke Swamp
UT1 to Duke Swamp has been straightened and dredged in the past. Currently, UT1 is difficult
to classify using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). The past manipulation has
essentially created a channel that is overly wide and overly deep for the given drainage area.
There is little slope within the system, with 0.0003 ft/ft over the entire reach. Essentially the
channel is functioning as a long, linear pond, holding backwater throughout the entire reach
from the swamp downstream. The NC Coastal Regional Curve (See Table 6.3) estimates a
bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 21 ft2 fora 2.9 mil watershed. In most cases the
existing channel has across-sectional area at top-of-bank of approximately 40 to 155 ftZ. Since
Rosgen's stream classification system (Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper identification of
bankfull, the stream classification is difficult under these conditions, but was assessed as a
channelized E channel due to low bank heights relative to base-flow conditions. Additionally,
feature formation throughout the channelized reach is poor with very little habitat diversity or
woody debris. Bed features are far below baseflow water levels due to backwater effects. The
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-1
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

'
stream is not protected by adequate riparian vegetation with the exception of the forested areas
at the end of the project reach. Ditch banks within the field areas are routinely maintained by
mowing.
Within the existing wetland area at the downstream end of the project, UT1 most likely existed
prior to conversion as amulti-channel (DA) system, or a transition system between a single
thread and multi-thread system. This is evidenced by the presence of several historic channel
features in the area. Currently, the system has been channelized to its confluence with Duke
Swamp, where channelization ends. Spoil from the channelization was placed along the right
bank, creating a linear spoil pile that disconnected the historic flow patterns of UTl and UT2.
' The area does flood during large storm events, but the flooding patterns, frequency, and
distribution have been disrupted due to the channelization in the area.
' The modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand-bed streams;
therefore, a bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the bed material. The majority
of the reach had an organic muck stream bottom due to the backwater conditions in the channel.
Bed material samples were collected. The samples collected were taken back to a lab and dry
sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. The sieve data show that the UTl to Duke
Swamp has a DSO, of 0.10-mm indicating that the dominant bed material in the stream channel is
fine sand, silt, and muck under current conditions.
The stream displays no measurable meander geometry due to its channelized condition. These
conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time; however, aloes-flow regime,
backwater conditions, and herbaceous vegetation on the banks have served to maintain some
stability along the reach.
6.2.2 UT2 to Duke Swamp
UT2 to Duke Swamp begins at the outlet of a small cypress pond on the northwestern corner of
the project site. Based on field reconnaissance and surrounding topography, the historic flow
' pattern and flooding regime of UT2 appears to have been altered significantly. UT2 is difficult
to classify using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1996) because of inconsistent
geomorphic data; however the existing channel was assessed as a manipulated multi-channel
(DA) due to low slope, variable sinuosity and configuration. Currently, UT2 is experiencing
' backwater ponding and damming effects as a result of an existing spoil pile that runs along
almost the entire right bank of UTl in the forested wetland area. Flows are being diverted
along this large spoil pile and ultimately blocking the natural connection between UTl and
' UT2. The NC Coastal Regional Curve (See Table 6.3) estimates a bankfull cross-sectional area
of approximately 0.7 ft2 fora 0.03 mil watershed. A surveyed cross-section along the existing
channel had across-sectional area at top-of-bank that was within this approximate bankfull
' area.
UT2 exists as amulti-channel (DA) system, or a transition system between a single thread and
multi-thread system, which has been hydraulically impacted by the channelization of UTl. This
is evidenced by the presence of several historic channel features in the forested wetland area.
Since the modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand-bed
' streams, a random sampling procedure was used to characterize the bed material. The majority
of the reach had an organic muck stream bottom due to the backwater conditions and low slope.
The stream has a mature canopy along its entire length.

BAKER ENGINEERING 6-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Table 6.2
Geomorphic Data for Duke Swamp Site -Stream Channel Classification Level II
Rosgen Stream Type ES DA
Draina a Area 2.9 0.03 S uare miles
Reach Length Surveyed 3,558 240 Feet
Bankfull Width (Wt,kt) 17.9 - 40.9 2.6 Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth (db~,~) 2.1- 4.2 0.3 Feet
Cross-Sectional Area (Ae~) 40.4 - 154.9 0.7 Square feet
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D
ratio 4.5 - 15.4 9.4
Bankfull Max Depth (dmnke) 4.0 - 5.4 0.6 Feet
Floodprone Area Width (Wrpa) 124.8 -181.1 43.6 Feet
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1.1 -1.3 1.8
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 4.1-10.1 16.7
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A
Channel Materials
(Particle Size Index - d;~)
Very fine sand
dt~ 0.06 N/A mm
d~; 0.08 N/A mm
d~t~ 0.1 N/A mm
dxa 0.18 N/A mm
d~,; 0.23 N/A mm
Slope (S) 0.0003 0.0028 Feet per foot
Channel Sinuosity (K) 1.05 1.15
Evolution Scenario Channetized E-C, E-C-DA
Notes:
1. Where multiple cross-sections were surveyed in reach UTl and data varied, the data are
presented as a range of values.
2. N/A: Meander Width Ratio not measured because UTl channel has been straightened and
UT2 transitions into amulti-threaded channel.
3. N/A: UT2 geomorphic data values vary due to inconsistent channel formations. UT2
channel materials consisted of or anic cla /muck and were not dr sieved.
BAKER ENGINEERING ~3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

6.3 Bankfull Verification
An accurate identification of bankfull stage could not be made throughout the Duke Swamp project
area due to backwater conditions. Some indicators were apparent, but the reliability of the indicators
was questionable due to the altered condition of the stream channels. For this reason, bankfull stage
was identified through the use of regional curve information. Regional curve equations developed
from the North Carolina Rural Coastal Plain study are provided by Sweet and Geratz (2003) and Doll
(2003) and are shown in Table 6.3. The stream has been channelized and dredged so deep and overly
wide that backwater conditions no longer allow for channel forming processes to occur.
TABLE 6.3
NC Rural Coastal Plain Re Tonal Curve E uations

~ i ~ II
Qh~ = 8.79 AW ' ' R =0.92
Ah~~ = 9.43 AW ' R =0.96
Why = 9.64 AW R =0.95
Dhke = 0.98 AW ' ' R =0.92
1. 1~ li
Qh~, = 16.56 AW ' R =0.90
Any = 14.52 AW ~" R =0.88
Wnkt = 10.97 AW '~ ' R =0.87
Dhkc = 1.29 AW " R =0.74
6.4 Stream Reference Site
The Beaver Dam Branch stream reference site is located in Jones County, approximately six miles
southeast of the town of Trenton, North Carolina, and approximately 100 miles south of the project
site (Exhibit 6.2). The site is an example of a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp," as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems exist as the floodplains of small "blackwater" and
"brownwater" streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or
poorly developed to distinguish. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine -intermittently,
temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration,
and periods of very low flow. It appears that the site has experienced little disturbance in recent time
and is believed to be representative of undisturbed conditions on the project site. The reference
stream site was used along with evaluation data from past projects to develop design criteria. These
procedures are described in Section 5.
This reference site was selected for design purposes due to its low valley slope and similar
morphological features as those on the Duke Swamp project site.
Field surveys of the reference site were conducted in early spring, 2002. The site has been visited on
a yearly basis since the original survey to evaluate any changes on the site. It was determined during
a site visit in January of 2006 that the site has remained stable and is therefore a viable reference site.
Survey data were used to evaluate the natural channel parameters describing the dimension, pattern,
and profile of the stream. Natural channel design parameters are summarized in Appendix E.
The reference stream is classified as a "CSc" channel using the Rosgen Stream Classification System
(Rosgen, 1994). Longitudinal profile and cross-sections are presented in Appendix E. The channel is
classified as a "C" channel since the average width/depth ratio is 14. "C" type channels are more
typical of lower gradient sand-bed stream systems that meander through alluvial valleys. "C" type
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-4
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

streams typically form point-bar features as a result of the relatively high amount of bedload that is
transported. Out-of-bank flooding occurs at stages greater than the bankfull flow. The "5" indicates
that the stream is a sand-bed system. Median particle size of the bed material is approximately 0.7
mm (see Appendix E for particle size distribution data). The "c" indicates that the slope of the
channel is less than 0.001 feet/feet. The reference reach stream has appropriate bed features for a
sand-bed system, with shallow pools in the meander bends, and deeper pools formed by scour
features such as roots and debris jams.
Unlike many other Coastal Plain stream systems, the section of channel surveyed for the reference
reach shows no evidence of having been altered or channelized in the recent past. Trees can be found
within the riparian areas that appear to be in excess of 50 years of age. The channel has good
meander pattern with low bank heights.
6.4.1 Reference Stream Vegetation
The reference stream is well buffered along both stream banks, with tree species that include
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Ater rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercacs michauxii), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). The small tree/shrub layer is dominated by sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), sugarberry saplings (Celtis laevigata), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), coastal doghobble (Leucothoe
axillaris), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and
blackberry (Rebus spp.). The herb and vine strata contain false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica),
jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), green-briar (Smilax spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus gccinquefolia),
grape (Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-5
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

1
u

1

7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN
7.1 Potential for Restoration and Approach
The project is located in a rural watershed, with no plans for significant land use changes in the
foreseeable future. A culvert and three off-line ponds were considered during the design of the
stream pattern for UTl. A farm road crossing near the lower end of the site must be maintained for
farm operations. There are no other known or foreseen constraints at the site, associated with
structure and/or infrastructure encroachments.
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the site's potential for
restoration, an approach to the site was developed that would address restoration of both stream and
wetland functions within the agricultural field areas. The approach also needed to take into account
the existing swamp system at the downstream end of the site, which had been impacted in the past by
channelization. Topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most likely functioned
in the past as a tributary stream system with associated wetlands, feeding into the larger Duke Swamp
system.
' Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore this type of system. First, an appropriate
stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired wetland functions was selected and designed to tie
in at the upstream road culvert. Then a grading plan was developed to restore the adjacent wetland
areas which had been converted to farmland. Finally, an enhancement approach was developed for
' the downstream swamp area, to remove the past effects of channelization and restore historic flow
patterns within the swamp. Special consideration was given to minimizing disturbance to existing
wetland and wooded areas.

Table 7.1
Project Design Stream Types
Reference reach studies indicate that low slope sand-bed systems typically form
UTla C type channels, with high width-to-depth ratios. A higher width-to-depth ratio
(upstream C channel will also support the restored adjacent wetland hydrology. Rosgen
end) Priority Level 1 and 2 approaches will be used. Riparian buffers at least 50 feet
wide will be established along the stream reach, with the exception of an
estimated 470 LF near stream station 16+50 thru 19+50. This area will have a
15-foot buffer along the right bank due to landowner agricultural requirements.
All buffer areas will be rotected b a er etual conservation easement.
Restoration will focus on restoring amulti-threaded swamp system within
UTlb existing wetland areas. This approach will allow for restoration of historic flow
(downstream DA patterns, with very little disturbance to the existing wetland system. Remnant
end) channel features will be used and tied into at the boundary of the jurisdictional
wetland area. The riparian buffer system will be protected by a perpetual
conservation easement.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-6
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Restoration will focus on restoring amulti-threaded swamp system within
UT2 to existing wetland areas. This approach will allow for restoration of historic 11ow
Duke DA patterns, with very little disturbance to the existing wetland system. Currently,
Swamp flows are diverted along a large spoil pile, which is causing increased ponding
upstream and blocking the natural connection between UTl and UT2. The
ri avian buffers stem will be rotected b a er etual conservation easement.
7.2 Design Criteria Selection
Selection of channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of
reference reach data, regime equations, and evaluation of results from past projects, as discussed in
Section 2.5.
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for UTl and
UTZ. The approach was based on the potential for restoration as determined during the site
assessment. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were
developed so that plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and profile could be described for the
purpose of developing construction documents.
7.2.1 Reference Reach Survey
As discussed in Section 6.4, a stream reference reach was identified and surveyed. The Beaver
Dam Branch site is an example of a reference quality CSc channel under similar
geomorphological conditions as the project site. The riparian area adjacent to the channel
classifies as a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp," as described by Schafale and Weakley
(1990). Specific natural channel parameters are provided in Appendix E.
7.2.2 Reference Reach Database
An internal reference reach database has been developed by Baker Engineering for the
evaluation of reference reach parameters from multiple sites within a geographic area. The
database includes four sand-bed reference reaches, in addition to the Beaver Dam Branch
reference reach, that were surveyed in the Coastal Plain and have been used for design purposes
on other projects. Collectively, the data provide valuable information regarding the range of
conditions documented for similar headwater stream systems. Shear stress and stream power
relationships developed for these reference sites are used in the sediment transport analysis
shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
Table 7.2
Reference Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 3.2
Stream Type (Rosgen) ES / CS
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 25.8
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 25.3
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 1.0
BAKER ENGINEERING 7.7
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

1
1
U
1

1
ri

L
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 14 8 14
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) >10 4 13
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 2.3 1.2 1.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.25 1.0 1.3
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 4.9-6.7 4 17
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.8-2.4 1.5 3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 2.9-6.3 2.0 6.3
Sinuosity, K 1.66 1.22 1.77
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) .0007 0.0007 0.0029
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) .0004 0.0004 0.0022
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 3.3 1.8 2.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 5.4 0.8 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 100
d16 (mm) 0.3
d35 (mm) 0.4
d50 (mm) 0.5
d84 (mm) 0.9
d95 (mm) 1.2
Notes:
Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch,
Brunswick County; and Rocky Swamp, Halifax County
7.2.3 Design Criteria Selection Method
Specific design parameters were developed using a combination of reference reach data, past
project experiences, and best professional judgment. The design philosophy at the Duke
Swamp site is to use conservative values for the selected stream types and to allow natural
variability in stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features to form over long periods of time
under the processes of flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences. The
proposed stream types for the project are summarized in Table 7.1.
7.3 Channel Design Parameters
7.3.1 UTla Channel Restoration
Astable cross-section will be achieved by restoring a meandering channel across the
abandoned floodplain (currently agricultural field areas), increasing the width/depth ratio, and
raising the streambed to restore a channel that is appropriately sized for its drainage area. Due
to the upstream road culvert and the need to not increase flooding conditions of the road, minor
floodplain grading will be performed to allow for increased capacity during large storm events.
Grading activities will also be aimed at restored historic flow patterns and adjacent wetland
hydrology by removing past channel spoil and other agricultural land manipulations. The
BAKER ENGINEERING
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_ORAFT
7-8

channel will be restored to a C-type stream, and the sinuosity will be increased by adding ,
meanders to lengthen the channel and restore bed-form diversity. Minimal grade control will
be required for the project, due to the low channel slope and low potential for channel incision. '
In-stream wooden structures, such as log vanes, rootwads, and cover logs will be included in
the channel design to provide improved aquatic habitat. Table 7.3 presents the stream
restoration dimensions and design criteria for the UTla channel.
Table 7.3
Natural Channel Design Parameters for UTla
~ ~' ~
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 2.9 __ __
Design Stream Length (feet) 3,983 -- --
Stream Type (Rosgen) CSc -- -- Note 1
Bankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 25.6 -- -- Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 0.95 -- -- V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 27 -- -- Note 3
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 19.4 -- -- Abkf'*w/D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.4 -- -- d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 14 .0 10 15 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 50 >100 -- --
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 8 12 5.5 >10 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.8 2.5 -- --
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.6 Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1. 0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 92 125 -- --
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 8.0 12.0 8.0 12.5 Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 30 60 -- --
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 49 105 -- --
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 5.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.6 1.3 1.8 TW length/ Valley
len th
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0003 -- --
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0002 0.0002 -- -- Sval / K
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0003 0.0003 -- --
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.2 1.4 -- -- Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0007 -- --
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.2 -- -- Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.3 4.4 -- --
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 14.0 22.0 -- --
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5 Note 9
BAKER ENGINEERING 7_g
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 55.0 100 -- --
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Note 7
d i~, - mm 0.06 < 0.062
d35 - mm 0.08 0.125
d5~ - mm 0.10 2.0
dsa - mm 0.18 22
des - mm 0.23 64
Notes:
~ A CSc stream type is appropriate for a very low-slope, wide, alluvial valley with a sand streambed. The choice of
a CSc channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Coastal Plain reference reach
streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
2 Bankfull discharge was estimated using Manning's equation.
A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Coastal Plain reference reach
streams, as well as sediment transport analyses and past project evaluation.
' Required for stream classification.
s This ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar CS design channels.
0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
`' A bank height ratio near 1
.
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality, resulting in lower risk of channel
instability.
~ Values were chosen based on Beaver Dam Branch reference reach data, other sand-bed reference reach data, and
past project evaluation.
facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design. Past project
'~ Due to the extremely low channel slopes
,
experience has shown that these minor changes in slope between features form naturally within the constructed
channel, provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained during construction.
`' Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project evaluation. It is more
conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool width may narrow, which is a positive
evolutionary step.
7.3.2 UTlb Channel Restoration
As discussed in Section 6.2, UT1b has been channelized through an existing wetland swamp system.
The channelization and piling of spoil along the right bank has disrupted the historic flow and
flooding patterns of the site, and disconnected the natural confluence of UT1 and UT2. However,
historic channel remnants exist within the area adjacent to the current canal. Restoration of this reach
will seek to restore historic flow and flooding processes, while avoiding and minimizing disturbance
to the existing wetland vegetation. The restoration of UT1a through the farm fields will end at the
edge of the jurisdictional wetland system. At this location, the UT1a channel will connect with a
historic channel remnant which will form the beginning to UTlb. A small excavator will enter the
existing wetland area along UT1b by traversing the existing spoil pile, thereby avoiding disturbance
to wetland vegetation. Beginning at the downstream end, the excavator will place the spoil material
back into the channel and restore the topography in the area of the spoil pile. In this fashion, flows
through UT1b will be allowed to follow historic flow patterns and spread out through numerous
channel remnants, in the same way the system once functioned. The historic connection between
UT1 and UT2 will also be restored.
7.3.3 UT2 Channel Restoration
As discussed in the preceding section, restoration in the area of UTlb and UT2 will involve removing
the existing spoil pile which is affecting the flow of UT2. Currently, UT2 is experiencing backwater
BAKER ENGINEERING ~-~~
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

ponding and damming effects as a result of the spoil pile. By removing the spoil pile and restoring the
surrounding topography, the historic flow pattern and flooding regime of UT2 will be restored.
Rather than ponding and flowing along the spoil pile, the restored UT2 will be able to spread across
its floodplain and flows will mix with flood flows from UTl.
7.4 Sediment Transport
The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable sand-bed channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is
that the project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources,
thereby being a "transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type channel. Empirical
relationships from stable sand-bed channels in North Carolina are used in this analysis, as described
in Section 2.6.
Shear stress, stream power, and W/D values for the UT1a design reach are plotted against stable
reference stream data in Exhibits 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. The values were calculated based on design
conditions of the reach, and a summary of the data is provided in Table 7.4. The design shear stress
and stream power values plot within the scatter of data points collected from reference reaches. This
analysis provides evidence that the stresses predicted for the design channels are well within the range
of stable values calculated for the reference reaches. Therefore, scour of design channels is not
expected.
Sediment transport analyses as described above and in Section 2.6 were not applied to design reaches
UTlb and UT2. The designs for these reaches involve the restoration of diffuse flow paths through
multiple channels; in essence, the restoration of a swamp system. These systems are aggradational by
nature, exhibiting very low flow velocities and scour stresses. Under normal conditions, sediment
deposits in these systems. However, sediment supply is typically limited, such that over time, these
systems remain stable and deposited sediment becomes part of the natural processes of soil formation.
Observations from the project site confirm that sediment supply from upstream sources are limited,
therefore sediment transport relationships are predicted to function normally in the restored reaches of
UTlb and UT2..
Table 7.4
Calculated Sediment Transport Data for Design Reach UTla
1• _~ ..
i' ~ '• ~. ~ '' '~
~ ~
UT1a to Duke
Swamp 27 25.6 0.95 0.038 0.041
7.5 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the project reaches. Structures such as root wads,
log weirs, log vanes, and cover logs will be used to stabilize the newly-restored stream and improve
aquatic habitat functions. Table 7.5 summarizes the use of in-stream structures at the site.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-11
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

1
1

1

Table 7.5
In-stream Structure Types and Locations
~ ~
Root wads Throughout project
Log vanes Throughout project
Log weirs Only in locations where grade control is a concern
(limited due to channel slope)
Cover logs Throughout project
7.5.1 Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank along the outside of meander bends for the
creation of habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball
of a tree plus a portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream
flows away from the bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a
food source for aquatic insects. Root wads will be placed throughout the project reaches
primarily to improve aquatic habitat and provide cover.
7.5.2 Log Vanes
A log vane is used to provide cover for aquatic organisms with a potential secondary benefit of
protecting stream banks. The length of a single vane structure can span one-half to two-thirds
the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream
flow intersects the bank at an acute angle in a meander bend.
7.5.3 Log Weir
Log weirs are used to provide grade control as well as provide a secondary habitat benefit for
aquatic organisms. A log weir consists of two logs stacked (a header log and a footer log) and
installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of
the stream bed.
7.5.4 Cover Logs
A cover log is placed along the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. It
is most often installed in conjunction with rootwads. The log is buried into the outside bank of
the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of the pool and may be
buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The placement of the
cover log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages scour in the
pool. This increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability. Cover logs will be
used on all reaches; however, fewer will be placed in the small reaches because the habitat
value is not as great.
7.6 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
The existing agricultural fields across the site are currently drained by UTl to Duke Swamp. To
restore wetland hydrology to the site, the existing stream will be fully to partially filled depending on
the amount of fill material that can be produced from minor land grading and excavation of the new
stream channel. When complete filling of the stream and ditches is not possible, ditch plugs will be
installed from compacted earth for a distance of at least 100 feet. Ditch plugs will also be used in
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-12
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

locations where the restored stream channel will cross the existing stream channel. In these locations,
the existing stream will be plugged for at least 100 feet on both sides of the restored channel to
prevent drainage losses and channel avulsion. In areas where restored stream flows will contact fill
material, root wads will be installed to provide additional protection and deflect stream energies. Due
to the relatively small size of the restored channel and the low energy nature of the system, these
practices will be sufficient to prevent erosion and channel avulsion. These practices have been used
on numerous other projects with excellent results. Some sections of existing channel may be only
partially filled depending on the amount of fill material that can be produced. These partially filled
areas will be discontinuous and will mimic small vernal pools or tree throws within the wetland areas
that will add to the diversity of habitat on the project site.
Grading activities will focus on removing any field crowns, surface drains, irrigation ponds, or swales
that were imposed during conversion of the land for agriculture. Existing and proposed graded
contours are provided in the plan sheets. In general, grading activities will be minor, other than the
filling of the two existing irrigation ponds, since the site exhibits a rather flat existing topography.
The topography of the restored site will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland reference sites,
and will include the restoration of minor depressions and tip mounds (microtopography) that promote
diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats common to natural wetland areas. These techniques
will be instrumental to the restoration of site hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration,
decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing higher water table conditions across the restoration site.
In order to improve drainage and increase agricultural production, farmed wetland soils are often
graded to a smooth surface and crowned to enhance runoff (Lilly, 1981). Microtopography
contributes to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities
(Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956; Bratton, 1976; Ehrnfeld, 1995). Microtopography will be established
after floodplain areas have been established to design grades, using the procedures described in
Section 3.8.
The restoration design for the wetland is based on the reference wetland area (Section 3.7). The
targeted type of riverine wetland would be a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" as identified by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine, "intermittently,
temporarily, or seasonally flooded", as the restored channel is designed to carry the bankfull flow,
and to flood (flow out of its banks) at discharges greater than bankfull. Vegetation of this system will
mimic that of the reference wetland.
7.7 Hydrologic Model Analyses
The DRAINMOD simulations developed to evaluate the current hydrologic status of the restoration
site (Section 5.5) were used to estimate the hydrologic conditions of the site under the proposed
restoration practices. Model parameters that describe the depth of stream and topographic surface
storage were changed to values representative of the described restoration practices. For example,
drain depths were reduced to approximately 55 centimeters to represent the water level in the
restored, meandering channel. Surface storage parameters were increased from two to four
centimeters to represent surface roughing practices. Input files that describe cropping conditions
were changed to represent forested conditions.
To estimate the average hydrologic condition of the restored site, a model scenario was evaluated for
an average distance from the restored channel with a surface storage of two centimeters. Since
wetlands are being restored from the restored stream channel out to a distance of approximately 225
feet, an average distance of 115 feet was used in the model. In a similar manner, a maximum surface
storage of 4 centimeters was chosen based on reference site information and represents typical
topographic conditions across the restored site. A 58-year simulation was run following the
procedure described in Section 3.5. Results of the simulation are presented in Figure 7.1, and the
DRAINMOD input file is provided in Appendix C.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7.13
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT
1

ii

Figure 7.1
Fifty-Eight Year Model Simulation for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland
Criteria for Conditions Encountered at Restoration Site.
40 - -- - - ------ - _ -_
-
- --
~
Average = t9 days
(8% of rood season)
9
35
e
0
a
w °~j
w
~ ~
O
.rs
° o

a ~ 25
w
2
~
o
O
~
20
a a
o
v a~
e V
v~ 15
m~

s
a
j ~ 10

0
0
~ 5

0
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
Model Year

' The simulation runs indicate that, on average, the water table will be less than 30 centimeters deep
continuously for approximately 8 percent of the growing season. This scenario can be assumed to
represent average conditions across the site, with the majority of the restored acreage on the site being
represented by this hydrologic scenario. It is probable that there will be areas slightly drier or slightly
' wetter than the modeled scenario within the restoration area. The modeled scenario provides a basis
for estimating the average hydrologic condition over the restored site, based on the proposed
restoration practices. However, it is important to note that the hydrology of the targeted restored
' wetland system (Coastal Plain small stream swamp) is highly variable across a given site, supporting
the ecological and functional diversity that makes these systems so valuable.
7.8 Wetland Reference Site Overview
The reference wetland site for this project will be located within the existing jurisdictional wetlands
adjacent to reaches UT1b and UT2 at the western end of the project site. This area is an example of a
' "Coastal Plain small stream swamp", as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems
exist as the floodplains of small "blackwater" streams in which separate fluvial features and
associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. Hydrology of these systems is
' palustrine, intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with
floods of short duration, and periods of very low flow. The "Coastal Plain small stream swamp"
wetland system would be typical for the watershed size and the geomorphologic setting of the site.
This area has experienced disturbance in the past, as described in Section 6, including past
channelization and logging. Restoration of the area will involve the restoration of historic flow
patterns and hydrology. Currently, the site exists as a jurisdictional wetland with a mature, healthy
1
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-14
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

vegetative community. Due to variability in topography, hydrology varies across the site, as is
expected in floodplain wetland systems. Wetland data forms for the site are provided in Appendix F.
7.8.1 Reference Wetland Site Soils
The reference site is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina adjacent (to
the southwest) of the project site. Soils located within the wetland areas of the reference site are
mapped as the Nawney series (NRCS, 1999). The Nawney series consists of poorly drained soils
typically found on floodplains along streams in the Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate, and the
seasonal high water table is within 0.5 feet of the soil surface. The Nawney soil series is listed as "A"
list hydric soils by NRCS (NRCS, 1999). On the upslope areas adjacent to the wetland areas, soils of
the Noboco and Goldsboro series are found.
7.8.2 Reference Site Hydrology
Climatic conditions for the proposed reference wetland site will be the same as those for the project
site. The reference site is classified as a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" (Schafale and Weakley,
1990). Small stream swamp communities are palustrine with variable flows and are intermittently,
temporarily, or seasonally flooded (Shafale and Weakly, 1990). Site hydrology is controlled by the
main stream channel that flows through the site, as well as several small drainages that flow onto the
site and provide additional water to the floodplain areas during wet periods. As discussed in this
section, the restoration approaches proposed for this area will restore historic flow patterns and
flooding regimes to the reference area.
A water table monitoring well was installed within the reference site, and monitoring data were
collected from August 2006 to January 2007. An example subset of the data is shown in Figure 7.2.
Based on the data collected, the site exhibits wetland hydrology, and exhibits a range of saturation
and wetness during the wetter periods of the year (late fall, winter, and early spring). The well was
located near the confluence of UTl and Duke Swamp, in an area of high saturation and frequent
flooding. During the post-construction monitoring phase for the site, several wells will be installed
across the site to document the range of hydrologic conditions that are present. This data will provide
a base of comparison to evaluate the restored hydrology within the existing open field areas.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-15
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Figure 7.2
Water Table Depths Recorded in a Monitoring Well Installed within the Reference Site.
Date
8/29/2006 9/28/2006 10/28/2006 11 /27/2006 12/27/2006

„~ 0
c
1

2
c
_
3

40

~ 30
::
.
o
, 20
m

d10
a
~
0

-10
~~
~~
~-+~-Well #1

-20
8/29/2006 9/28/2006 10/28/2006 11 /27/2006 12/27/2006
Date
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-16
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

7.9 Vegetation Plan
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank and floodplain planting. In addition,
any areas of the site that lack diversity or are disturbed or adversely impacted by the construction
process will be replanted.
Bare-root trees, live stakes, and permanent seeding will be planted within designated areas of the
conservation easement. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be established along all restored stream
reaches, with the exception of a 470-foot reach near the upstream end of UT1a. In many areas, the
buffer width will be in excess of 50 feet. In general, bare-root vegetation will be planted at a target
density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8-foot by 8-foot planting area. Planting of bare-root trees and
live stakes will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between the last week
of November and the third week of March.
Selected species for hardwood re-vegetation are presented in Table 7.6 below. Tree species selected
for restoration areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive
and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time.
Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the
soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted. Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will be
matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Soils across the site will
be sufficiently disked and loosened prior to planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor using a
dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be
sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil will be loosely
compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent them from drying out.
Live stakes will be installed randomly two to six feet apart using triangular spacing--or at a density
of 40 to 200 stakes per 1,000 square feet-along the stream banks, between the toe of the stream bank
and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 7.71ists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for
floodplain and streambank areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain or
browntop millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. To provide rapid
growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value, the permanent seed mixture
specified will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored stream channel. The
species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels,
providing long-term stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary
seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130
pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop
millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre.
BAKER ENGINEERING ~_~
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

1

1
1

1

Table 7.6
Proposed Bare-root and Live Stake Species
~ ~ ~ 1
~ -
Stream Restoration Buffer
River Birch Betula nigra 15% 102 stems per acre
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 5% 34 stems per acre
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7.5% 51 stems per acre
Black Walnut Jccglans nigra 5%
32 stems per acre
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa sylvatica var.biflora 10% 68 stems per acre
Sycamore Platanccs occidentalis 20% 136 stems per acre
Overcup Oak Quercccs lyrata 10% 68 stems per acre
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercccs michauxii 10% 68 stems per acre
Willow Oak Quercccs phellos 7.5% 51 stems per acre
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichccm 10% 68 stems per acre
Streambanks ( Live Stakes)
Buttonbush Ce halanthus occidentalis 10% 10 to 20 stems per 1,000 SF
Black Willow Salix ni ra 10% 10 to 20 stems per 1,000 SF
Silk Do wood Cornus amomum 40% SO to 100 stems per 1,000 SF
Elderberr Sambcccus canadensis 40% 50 to 100 stems per 1,000 SF
Table 7.7
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture

~ ~
Streambank and Floodplain Areas
Vir inia wildr a El mus vir inicus 15% 2.25 FAC
Switch rass Paccicum vir atum 15% 2.25 FAC+
Fox sed e Carex vul inoidea 15% 2.25 OBL
Smart Weed Pol onccm enns lvanicum 15% 2.25 OBL
Soft rush Juncos a sus 25% 3.75 FACW+
Ho sed e Carex he ulina 15% 2.25 OBL
7.10 Invasive Species Removal
The site has minimal existing native riparian vegetation other than field grasses with the exception of
the existing wetland area at the downstream end of the project. Invasive species such as Multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora) and privet (Ligustrum sinense) are present, although in relatively small
' amounts. Grading operations will remove these invasive species within the restored field areas.
BAKER ENGINEERING

' 7-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Within the existing wetland areas, these species will be addressed through manual cutting and spot ,
treatment with herbicides. If these or other invasive species re-establish and persist during the
monitoring period, hand cutting and herbicide treatment will be used to treat problem areas. ,
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

~'

1

8.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Channel stability, vegetation survival, and viability of wetland function will all be monitored on the
project site. Post-restoration monitoring will be conducted for five years following the completion of
construction to document project success. Different monitoring approaches are proposed for the
restored stream reaches, based on the restoration approaches to be used. For reach UT1a, which
involves a more traditional restoration of a single thread channel, monitoring approaches follow those
recommended by the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE and NCDWQ 2003). For reaches UTlb
and UT2 which involve the restoration of historic flow patterns through an existing mature wetland
system, monitoring will focus primarily on visual assessments and documentation. These approaches
are described below.
8.1 Stream Monitoring -Reach UTla
Geomorphic monitoring of UT1a will be conducted for five years to evaluate the effectiveness of the
restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross-sections),
pattern (longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. The methods
used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
8.1.1 Bankfull Events
' The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use
of a crest gage and photographs. The crest gage will be installed on the floodplain within 10
feet of the restored channel. The crest gage will record the highest watermark between site
' visits, and the gage will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has
occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
' Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
8.1.2 Cross-Sections
Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration work, with
one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. Each cross-section
will be marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A
common benchmark will be used for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy
comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section survey will include points measured
at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if
the features are present. Riffle cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System.
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
BAKER ENGINEERING $-~
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

8.1.3 Pattern
Annual measurements taken for the plan view of the restoration site will include sinuosity,
meander width ratio, and radius of curvature. The radius of curvature measurements will be
taken on newly constructed meanders for the first year of monitoring only.
8.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and five of the monitoring period.
The profile will be conducted for of the entire length of the UT1a restored channel.
Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank.
Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool,
glide) and the maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable (i.e., they
are not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes,
and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should
be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type.
8.1.5 Bed Material Analyses
Since the streams through the project site are dominated by sand-size particles, pebble count
procedures would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the
monitoring period; therefore, bed material analyses are not recommended for this project.
8.1.6 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
Reference photos will be taken once a year. Photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each monitoring period.
The stream will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of the
restoration site and moving upstream to the end of the site. Photographs will be taken looking
upstream at delineated locations. Reference photo locations will be marked and described for
future reference. Points will be close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach.
The angle of the shot will depend on what angle provides the best view and will be noted and
continued in future shots. When modifications to photo position must be made due to
obstructions or other reasons, the position will be noted along with any landmarks and the same
position will used in the future.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-
section. Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the
frame, and as much of the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers
should make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored
stream. Photographers should make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
BAKER ENGINEERING 8.2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN DRAFT

' 8.2 Stream Monitoring -Reaches UTlb and UT2
' Geomorphic monitoring of reaches UT1b and UT2 will be conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Since restoration of these reaches involves the restoration
of historic flow patterns and flooding functions to remnant channel segments in amulti-threaded
swamp system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual documentation of stability and the use of wells
to document saturation and flooding functions. The methods used and any related success criteria are
described below for each parameter.
' 8.2.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events and flooding functions within the monitoring period will be
documented by the use of monitoring gages and photographs. At least five monitoring gages
' will be installed within the restored system to document groundwater and flooding levels.
Loggers will be programmed to collect data at a minimum of every 12 hours. Installation of
monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in WRP Technical Notes
' ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 (July 2000).
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
' bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Gages should document the
occurrence of periodic inundation and varying groundwater levels across the restored site.
Gages should also document the connectivity of flooding between the restored UT1b and UT2
reaches.
8.2.2 Photo Reference Sites
' Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
Reference photos will be taken at least twice per year, and will be taken in enough locations to
document the condition of restored system. Photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each monitoring period.
' The stream systems will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of
the restoration reach and moving upstream to the end of the reach. Photographs will be taken
' looking upstream at delineated locations. Reference photo locations will be marked and
described for future reference. Points will be close enough together to provide an overall view
of the reach. The angle of the shot will depend on what angle provides the best view and will
be noted and continued in future shots. When modifications to photo position must be made
' due to obstructions or other reasons, the position will be noted along with any landmarks and
the same position will used in the future.
Additional photographs will be taken to document any observed evidence of flooding patterns,
such as debris
wrack lines
water marks
etc
,
,
,
.
8.3 Wetland Monitoring
'
8.3.1 Wetland H drolo is Monitorin
Y g g
Groundwater-monitoring stations will be installed across the project area to document
1 hydrologic conditions of the restored site. Up to five groundwater monitoring stations will be
installed, with all five stations being automated groundwater gauges. Ground water monitoring

BAKER ENGINEERING 8-3
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PIAN_DRAFT

stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN-
WRAP-00-02 (July 2000).
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts will be tallied
using data obtained from the Gates County WETS Station and an onsite rain gage.
The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 8 percent of the growing season as indicated by the DRAINMOD model in
Section 8.2 and that the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding. The restored site will
be compared to a reference site where the groundwater and surface water levels (overbank
events) will be monitored. In addition, the restored site's hydrology will be compared to pre-
restoration conditions both in terms of groundwater and frequency of overbank events.
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a wetland mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic
restoration, active planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant
community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants will
be installed across the restoration site, as directed by EEP monitoring guidance. At least 12
permanent monitoring quadrants will be established within the restored wetland areas. No monitoring
quadrants will be established within the floodplain areas of UTlb or UT2 since these areas are
already wooded. The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species,
25 square meters for shrubs, and 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation monitoring
will occur in spring, after leaf-out has occurred. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will
include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated, and
importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the
previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated.
For each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be
evaluated between July and November.
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and correspondence from review agencies on
mitigation sites recently approved under the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking Instrument.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3-year old,
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the
monitoring period. While measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for
evaluating vegetation success on restoration projects, species density alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate
the evaluation of additional plant community indices to assess overall vegetative success.
Herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses, planted at the site shall have at least 80 percent
coverage of the seeded/planted area. Any herbaceous vegetation not meeting these criteria shall be
replanted. At a minimum, at all times ground cover at the project site shall be in compliance with the
North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
8.5 Reporting Requirements
A mitigation plan and as-built report documenting both stream and wetland restoration will be
developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and the installation of wells on the restored
site. The report will include all information required by EEP mitigation plan guidelines at the time of
BAKER ENGINEERING 8-4
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

1

I
I
ii
1

i.

contract signing, including elevations, photographs, well and sampling plot locations, a description of
initial species composition by community type, and monitoring stations. The report will include a list
of the species planted and the associated densities. The monitoring program will be implemented to
document system development and progress toward achieving the success criteria referenced in the
previous sections. Stream morphology, as well as the restored wetland hydrology and vegetation, will
be assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken
for 5 years, or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Monitoring reports
will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to EEP. The monitoring reports
will include:
• A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular
maintenance activities
• As-built topographic maps showing location of monitoring gauges, vegetation sampling plots,
permanent photo points, and location of transacts
• Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed-point stations
• Hydrologic information
• Vegetative data
• Identification of any invasion by undesirable plant species, including quantification of the
extent of invasion of undesirable plants by either stem counts, percent cover, or area,
whichever is appropriate
• A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism
• Wildlife observations
• Reference wetland hydrology and stream data.
8.6 Maintenance Issues
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion
from floods than those with a mature hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than
cohesive soils or soils with high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations
difficult.
• Local wildlife can impact the rate at which the native buffer can be established.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation
growth, particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native
buffer can be established.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the
' as-built and monitoring reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any
of the conditions listed above, shall be discussed.

BAKER ENGINEERING 8-5
' DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

9.0 REFERENCES
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal
and Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679-693.
Brinson, M.M., 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Exp. Stn, Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4, Washington, D. C. 79 pp. +app.
Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole and R.J. McCracken, 1989. Soil Genesis and Classification. Iowa State
University Press, 446 pp.
Budd, W.W, P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders and F.R. Steiner, 1987. Stream Corridor Management in the
Pacific Northwest: I. Determination of Stream Corridor Widths. Environmental
Management.
Bunte, K. and S. Abt, 2001. Sampling Surface and Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in
Wadable Gravel- and Cobble-Bed Streams for Analyses in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics,
and Streambed Monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 428 p.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp, 2001. United
States Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Craft, C.B., W.P. Casey, 2000. Sediment and Nutrient Accumulation in Floodplain and Depressional
Freshwater Wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2000, pp 323-332.
Doll, B.A. 2003. Stream Restoration Technical Guidebook and Coastal Stream Study Amendment.
Division of Water Quality, 319 Program.
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W. H. Freeman
and Company.
Ehrnfield, J. G., 1995. Microsite Differences in Surface Substrate Characteristics in Chamaecyparis
Swamps of the New Jersey Pinelands. Wetlands 15(2):183-189.
Evans, R. O. and R. W. Skaggs, 1985. Agricultural water management for Coastal Plain soils.
Published by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. Paper AG-355.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG), 1998. Stream Corridor
Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices. National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA.
Gomez, B., 1991. Bedload Transport. Earth-Science Reviews 31, 89-132.
Gosselink, J. G., and R. E. Turner, 1978. The Role of Hydrology in Freshwater Wetland Ecosystems.
In Freshwater Wetlands, 63-78. R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson, eds.
Burlington, Mass.: Academic Press.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart,
and R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and
J.P. Potyondy. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT
Inglis, C.C. 1947. Meanders and their Bearing on River Training. Institution of Civil Engineers,
Maritime and Waterways Engineering Division, Paper No. 7, 54 pp.
King, R. 2000. Effects of Single Burn Events on Degraded Oak Savanna. Ecological Restoration
18:228-233.
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-1
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Knighton, David, 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. New
York, NY.
Lane, E. W., 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Paper No. 2776. pp. 1234-1279.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman and J. P. Miller, 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover
Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lilly, J. P. 1981. The blackened soils of North Carolina: Their characteristics and management for
agriculture. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin No. 270.
Lutz, H. J., 1940. Disturbance of Forest Soil Resulting from the Uprooting of Trees. Yale University
School of Forestry Bulletin No. 45.
Mausbach, M.J., J.L. Richardson, 1994. Biogeochemical Processes in Hydric Soil Formation.
Current Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry, Vol. 1, 1994, pp 68-124.
McCandless, T. L., 2003. Maryland Stream Survey: Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics
of Streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the Valley and Ridge Hydrologic Regions. US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.
~ Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink, 2000. Wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 920 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2006. Water Quality Stream
' Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. Water Quality Section, November 2006.
Raleigh, NC.
Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Wang,
S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L., 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Draft Presented
at ASCE Conference on River Restoration in Denver Colorado -March, 1998. ASCE.
Reston, VA.
Rosgen, D.L., 2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March, 2001.
Rosgen, D. L., 2001b. The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures...Their Description,
Design and Application for Stream Stabilization and River Restoration. Published By: ASCE
conference, Reno, NV, August, 2001.
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, NCDEHNR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Scherrer, E., 2000. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina. MS Thesis, Forestry Department, North Carolina State University.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. US Geological
Survey Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-2
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

Sharitz, R. R., R. L. Schneider, and L. C. Lee. 1990. Composition and Regeneration of a Disturbed
River Floodplain Forest in South Carolina. In Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts:
Illustrated by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems, 195-218. J. G. Gosselink, L. C.
Lee, and T. A. Muir, eds. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.
Simon, A., 1989. A Model of Channel Response in Disturbed Alluvial Channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DRAINMOD Reference Report: Methods for Design and Evaluation of
Drainage-Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Skaggs, R. W., D. Amatya, R. O. Evans, and J. E. Parsons, 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Paper
No. 91-2590.
Soar and Thorne, 2001. Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineering Research and Development Center. Coastal and Hydraulics
Laboratory, ERDC\CHL CR-O1-1. September, 2001.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113-116.
Stuckey, J. L., and Conrad, S. G., 1958, Explanatory Text for Geologic Map of North Carolina: North
Carolina Division of Mineral Resources, N. C. Department of Conservation and
Development, Bulletin 71, 51 p.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recuttence
Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 39(4):861-871.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Research Program (WRP), 1997. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1.
US Army Corps of Engineers, WRP, July 2000. Technical Notes ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1996a. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F.
(eds,). USDA, NRSCS, Forth Worth, TX.
US Department of Agriculture, (NRCS), 1996b. Soil Survey of Gates County, North Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS ), 2004. Climate
Information for Gates County North Carolina. National Water & Climate Center. Beltsville,
Maryland. Website cited on February 3, 2007,
van Beers, W. F. J., 1970. The Auger-Hole Method: a Field Measurement of Hydraulic
Conductivity of Soil below the Water Table. Rev. ed. ILRI Bulletin 1, Wageningen, 32 pp.
Vepraskas, M.J. 1996. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service.
Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. Am. Geophys. Union Press, 320 pp.
Wolman, M.G. and L.B. Leopold., 1957. River Floodplains: Some Observations on their Formation.
USGS Professional Paper 282-C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-3
DUKE SWAMP SITE RESTORATION PLAN_DRAFT

C

Exhibits
1

N
A
W
0
Project Location
1
1
~q
s
rNi ``d~
~ a
~ ~
i 158
z~
t Bennetts Creek
o i
(P
d
3
-o
\~
~d
7
~? 13 4 `, ~~
~j .j
f , 1
158 1\
_~ .. ~
.,lit `^
Gates County Project ~~ y f.,~r'-'J~r
Location
~. _ ~ `
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518 i~ D06065-A
Exhibit 1.1. Project Vicinity Map
Duke Swamp Site
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

I a~~
J
~~
7-
s ~+

~'~ ~~
./~~yy'~ M~~„
d ~~~
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
it i
# D06065-A
Exhibit 1.2
soo 1,00o Site Location Map
Feet
Duke Swamp Site

i '~IO-~ , - ~ ,
t --~- ~ °
H \\\ ~
! ~~' I/I a - - 1 LOr ~~~ I/
Q
- UT1 Watershed Area = 2.9 sq. mi. z °,; ~ ,` ~r `„\\\ ~`
a _.__.
~~
,- a C. t =
- `~. _ ~ I l
~` ~~ i ~~- I ~ "~a
/-
r -
r d ~~
.--r- _~ - - `~~__
~, ~ .
. ,~ /
l
• ° ~ !r ! /.- x 11.0 ~ 1f
-_ - \130 1 to-,a,"` I ~\ . / ~ ~ t ~ .; !'r _ •'~aa-'
_ gg Fork. Rd ` Project Boundary ~ ~ ,~ . ; ~.
x r,.~--_
V .~`~ ~
O ~ : -" \ °
•` • ~
~'~ !: 23
/ ~ .... .~ 1 , 1
~"~ _ ' UT2 Watershed Area = 0.03 sq. mi ;;, - l~'~. Y J
. r-
_.
,_,,._..1 ..' - .--' _
~n„ ~ Kelloya Fork
_ ~ r,
,,~, ~ ~ ~ ,
~-' -~ ^
~~' rn 1 ` 'Cem
. .
1;tF ~.U~ ., ~' ~ rya l1~ ~~~~_.,~_ _o ~Q_jz '~ ~ ;1J~_" -, xrr.,;r\
~ ~
~~~ io -b -.1. --y,' ~ Ire j ''`'~ + _ `~ , ICem- ~• i ~t ~ ~ 2 i..
i 1 ' -~r~o ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~
1 1 1
_..
lit ~ I, ~ aN 7.9 /1 ~~ r ~ - u 11
.. ,
_ .r , `~~ I ~ _ ^~' "' ? ~ ~( 11.6 ' , /~.
- -s.
~ ~ 0 1,000 2,000 Exhibit 1.3
~'~+~,~,il ~f, Feet Project Watershed Boundaries
8000 Regency Parkway. Suite 200 Duke SWamp Site
Cary. NC 27518 ~ D06065-A

UT1 a ~ '
C-` Exhibit 1.4
~ , , ,, 0 300 600 Proposed Restoration Areas
Feet Duke Swamp Site
# D06065-A

r C
N
~+ (C
~ U
X t~i~
W of
U
E

t
3 °' r
rn~
~~~N, ~'~lf`
C
O e
i „
r
:~
O
3
C
N
4
O
N
R
d U
A C
C7 U! N
~,
v
L
~'o
~ m
o .
A
_~
u
,.:, ~ X
~oV
~~3
~ -x
V~~
E ~~
Y n
~ ~ ~
a v ~
oQ~
'u ~e
u c ~
~~a3
a ~ e
u a .?
.~ ~ `_
m a d5
~ E~
V a.
u
Yl
~ /, u
is 5 5
c~
m
c
m
rn
0
Q~
T
~_
.J
a
.~
0

Class I. Sinuous, Premodified h~ =critical bank height
h<h~
= direction of bank or
~h bed movement
Class II. Channelized Class III. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<h~ h<h~ h>h~
floodplain terrace
? ~ T .,{.
hI Ih
i i
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening
h>h~
oversteepened reach
t
Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h<h~
aggradation zone
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Chatmel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices,10/98.
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWGx15 Federal agencies of the US).
aggraded material
Exhibit 2.3
Simon Channel ffolution mtlel
Source: Simon, 198
~ aggraded material
Class I Class III

t~ ;
~
_
~
~~

i
~.
C
~
.
~
0
~ % / ,

~
as / %~
~C,<~
~ -.,

0

m
i\
o ~,~
~.
~ ,
~
~

•~ ~ ~~
I ~ ~ ~ ~ /
~ ,
J ~ ~~
~` /
I~ ~ /'~
~~ 1
~ i ~
1 ~
~~
C
O
'N Q L
L
L
L
V
V
0

.N
v
0
V
m
0
v
,,,
Yip
f~~
\/
1/
~~/
u
~a
a
N
a
N
w
/ ,\'
\
,
i~
~~i
i
~~
7 li
~
i~\!
/ \ j (L
%~~ ~

/ ~` ~
~\/
~
~,,
:.
°a _.
/ I
m
\
O

. ~
Ct] ~
~
y \
L 1
~ -' I

V
V
0
« -
LL -
;_}
.G

;. ~L

'
.- Z
/
m ti ~ ~
i
~`
~
~ ~ ~.
y 7 \
\

~ I

0
U
V
0

V -
_-i_

y
i
z

U _
~ ~
~~ ~ .
i
i
i
3
y
0
0
U
y
c
v
U
n>
cn
0
U
~ ~
N ~
~+ ~
~_ (~
t ~
X U
W -p
~U
0
Q~
~L
a
c
0
(~
O
a~

c
0
~in ~-
`o °
~ ~
o ~
t ~
U ~
O
d O
Q ~ ~
U
U y ~
'~ ` r
O
c
t o 0
aU y
o
n°>o°'
C7~nc
Q ~U
_~
'O U ~
'~ O ~
oa j
~ ~ H
~ > 0
N ~ h
O
~ N N
U U ~
~ C
!~ O J

Channel Dimension Measurements
Incised Channel
_"~'' FLOOD PRONE WIDTH.
D
~x
~?"#-° f04~ OF BANK
~~
.~
- ..............LL WIDTH_ f-BANKFULL
ANK~tlLl.
I~[A : n ELEVATION
~~ : ~ (break in slope
Xz ; v indicator)
;z
~; ~ WATER.. SUi~FACE
~_ - ~---TNALW E~
Bankfull Elevation is associated with the
channel forming discharge. It is the point
where channel processes and flood plain
processes begin.
Bankfull width: the distance between the
.... ...._ ................
left bank bankfull elevation and the right
bank bankfull elevation
Bankfull mean depth: the average depth
from bankfull elevation to the bottom of the
stream channel
Max depth_(dmax~: the deepest point within
the cross-section measured to the bankfull
elevation
Width to Deoth Ratio: Bankfull width
Bankfull mean depth
Bank Height Ratio: Bank height (measured
from top of bank to the bottom of the
stream channel) :the max depth of the
bankfull elevation (dmax}
FIvQd Prone Width: Width measured at the
elevation of two times (2x) the maximum
depth at bankfull (dmax)
Entrenchment Ratio: Flvodprone width
bankfull width
Exhibit 2.5
Channel Dimension Measurements

~
O
N
~
C ~,,
r+ U
u C '~
~ ~~ L ~
'~ o
.~~. ^.
r c3 ~
.
W tC
~ ' S.~ L
Y'
~
._ ~~
L
• ~ '-S
~ ~

m ~ ~
v . _ .,
. ~S U
c
`~ :.ci
G = rn
~
.. ~U
~ 0
^J
~^.. r,

:S •~ J
1J
~_ J r~
L
J
nJ > '! /:
v
~
^J
r ~
~ ^/
.~

~A es

7
^J ^'
1J •~ U
"J Cr
x =
f' -
:~
J LJ.. y G ~ /%
r
~ f y T. ~
~J v L
i

z 1J
~ %r
='

~. ,~ ._

~
v
r
~
y i
iL ~

~~"~
:J ~
v
v L 'n
~
^J t,
J
_
J
~
~. U i1
.^. /~
r
U
:/: ...
y
:J "" y
~ nJ
~.. ~

~ :~ ~
~
~ y
.-.
y
,,,,
,

'zi 'L r
y~ ~ ..

r, O3 n n

y

cn
. ~ ~
:. y
~
U ~ y
r. cn
:~ fS, '"'
~ti J ...
~~
:J :J C4

J r
:J /~ 1
x ., CC ~'
r
L J ~ J J U '
C ~
J ~ C
~
f L v yU

y 'L
y

CG ~
~
~

~'
`~^
~, ~~
a. ~';~
~6
~ ~ ~";
• i ~'~ i
„• ~ ~~
~'
~ ~ ~~ ~~~'
{, ~ r ~y ~i Q
~Y... rah! ~~ .. r~..~,
~ ~
N
r+ r
U
L ~
x
W ~
f0
N
i
y
C
O
N
N
n.
X
W
N
3
0
0
~~
,,
~` .^.?~'
•4
} ~~
wq~.*
a ' '~

~rr ri ~~ ~x
~ k .„c±
~~` .,~ ,,e ~ w.
.~„-
s >. , _ RI
~i +~ ,; `
?- ~.i..
~~`
„¢ ~ f~ "^
" $ ~ ; O
~ h
~ ^' `v J
~ ,' qt "T E'r ~-
kt ~ ~, d
~ ~ ~• w.
r~ t> f ~ ,

~~
x 7 >r
~ ~ w4
K. ~.
f.- 1: 3 ,y.. 9 ...
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
r` Exhibit 5.1
0 400 800 Site Wetlands Map
1'~,"~" ' ! ~ Feet Duke Swamp Site
D06065-A

GoA - Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
NaA - Nawney loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
NoA - Noboco fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
NoB - Noboco fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
0 PaA - Pactolus sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
® RaA - Rains loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
w - water
NoB
r T
-..�* Kellogg Fork l
.,
Gmgr
Y
PaA �.
w r
Ker
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary. NC 27518
GoA
# D06065 -A
N
RaA
r:
GOA
Project Boundary
NoB
-,.
Ly
Exhibit 5.2
0 400 800 Project Site Soils Map
Feet
Duke Swamp Site

Automated Well Locations^G.
Project Boundary
- Open Water / Ponds
N
ie
X�
a.
jr
t s y 1
T �
t r !'. _•• Kellogg Fork Rd
AW 5
AW 1 AW 2 AW 4
AW 3 n ��
Pond 1
Pond 2
tt
Pond 3 101
kl
41
v
Exhibit 5.3
' 0 400 800 Site Hydrology Map & Location of
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Feet Water Table Monitoring Wells
Cary, NC 27518 # D06065 -A Duke Swamp Site

f
a ~~ .b
•
8000 Regency Parkway. Suite 200
Cary, NC 27519
~ o
~, ~' ~
®asass-a
Exhibit 6.1
400 800 Cross-Section Location Map
'Feet Duke Swamp Site

N
A~
Reference Wetland
- Duke Swamp
Ile
Rich ., are'"' ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ v
Aul er Pow ville '1
Roxobel '~'`...Col~rain 32 H
Kefford ~, 305 13
ck Lewiston-WoBdville ~ aAs ewville 45
1 Bear
J\j
n
gs
Cove City
~ ~.
Mesid
Vanl~mora
r~nR nw r' '
Arap, hoe Oriental
Stream Reference Reach - ~- _Po ocksviae New B n
arsaw Beaver Dam Branch Minnesota Beach
,~_
Kenlleu ~ 258 70
f„~ ,,
Beulav+lle._ 24 - H velock 306
Exhibit 6.2
~ 0 3.5 7 14 Location of Reference Reach
4".~-r~•s~1e!1! Miles & Reference Wetland
8000 Regency Parkway. Suite 200 DUke SWam Slte
Cary, NC 27518 # D06065-A p

-r-~ 0
O
o
,
v
\
~ ~
~ ~
O
O
,
\

\
~
O
\
,
\
\
v ~
\ v
\ ~ ,
\ `
\
v \
\
,

~
Cp
O
~ O
\
\
, ,
, O
,
v
\
~

\ ~ ~
v
\
`
\
\\
\
`
\ ,
` ~\
\
` ~
\
lA
O
O
\ ,
\ ~ , O
\ ` ,
\ ,
\
,
\~
~
\,~~ \\
\ , ~ ~
`, ~ ~~
, ~ ,
\ o
o d
o.
o
\\ ~ `, ~
\~\
\ \
\ \
,
, \ \~ o
\`~ o
+ ~
M

O
O
~ v
\ \ N ~
`~• ~ ~ O
~ \\ `\ ~
\
~
~ \
\ II
`~\
\ ,
~
\ N
~\
N
~,
°: ~\
~ `' o
o

~
v,
m \ ~ \ o
a~
m ~
~ ~ ~ \
,~ ,\\ \
~

~
cn ~
~

.
°' \.
U \~
o ~\ ~ \

°o

Z N
O ~ ~ ,
rn ,\ ,\
\~
, \
o
• • \,~\
M \
I
0
M N N ~ ~ O O
O O C O O O O
~Z „~1/gl~ ssaa~s ~ea4S
c~
A
U
cC

A
.~
bp
cd
:~
c~
A
U
c~
U
C
w
...~
c~
w
0
U
w
a~
o.
0
A
C
U
b
>~
a~
c
P4
a
a~
a~
3
GA
,.y ~""
~ ,O
r ~
~ o
WU

1
ao
0
0
0

~

~

~ ~ ti
o
o
\ ~ °
~ `,

` ~

' co
o
o
~ ~ , O
~ ~'

~
~
`
~ ~
~ ~ ~
` ~
O
O
~ ~ ~~ O
~
~
~ ~ ~
~

~
\ ~
` ~

~ `
~, .~
~ ~
\ ` \
~
~...
~ o
a
~
~ O Q.
O
,
,~
~ \ ~ o0 o
` ` ~` ~ x
` ~ ~ ~ N
N ~ ` ~ N
~ ~ ~
~ ~

M
\ ~`~
`
~
~ `,
m
~'

t
~ ~
~ ~
~, ~~
~ ~ U
C ~~ ~ ~
c ~
~ ~ ~ N
O
O
~
~
m
~
~ ~~
'`, ~ o

~

~
~
rn
' c
~
U ~;

~ ~
m

•
• ~
`, \ ~ 00
o
~~
'M~
0

o °o °o o °o °o °o
N O 00 Cp ~ N O
(Z ~u/IVY aannod weaa~S
c~
i
A
a~

.~
a~
c~
A
U
c~
U
A
W
..r".i
CC
h
c~
it
W
a
0
i
U
^o
w.
a>
0
a
c~
a
a~
a~
N ~
~ Q.
~ o
WU
1

1
1
[I

1
1
1
ao
0
O
N
c~a
~ ' i
~'
~
~ ,, ~ ti
o
~

' z / o
o

~
w ,
.~
s
I ' ;
,,
~
,
~ ~ ~ ;
~ U
~ ~ i
O ,' ~
I~
O
f9
~ m
a (~ , ~
~
/ O

Z
O
rn
,, ' i

'

•
•

,
, /
~ ~

~

n

'
~ ,
,.
~ , O
O
P..
,., I ~
~ ~. O
~,,
/
,: ~
,
,',
r
'
I'

'
~.
,

/' ,
~ v
o
o
--
~
, ~ ~ o fl.
o
,I ~
,, ~
, I
, ! M
I N
, o
/ ~'
, ~,
,
,
•~ '
~~

N
, /
, ~ o
O
, I ~
~
O
I
1 ~
1 I
'
A

'
~
I
~ ~
+ y
~
r
~ ~~,
~ ~ ~ x o
~ N
~ `~
r
O
I
I
,
~
/ ~
N
a Q

o
,
~' ',
'
~,
~
~
~ ~
• ~
~ ~
O

O 00
N r (D
.- ~ N O QO
.- r r CO ~t N O
a/M
U
c~
Q
.~
a~
b
A
cC
R~+
a~
U
ri
N
~.
w
~i
.~
/~/~
~1
C~
CC
U
w
a
0
a
a
3
.O
c~

CL
~Qy~
V
b
~'r
Q~
Q~
~./~
F+1
M ~
O
r+ • ~
~?a+
WUA

Appendices

1
u

1

1
1

1

1 Appendix A
' SHPO Correspondence &
Recorded Conservation Easement Deeds
1
1

u

1

1
~~~

1

ii
r

aY 0~9 0
.~~~,~
Michael I~. I aslcy, Gorcma
I.abcth (:. Idvana, ticcrctary
Jcffrc~y J. rmw, I)~ury ticcrctary
August 23, 2006
north Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pets n. santMuck, ntjminiutatoc
()fC~ of Archives end I Iiatory
Division of Iiisroric~l Rcsaurccs
I)¢vid Amok,I7ircctor
Ken Gilland
Buck Engineering
8000 Regenry Parkway, Suite 200
Cagy, NC 27511
Re: EEP, Wetland and Stream Mitigation, Unnamed Tributary to Duke Swamp, Gates County, ER 06-2096
Dear Mr. Gilland:
' Thank you for your letter of July 31, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
' affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments ate made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
' Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 10G codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
~J

i

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck ~ ~ t?? (~ ~'1
' Loeuioa Mar~i~ Address Tekphotte/Fsx
ADMINISTRATION w7 N. Rkrou Sttea, Rsky~h N(: a617 hlsJ Serricc (:ester, Rstmgh Nf.27699.4GI7 (9I9}7?1a7G3/ri33-!1651
RBS'I'ORATION S2S N. Ilkmm Sweet, Rakish NC 4617 iiAd Scrriae Center, Rsldgh N(:27699-415 1 7 (919j73J-GS47/71S•aSOI
SURVBY fc PIJINNING S1S N. 131amt Street, Rakish, N(: aGl7 iaai Service Center, Raldgh NC 27699.4617 (919j731G54S/711-aM11
1

C
FILED h ~3ATES Countyy, WC
on Apr OZ 2~7 at 02:OD38 °h
~~ ~OF DEEi~
800K 2~ PAGE 903
Record: $53.00
Excise Tax: $133.00

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
GATES COUNTY
SPO File Number: 37-zzx
' Prepared by and
Return to: Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
P. O. Box 1351
' Raleigh, NC 27602
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
(TRACTS A and A-1)
~ Iaawd Apr 02 ZOa7
f 133.00
s1s1• ~t GATES
t~lortn c.~r~. county
R~sl Eaf st ~ Excise Tsx

' THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this Z 7 day of
~~$~*-"-,~ , 2007, by ENMITY EARL PARKER, JR. and wife, BETTX S.
PARKER; ENMITY EARL PARKER, III and wife, TERRI PARKER; JENNIFER
PARKER (unmarried}; TANYA PARKER JONES and husband, KEVIN JONES;
CLAYTEN PARKER and wife, MARCIE FARKER; and CLINTEN PARKER and wife,
LEE PARKER, ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is c% Emmitt Earl Parker, Jr. 410
' Kellogg Fork Road, Sunbury, NC 27979, to the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"},
whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State
Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321, The designations
' of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors,
and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required
by context.
WITNESSETH.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the- provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. ~ 143-214.8 et sea.,
the State of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(formerly known as the Wetlands. Restoration Program) within the Department of
' Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat,
wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
1
'I'bis certifies tht~t then are no delln~neltt ad rilotem tall
Eatek texts, which the Gates Coanly Tax Collector >o
Charges with votiecting tl<et are a lien on:
rile ~: 05 -00 I
- - Gates County OE6c~ of Land Records. Thin is not a
CertidCation that the PIN # autcha tla deed desari~ton.
Taz Collector 1)Ak
Delingaent Tox Colledot
L!

[l

Record: $44.00
' Excise Tax: $377.00

FILED h GATES Countyy,~ NC
on Apr QZ Z007 st 02:OS~3 Pt!
bys ShU1FtDF1 G. ti~RELL
REGISTER OF DEEDS
WOK 256 PAGE 917
This certifies that then sa a no deiingaent ad ~abrem teal
Estate taxea, which the Gates Conaly Tax Coiledor Ie
Charges with rnttectiag that are a ilea oa:
PIN #; ~~ •OU~
Gates Coaaty 0ltice of band Recore~s. This is not a
Certificati~a that the PIN # matches the deed descriptba.
Tax Collector Date
Detingneat Tsx Collector
Tax Clerk
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
GATES COUNTY MITIGATION CONTRACT
' (TRACTS B and B-1)
SPO File Number: 37-ZZK
istuod Apr 02 2007
' Prepared by and ~ ~.~
slat. •t GATES
R
H
M
i
J
b
.
err
tt,
r.
Return to:
ert
o
North Carolats County
Bailey & Dixon, LLP
R~sl Est st • Exci~~ Tsx
P. O. Box L3S1
Raleigh, NC 27602
~/9
/J THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this ~ day of
/~/+'~~~' , 2007, by ENMITY EARL PARKER, JR. and wife, BETTY S.
' PARKER, ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is 410 Kellogg Fork Road, Sunbury, NC
27979, to the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of
North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 132.1 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. T'he designations of Grantor and .Grantee as used
herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include
singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
'
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et sea..
the. State of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(formerly known as the Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and ,preserving wetland and riparian resources That contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat,
' wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been
negotiated, arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between
Buck Engineering, a unit of Michael Baker Corporation, $000 Regency Parkway, Suite
1

Appendix B

I!

EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
1

EDR® Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheck®
UT to Duke Swamp
410 Kellogg Fork Road
Sunbury, NC 27979
Inquiry Number: 1727919.1s
August 02, 2006
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM-NULL-ERN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION

1
[~
PAGE
Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary---------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Orphan Summary--------------------------------------------------------. 7
Government Records Searched/Data 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-10
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes 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 environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional 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 report 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 property of their respective owners.
' TC1727919.1s 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
ADDRESS
410 KELLOGG FORK ROAD
' SUNBURY, NC 27979
COORDINATES
' Latitude (North): 36.469200 - 36° 28' 9.1"
Longitude (West): 76.6361 00 - 76° 38' 10.0"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 18
UTM X (Meters): 353411.2
' UTM Y (Meters): 4037034.0
Elevation: 19 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
' Target Property Map: 36076-D6 MERCHANTS MILLPOND, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1997
East Map: 36076-D5 SUNBURY, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1997
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
t 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________________________. National Priority List
' Proposed NPL_____________. Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL_______________ National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY..__________, Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS____________________ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
.System
CERC-NFRAP_______________ CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
1

' TC1727919.1s 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________________________ Fnrmerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS_________. AListing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT___________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_________________________ Records Of Decision
UMTRA______________________ Oranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODI__________________________ open Dump Inventory
TRIS_________________________ Tnxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA________________________ Tnxic Substances Control Act
FTTS________________________ FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS ........................ Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS_________________________. lntegrated Compliance Information System
PADS________________________ PCB Activity Database System
MLTS________________________ Materlal Licensing Tracking System
MINES_______________________ Mlnes Master Index File
FINDS_______________________ Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS______________________ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS_______________________ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NC HSDS____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMD__________________________ lncident Management Database
SWF/LF______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI__________________________ 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_________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS_____________. Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES______________________ NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV_______._._..lndian Reservations
INDIAN LUST________________Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST_________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants___ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC1727919.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
SOUTHERN FOOD MARKET
PERRY'S TEXACO
H. B. LILLEY
G.P. KITTRELL & SON. INC.
WOLFREY GROCERY
GEORGE P. GATLING
CHARLES T. HOFLER
HOLIDAY FOOD STORE #205
STEWART FORD INC
SUNBURY EXCHANGE
FAMILY FOODS
BRIGGS EQUIPMENT COMPANY
HOBB'S RADIO & T.V.
HOFLER TRACTOR & IMPLEMENT CO
SUNBURY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CHARLES T HOFLER
MIDWAY CHEVROLET. INC.
GEORGE P GATLING
H S HOFLER & SONS
H S HOFLER & SON
CORAPEAKE COLLISION CENTER
GATES COUNTY SCHOOLS-TS COOPER
Database(s)
LUST, IMD
LUST, LUST TRUST, IMD
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
RCRA-SQG, FINDS
IMD
TC1727919.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

VYCRYIGYY w~rl-r- iiciai~.ia
/:

~t~
~ -

' ~ 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

O 1/4 1/2 l MUGS
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
NAME: UT to Duke Swamp CLIENT: Buck Engineering
CRESS: 410 Kellogg Fork Road CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Sunbury NC 27979 INGIUIRY #: 1727919.is
'LONG: 36.4692 / 76.6361 DATE: August 02, 2006

^
DETAIL MAP -1727919.1 s
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
t Sensitive Receptors
' ~ National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/Y6 1/B 1/4 Mlks
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
>ITE NAME: UT to Duke Swamp CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: 410 Kellogg Fork Road CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Sunbury NC 27979 INQUIRY #: 1727919.1s
AT/LONG: 36.4692 / 76.6361 DATE: August 02, 2006

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
Search
Target Distance
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1
Total
Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NPL RECOVERY TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC1727919.1s Page 4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
TRIBAL RECORDS
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
INDIAN RESERV 1.000
INDIAN LUST 0.500
INDIAN UST 0.250
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000
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
TC1727919.1s Page 5

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation Site
NO SITES FOUND
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC1727919.1s Page 6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
y r
o ~
z ~
LL ~
r
~ ~
~ ~ ~ J
a
~ r vri r ga r r r r r r r r r p r r r r r r r vri
m ~n p m U m m rn m m cn v~ m rn w w ~n m rn <n v>
D 7 J ~ ~ > > > 7 7 > > 7 ~ ~ 7 > > > 7 > > J
(O t0 (0 f0 O1 Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Ol 0 O/ 0 0 01 Of 0 0 01
_n, rn rn rn rn a, rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
rNi
Q
O
= F..
M ~ 001 N W
X X M O O O O O
00^d~~-~ ~= N
7 M
F ~'1 !a Z F W W F~~~~~~ M~ M M cNi M M
O r n0000C7C9$C~C9~?~C7~~~~~U
N
y
d
V
Q
m

O oU
J
w Z}Z U~ZO
W 'n Q r~U
J~
W U U N g J J N U
~? z w O O ff} z
O W U p
~ON~2wOUCZ7 Z>U~r~wc9~
r Z Q ~ Z W J Z Z Z
~ JU~C7 SOOU~=OZU W=W QeB elf O
pp O
}Zw c9a~OLLU~$O ~~wrxO~~w
m w~~~} r} w~ O r} U a w w r
E ~_ W~ a W W W} R' LL N 0 U a' ~ W} W u. LL N
Z J j Y d J O 0¢' J 3 m d~ m W J m J~~ 2 2 2'
:: mOa00w20~~a~0¢O~~~w~v~w
'v~ =v~c~U3c~Uxv~mLLmxc~xv~U~t~xx~app
~ M O~ S ~ O n S O M cN7 4M9 O~ N S M M O In
f0 ~ Of ~ ~ S f0 ~O N n ~f In tp M M fh n
Q ~~ N~ ~ O O c0 f0 N~ N c'f O N M~ M M
t0 ~ ~ 0 C M Of O1 O t0 N O O f0 f0 f0 N
M I^ n N M r~ M~ O N N M f+0f M M O
~ O O O g O 0 0 S 0 O O O O O O
D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O O S ~ S O S S S S O ~
W ~ fn ~ .-»» 7»» f4»»» 7 fA
i
U
W W W W
2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z
O O O O > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
U U U U f4 to to to (~ M fn tp y to y N N y N h y y
n
N
f0
a
y
_~
n•
N
n
F-

EDR LoanChecK~ Basic: Environmental Risk Review
September 15, 2006

1

u

Property Name
UT TO DUKE SWAMP
410 KELLOGG FORK RD
SUNBURY, NC 27979
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06460
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Web:www.edrnet.com
EDR" Environmental
Data Resources Inc
ENVIRfJNMENTAL RISK LEVEL
To help evaluate environmental risk, the EDR LoanCheck~Basic provides an Environmental Risk Level,
based on a search of current government records requested to be searched by
Buck Engineering.
ELEVATED RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is elevated.
XO LOW RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is minimal.
User Instructions
For more information regarding this Environmental Risk Level, please refer to page 2 and other supporting reports.
User Comments
' Reports and Databases
The following reports an/or databases were requested by customer and were included in the Environmental
Risk Level where available:
' • EDR Radius Map Report
u

1

U
Disclaimer -Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes 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 environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional 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 whale
or in part, of any report 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 roe of their res ective owners.
01756615.3r Page 1

EDR LoanCheck® Basic: Environmental Risk Review
' FINDINGS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
The environmental LOW RISK is based upon the findings listed below. Refer to the supporting report(s) for
additional detail.
TARGET PROPERTY
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
01756615.3r Page 2

Appendix C
DRAINMOD Analysis Files &
Restoration Site Water Table Data
C

D R A I N M O D 5.1
Copyright 1980-OS North Carolina State University
' LAST UPDATE: SEPT 1999
LANGUAGE FORTRAN 77/90
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OE BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
' DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Program Files\Drainmod\INPUTS\DUKE SWAMP_PROP
Cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
************
' ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR DUKE SWAMP for proposed conditions, STmax=4.Ocm,
thwtd=30cm
CLIMATE INPUTS
----DESCRIPTION-------------------------------(VARIABLE)-----VALUE---UNIT-----
FILE FOR RAINDATA .............R:\109351-DUKE SWAMP\DRAINMOD\DUKE SWAMP RAIN.RA
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA .R:\109351-DUKE SWAMP\DRAINMOD\DUKE SWAMP TEMP.TE
' RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ..........................(RAINID) 1
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 1
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..................(START YEAR) 1949 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
' ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ......................(END YEAR) 2006 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION ....................(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE ...................(TEMP LAT) 36.50 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX ..........................................(HID) 85.00
' ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.52 3.30 2.49 1.69 1.31 .99 .90 .87 .94 1.20 1.45 2.01
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
1 *** CONTROLLED DRAINAGE ***
JOB TITLE: ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR DUKE SWAMP
for proposed conditions, STmax=4.Ocm, thwtd=30cm
' - STMAX = 4.00 CM SOIL SURFACE -
+ /) /)
ADEPTH =300. CM DDRAIN 55. CM
• 0-------------SDRAIN = 3505. CM -----------0 -
EFFRAD =**** CM
HDRAIN =184. CM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' IMPERMEABLE LAYER
' DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 100.0 4.000
100.0 - 300.0 1.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 55.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 184.4 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 3505.0 CM
' MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 4.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 239.4 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT (AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 2.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
' ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 300.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 2.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 = 4.65

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 60.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) _ .50 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 15.0 CM
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE SURFACE
------------------------------
DATE 1/ 1 2/ 1 3/ 1 4/ 1 5/ 1 6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0
DATE 7/ 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 12/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 22.5
2.0 35.7
3.0 50.0
4.0 65.0
5.0 77.5
6.0 89.4
7.0 101.0
8.0 110.5
9.0 120.0
10.0 128.6
11.0 137.1
12.0 145.7
13.0 153.3
14.0 160.0
15.0 166.7
16.0 173.3
17.0 180.0
18.0 186.7
19.0 193.3
20.0 200.0
21.0 206.7
22.0 213.3
23.0 220.0
24.0 226.7
25.0 233.3
26.0 240.0
27.0 246.7
28.0 253.3
29.0 260.0
30.0 266.7
35.0 300.0
40.0 366.7
45.0 433.3
50.0 500.0
60.0 600.0
70.0 700.0
80.0 800.0
90.0 900.0

TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
' HEAD WATER CONTENT VOZD VOLUME UPFLUX
(CM) (CM/CM) (CM) (CM/HR)
.0 .3700 .00 .2000
10.0 .3000 .25 .1000
20.0 .2820 .80 .0800
30.0 .2720 1.60 .0250
40.0 .2660 2.30 .0112
50.0 .2580 3.00 .0058
60.0 .2540 3.60 .0031
' 70.0 .2480 4.40 .0018
80.0 .2440 5.20 .0010
90.0 .2410 6.05 .0007
100.0 .2380 6.90 .0004
' 110.0 .2360 7.95 .0002
120.0 .2340 9.00 .0000
130.0 .2320 10.17 .0000
140.0 .2300 11.33 .0000
' 150.0 .2280 12.50 .0000
160.0 .2272 14.00 .0000
170.0 .2264 15.50 .0000
180.0 .2256 17.00 .0000
190.0 .2248 18.50 .0000
200.0 .2240 20.00 .0000
210.0 .2236 21.50 .0000
220.0 .2232 23.00 .0000
230.0 .2228 24.50 .0000
240.0 .2224 26.00 .0000
250.0 .2219 27.50 .0000
260.0 .2215 29.00 .0000
270.0 .2211 30.50 .0000
280.0 .2207 32.00 .0000
290.0 .2203 33.50 .0000
300.0 .2199 35.00 .0000
350.0 .2178 38.75 .0000
' 400.0
450.0 .2158
.2137 42.50
46.25 .0000
.0000
500.0 .2117 50.00 .0000
600.0 .2076 60.00 .0000
700.0 .2034 70.00 .0000
800.0 .1993 80.00 .0000
' 900.0 .1952 90.00 .0000
' GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 .000
50.000 1.200 1.000
' 100.000 3.300 1.000
150.000 6.000 1.000
200.000 9.200 1.000
500.000 25.000
1000.000 25.000 1.000
1.000
TRAFFICABILITY
++++++++++++++
' FIRST SECOND
REQUIREMENTS PERIOD PERIOD
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM): 3.00 3.00
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM): 1.20 1.20
' -MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE: 2.00 2.00
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1 12/31
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 5/ 1 12/31
' -FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8 B
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20 20

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

CROP
****
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .17
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 6/18
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 3.0
4 16 3.0
5 4 4.0
5 17 15.0
6 1 25.0
6 20 30.0
7 18 30.0
8 20 20.0
9 24 10.0
9 25 3.0
12 31 3.0
***** Wetlands Parameter Estimation *****
Start Day = 84 End Day = 315
Threshold Water Table Depth (cm) = 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 19
****************** NEW CROP ++*++++*:***+++++**+*
C:\PROGRAM FILES\DRAINMOD\CROPS\FOREST.CIN
CROP ROTATION NUMBER: 1
DAY TO BEGIN WORKING FIELD: 73 DAY TO FINISH HARVESTING FIELD: 264
INWEIR = 2
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE SURFACE
------------------------------
DATE 1/ 1 2/ 1 3/ 1 4/ 1 5/ 1 6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0
DATE 7/ 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 12/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0
TRAFFICABILITY
FIRST
REQUIREMENTS PERIOD
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM) 3.90
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM): 1.20
-MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE: 2.00
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 9/ 2
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20
CROP
****
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/28
END STRESS PERIOD ON 6/15
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 40.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/28
END STRESS PERIOD ON 9/10
SECOND
PERIOD
3.90
1.20
2.00
12/31
12/31
8
20

1
1

1

MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 45.0
4 1 45.0
4 28 45.0
5 20 45.0
6 19 45.0
7 18 45.0
8 18 45.0
9 2 45.0
9 10 45.0
12 31 45.0
YIELD INPUTS
last planting day without yield loss (JLAST): 123
length of growing season (IGROW) 136
1st planting day reduction factor (PDRF) 2.000000
days using 1st planting delay fact (DELAYI) 27.000000
2nd planting day reduction factor (PDRF2) 2.000000
total days of work before planting (REQWRK) 1.000000
IOW: 32
IOH: 6
YSLOPE: 1.220000
YRDMAX: 100.000000
DSLOPE: 7,100000E-01
PD 118
IGR: 130
SDF: 1
IPS(I),IPE(I),CSD(I),I=1,IOH
0 29 .2000
30 49 .2200
50 69 .3200
70 89 .1900
90 109 .0800
110 136 .0200
CSI(I),I=1,IOW
.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
.0000 .0500 .0500 1.0000 1.0000
1.0000 1.0000 1.7500 2.1000 2.1000
1.3000 1.3000 1.3000 1.3000 1.3000
1.2000 1.0000 .5000 .0000 .0000
.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
.0000 .0000
+++*++++++*++++++***+*****+*** END OF INPUTS *++++*++*+r**x~+*+.+++*+++*«*+
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 1/31/2007 @ 15:12
input file: C:\Program Files\Drainmod\INPUTS\DUKE SWAMP_PROP
parameters: controlled drainage and yields calculated
drain spacing = 3505. cm drain depth = 55.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

A endix D
PP
' Existing Conditions Summaries, Cross-Sections, Bed Material
Analyses, and NCDWQ Stream Determination Forms
1

1

0
1

1
1
'

1 °

i

O
V
`o

E
E
7
N

a
E

3
N
Y
7
O
.~+
La
r
O
0

' O
a`

...
O
a

H

' E
N

^
N
~ ~
C

R
C
^
~
O
O'
O ~
[[ N P a m

~
~
~
~
v
~
^
0D O
i
O
~ C9 ~!) M
^ ~ oo
N n u
N
N
,~ a ~, " ~ °' °' N
8
a M r
N ~ O ~ n ~ N
t
0 f
D
N
p ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ N D
° ~ G
a v ri u ui ~c v ~
co
_
S
°'
~^
~
a
M
^
~
N ~
~
a 00 v v °^° ui co cc ~
M

p
~
f
O
^
O O
~
N ~ O
~
a N N f
CO ~ 7 N to r ~

~. N
N
l0 O
~ m U

L
~
Q _
O
m ~ Q a o ~
O
C
~ ~ O ~ m ia
~ a
td

~ ~ m ~ ~ LL L L c

m
• ~ cca ~°- ~ cco ~ c cco O1 (0(,,,tt
LL m m ~ m m ~ W m J ai
M
C
Q
W
m
m
0
E
E
7
Ul
O ~
O ~ N
O C O C O
fp N O ~ !n
C7 47 f0 O
O ~ 0 ~ ~
m
.~
ro
A
(n

m
LL

~
LL

m
LL m
~
m
~
(~

m
LL

~
LL

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E g

~
Il d
•~ ~

~
~ C
c
m t
U
'O ~
~ N

O
O)
~ O
7 N
7 ~ ~
~ a
llI O ~ T
~
Q N
G1
~
~
r
N C7
O
D LLl
LL U
d

W

N

~

~

~

a

~

O

CO

,..

Z
C

O

O

O

O

O
Q
":

+-

CJ ~

C '~
~. N O
7 7 ~ a
N ~ O W
y
; ~ ~
O
d
>
y O E
d N C
_
.Q ~ ~ 3 ~ O

~ c0
~
~ _
~ ~
lQ

m
r
m

~ Q ~
~
~

.4 _

m

G ~

O ~

~

~ L
s
N ...

~
~ m ~ O ~ ~ O f0
~ _N d ~ .4
~ y N

~
m ~
Y
~ ~
c R
c ~
~ ~
~ N`

Q ~
OC ~
~ la
.~ C N
O
m N d ~ C
?n ~~
+S Q C .~ m ~ ~ X
lO m ~ N N C U U~ R L
m f r ,~ ~
h ~ ~ a S c d c ~ N ~ a a~ Q y
~
,a ,~ ~ ~ '~
o
` p ~ e
`
~ a
` c m t R m o
~ e ~%~~ ~m
• oC D 2 m m U ~ cg ag W ~ U a v v -o v a in w Z .- $ c~i a

c~
m
~
m
~ J

O
O
lf')
O
O
^~ V
'

a '
~a o
.~ M

~1~+
.~

O
O
M C
~' '
~~
+
+
N
O

G1 N

f+ ~; O
O
T N
'"~

O
O

r
Q

O ~ ~ In ~ In O r
@~ N N r r
uol~enal3

Feature Str®am
T
SKF Area BK€ BKF
Width De Ms~x BKF
De
W/D
SH Ratio
ER
8KF Etev
TOB Eiev
Pool 68.7 32.55 2.11 5.07 15.43 1.2 5.4 19.29 20.22
26
24
22
c 20
::
~ 18
w 16
14
12
UT1 Cross-section 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------o
100
120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
220 240 260 280 300
- - o - -Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Feature Stream.
T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF E{ev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 74 19.6 3.77 5.41 5.19 1.2 7.7 20.14 21.14
UT1 Cross-section 5
26

24 ..............................................................
~ 22

+.
~ 18
d
w 16
14
12

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station (ft) • - o • •Bankfull - • o - - Floodprone

Feature Stream
T
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 40.4 17.94 2.25 4 7.97 1.3 10.1 20.05 21.4
26
24
22
..
~ 20
~ 18
d
w 16
14
12
UTi Cross-section 6
L--------------------------------------------------------------------------o
100
120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
220 240 260 280 300
- - o - •Bankfull - - o - -Floodprone

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Feature .Stream
T ' e
BKF Are2i BKF
Width 13KF
a -Max BKF
De th
WJD
BH Ratio
' ER
BKF E)ev
TCJB Elev
Pool 66.7 23.94 2.79 4.03 8.59 1 5.2 19.32 19.5
26
24
22
c 20
18
d
w 16
14
12
UT1 Cross-section 1
~---------------------------------------------------o
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station (ft) - - o - -Bankfull - - o - -Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature T e $KF Area Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TDB Elev
Pool 78.5 18.85 4.16 5.37 4.53 1.2 7 19.38 20.47
UTi Cross-section 2
26

24
-------------------------------------------------------0
22
0 20
-------
> 18
m
w 16
14

12
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station (ft) - • o - -Bankfull - - o - -Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BK
Feature T e BKF Area Width D th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Etev
Pool 155 40.9 3.79 5.14 10.79 1.3 4.1 18.78 20.26
UT1 Cross-section 3
26
24
----------------------------------------------------------------------m
22
0 20
1°
~ 18
i
a
w
16
14

12
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station (ft) - - o - -Bankfull - - o - -Floodprone

a
i
C
o fl.
3
~L
~_ ~
/C ~
W T
''AA
V/
Q~
U
~ ~
N
Uy U
O ~ COO ~ ~ ~
}uaa~ad
0
0
0
O U
O
C)
m
O ~
7
r ~
m
o U
0
T
E
N
/~ ~
V ~
O A• L
,- N C.7
N`
W
V
a
T
T
O
T
~ -ter-r O
dO' M N ~ O O
C.
,~
VJ
V!

1

n

C
O
:+
V
m
W
O
V
•..
^
N

F-
m
m~
O
a
m
0

E f0
N N
O ~
O n
C tO
O ~
a ~
~ f~ N
N
~' y
l0 ~
~ m
~ U

m

O

~
t
a

o
o

c o
c
•°-
Id
f0 O C
•

m
>
~
>
c
~
~
>
c
>
~
~
~
~
~ d
2
c v
~ c
'
• m ~
~
11 m m _
~ m m _
~ W m J tmn
omi•
N
Q
Z~ Q
~ Q
Z Q
Z Q
Z
co ~n ~n
~ ~ ~ ~ 0

~

E

m

um.

m

um.

m

ii

m
m

~
Q

fA

m

ii

m

ii

E

E

E

E

E

E
Q
w
m

~
m

~y, C Of C
O C C
O m N C N
°' ~ ~ ~;
c
a ~ v a ~ c~
~ ~ m m
c
L C 0 r «: ~
r a ~ N ~
~
-
a U L 7 C •
O y~E Pi~
~ 7 m O c

a
B
0 op
a
tp
N.
IN
7
tp
~
n r,
~
Q
~
Q
Q
Q
~
Q
Q co
NO O
V. ~ ~ v p o
~ ~~_ m 7~
O N N O O Of 0 7 .- O Z - Z Z Z Z Q
O ~ ~ V ~ p« •p m
N W ~ ~~ m N
~
~
c
c m m ~
o
m m y m U
y- E3~a ~N
~ ~ ~ ~ c ~
~
_
~
~ i~
$
~
~ ~
~ Uyl U ~ ~ ~ ,~
cy0 ~ ~ c0 a ~3 m
3 ~ a
°1 m
2
j $ m
`d'
~
L
~ m
'«O~ .Q
~
N ~
xm
Q ~
~m °~
OL„ ~ T ~' E U
~ fn > ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ t .~ C y ~
p
G ~ ~ m ~ C ml-
fn m m ~ ~ ~o ~ o ?~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ cd
~V ~ y

m
t
~
~ , m
~
~
$
Y
a _
d
•
°- ~
~
~
~m
~
•
y
~
~
~ -"
~ m ~
~ 2 a ~ r
s 3
~ Q
3 ~
F=
~ ~~r
• ~ o°~ o U ~ ~ w ~ a ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ v) U w z° *= 3 ai cad ° v ri ~-3

1
1

u_
o ~
Q
N
0
0
T
0
T
r
d
O
N
~ ~
N
d
a o
T
O
~ O
O
r r r T
uollenal3

''
-
r
ao ao
T °r° o

W ~ U_
P,
'- O
^ '
0
~
w ~
~ ~

c°o ~a
m

M~
W T ~

~
`C~ ~
~
I ~
^
L
O
_
rr
v c

;,
~ ~
m ~ _
~
C N
W ~ N
O
c-.
~

m ~ ~
N
C ~
~ o
r~
CO
N

~
n
~
~ G
O

0

O

m
~
T
m T ~
r O
r
u, ~ uoilenal3

~CDWQ Stream Classification Form
roject Name: UTl to Duke Swamp River Basin: Chowan County: Gates Evaluator: JWH
~WQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Duke Swamp Latitude: 36" 28' 11" Signature:
~te: 3/10/06 USGS QUAD: Merchants Millpond Longitude: 76° 3T S 1" Location/Directions:
LEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best
fessional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
'rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
[s The USDA Texture In Streambed
Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present?
~) Is A 2°° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or [n Field) Present? Yes=3 No=O
'BINARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: _19_
~. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
[s There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
'BINARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3
Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
'BINARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 9
One Number Per Gine)
~ [s There A Grade Control Point [n Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
~) Does Topography [ndicate A
atural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5
ECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1.5
. H drolo Absent Weak Moderate Strong
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leatlitter
Present In Streambed? 1,5 1 .5 0
[s Sediment On Plants (Or Debrisl Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
,ast Known Rain? ('`NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
~) Is There Water [n Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
~) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1 `5 No=O
ECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
~II. Biology
hh Are Fish Present? 7.5
Absent
0
Weak
.5
Moderate
1
Strong
1.5
Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
)~e Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Wetland Plants [n Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
1 Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Preseurx).
~ECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~7_
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =_47_
' (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)

' North Carolina Division of Water duality -Stream Identiflc~ltion Form; Version 3.1
gat.: ~ _ zz - a ~ Pte: D~ k,~ s~G Latitude:
Evaluate: p ~ u h Stte: U ~ Longitude:

' Total Points:
strear+- Is ar fsast ArterrNttent ~
Coin ~+
/_ a~~J
v pg,~
e.q. Quad Narrle:
if~f9or ~t3Q
- A. Geomo ho Subtotal = •~~ Absent Weak Model
1'. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 •" •''~"~"•"~
2. Sinu 0 1 3
3. In-cheux~el structure: riffle- erx:e 0 2 3
4. Soil texCure or stream substrate sortirg (~'I 1 2 3:
5. Active/reNc flood 0 1 2
6. itioned bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided dtartnel 0 t 2
8. Recent afluvial de its 0 2 3
9' Natural levees t 2 3
10. Headauts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural vall or drat 0 0. 1 1.5
18. Second or greater order charu~l on g
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence. •
No ~
Yes = 3
~ L AAan-maRle c~h~es are not rated; see dons in marwal
t
B H rol Subtotal =

14..l~roundwater flow/dischaz 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, gt
Water in channel -- or rows seaton~' 0 1 2
18.leaflitter 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on lasts or debris 0 0.5 1 .5
18.Or debris fines or les rack lines 0 0.5
19. ric soils redoxim hic features nt? No ~ 0 Yes
' C.13io1 Subtotal = , ~

.Fibrous roots in cbartnel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted lards in channel •Al3 1 0
22. 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves ~ 1 2 3
24. Fish ~ O.S 1 1.5
25. /4n hitless 0 0.5 1.5
28. Macrobenthos (note dhrerstly and aburrdarxe 0.5 1 •1.5
27. Filamentous al erl 0 1 2
28. lron oxidbdn bacDeri s. 0 0.5 1.5
29 . Wetland lartte in Streeurtbed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; Ot3L = 1.5 SAV r = 0
llama 20 and 21 foce on the pntsence of upland plants. Item 28 focuses on the presence of aquattc or wetland ta.
' Stretch. +
Notes: (use beck akb of this form br additional notes.)

Appendix E
Reference Reach Summary -
Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County

{~.
V
m
N
tll
N
O
V
w
9.
N
co
0
la
O
O
V
H
•
C
e
c
m
~ M Owl N N M f~0 ~~Cl
~ fD ~ ,
M ~ N N ~t N
~ CC .- N ~ G r
tb

~ M CO ? f0 Of f~
~ OD M Of y f0 N
7 ~ Of O N f0 +~ O
N N
M
X ~ '
N M 7 N ~ 0
~ N O
E G
D, I
fl, N C
7
N r fG Q CV tG O r C
m ~ N N ~ N
M '.~- t[1
X [L U
~ O ~ ~ QD O) N O
C7 In ti CO N I~ ~ M
cc G o v ri ~ .- o
N I~ N
CL N
O) M O ~ a0 Of GO N M
1~ ~A Of fD O ~ M N ~
tO ~ C tp N a 0 ~ O
~ r N f~ ~

X ¢ w

ld N

~ d
~
U
,~ _
U .. ~ C O O
p E ,~ m o Q o. ~ ~ is 4
O ~ V Cm c ¢ ~
o m ra
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~
~j l~
~ m
~ a ~
Q
~ LL ~
L
~ ~
y m C
m
7 m
7
7 G1
7 ~
C t d Y ~ C
Ot g
O c3
2 C C 'O C ~ C c
U ti m m ~ m m ~ W m ~~
M
O ~
O to
O ~
O N
r

O
7

N
0
N

N
m u~ o a ~n
M ~ OD OI
~ O ~ O ~
O
U
In
w
D
M
C
M

~
~
r
~
T"
M
N
M
N
p
A
~
A
M
M
~
N
N
r
O
O
0
~
~
In
N
r to
r
N
CA I~
CO
T
L O
~
O
M ~
N
CO
r p
~
~
tt M
CO
0
N
(COO.
r n
O
0
0 o
O
O
O r
O
0
0
N
O
lb ~ t O Cn

~
~
~
Q
a
c
~ Y
_ >~
o
~
~
~
~_
m C ~ O ~ ~ U ~ O O ~ ~ 7 O ~ ~ d
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
O ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~
~ y ~
f% .L..
~ m ~
~ lti
~ X
N O
O N N
~ .'~
X ~ ~
O 'D Cn l0
O m ~
•+ C C ~
O Z
7
U m r
'~ O ~ ~ O
t ~ ~ ~ C4 Q ~ ~ m gp ars
- a~ O d $ L i ` V m ~ O d O n
tC
Cfl
.`-

Q
~
c

.~

.~
Q
~

~

,~
O
O
c
0
a
~-
°.~
~
~
,~-
O r
0_
o
v.. C7f
o c
O
=
N
-v
m
v
O
y
O
y
m
'o
N
'o

y
(n

c
O

~ .
r-
o
(n m tp Y Y ~ ~C Y .~.. N OY - O~C ~ O~U Y C C ,7 7 0 0 0 m (n O d

m

c J

~ C
(C
m C
t0
m 'p
'-
~ C
f0
m C
tCl
m 'p
'-
~~ `
t..
C
w
~
~ .7 C
CCi c0
a~m O
O
a ++ C
ld lCl
acm O
O
n «+ l0
lCl G
mm C
l(f
m ~
N
~ ~
m
~ 'O
l0
aC 'C
~
oc ~
m
~ ~
m
~ O
C -
~
~
~
p
~ O
v
. cn > a oc
~

o ~ uoisuawiQ waugd a~i;ad
C
d
O
a~
l0
3
r
o~
L
CA
C
.?
a
N
N
d
0
z

O
... _ __T _ _-- _ ~

~ -
Y

I ~ ~
~
I ~ Y
O

~ ~~
~ ~«-
~ ~
~ o
~
~ ~~
~
d'

~

j ~
~
~ o a
fl. o
~ L ~ ~ 1
cn
~

i
~

, ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ N
~

O
7
V) ;

i
~
c
~ '
V

, I 0~
~ ~

~

a O

o. ~ ~ "
,~:
~ ~
O
s

a
c~ ~
~
~ ~
~ :;.
', •-
~
ca
o ~''
~ ~ ~ [ N~
t
V
~ f
~ ,~`.

~
L ~ ~
J
m
~
O
j ~ O
~ ~ N
f /~
W y i
I
I , ^
Y /
M
W ~
I T
O
l
~ O

~
M
N
r- O O 00 f~ T
CO ~ ~
O O O O O O O O O O O
T T T ~~~ uoi~~nal3

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E5 25.7 16.8 1.5 2.1 11.0 1.2 10.4 98.6 99.0
108
104
.-.
v
C 102
O
:+
ca
m 100
W
98
96
94
Beaver Dam Branch Cross-section 1+89, Riffle
106
- a Bankfull - - o - ~ Floodprone
90
140 190 240 290 340
Station (ft)
~ -----------------------------------------------------o
..
c 101
m 99
W
97
95
- ~ o- - Bankfull - - a - ~ Floodprone
93
90 140
190 240 290 340
Station (ft)

~ Riffle ~ C5 ~ 24.8 ~ 20.5 ~ 1.2 ~ 2.4 ~ 16.9 ~ 1.3 ~ 10.6 ~ 98.6 ~ 99.3 ~
Beaver Dam Branch Cross-section 2+60, Riffle
107 7-----------------_.-.----------- -,
105
103
,.
~ 101 O~-_..~----------------------------------------------------------o
o ~-

? 99
a
i
w
97 I
95 ''y~1
- - o - Bankfull - - o - ~ Floodprone
93
90 140 190 240
Station (ft)
290 340

Feature Stream
T e
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool ---- 20.3 14.2 1.4 2.9 9.9 1.2 11.6 98.8 99.3
107
105
103
.~
..
~ 101
0
co
~ 99
w
97
95
93
90
Beaver Dam Branch Cross-section 3+20, Riffle
140 190 240 290 340
Station (ft)

z
U
(C
U
C
N
C ~
O ~
N r
U
0 ~
++ •-
C m
c0
N ~
~ L
a~
a~
m
O
O
O
O
r
Y
U
O
U
m
O
°o
0
m
a~
o ~
o °
r U
v
N
H
c~
U ~
111 `-
N ~
_V
R
a
T
'~
V/
T
0
U
T
0
0
O ~ Cep ~ (~D t~ ~ M N ~
;uaoaad

Appendix F
Wetland Delineation Forms

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

1
Project/Site: Duke Swamp Date: 11/21/06
pplicant/OwnerBuck Engineering County: Gates
Investigator: Richard Darlin Reviewer: State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Q Yes O No Community ID: W
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Q Yes OO No Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
O Yes ®No Plot ID: WDP
If needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S eci s Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua Trees FAC+ s. Herbs #N/A
2. Acer rubrum Trees OBL 10. #VALUE! #N/A
3. Taxodium distichum Trees OBL 11. #VALUE! #N A
a. Lonicera japonica Vines FAC- 12. #VALUE! #N/A
5. Rebus sp. Vines FAC 13. #VALUE! #N/A
s. Smilax rotundifolia Vines FAC 14. #VALUE! #N/A
~. Herbs #N A 15. #VALUE! #N A
s. Herbs #N/A 16. #VALUE! #N A
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding
F.
HYDROLOGY
~ Recorded Data (Describe in remarks)
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage
^ Aerial Photographs
Q Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
Q Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
Field Observations: ^ Sediment Deposits
/^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.) ^ Water Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ^FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forml.xls Page 1 of 2

1
1

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(series and Phase): Nawney loam, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded ( Drainage Class D

axonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loam mixed acid thermic T Field Obsevations ~ Yes ~ No
is Fluva uer Confirm Mapped Type?
Profile Descri lion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Structur
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast etc.
02
0 - 12 Al 2.SY4/2 loam
B1
B2
######
######
######
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odorl ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^/ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Q Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? • Yes No
etland Hydrology Present? Q Yes ~ No
Hydric Soils Present? n Yes n No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Approved by HOUSAGE 2/92
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forml.xls Page 2 of 2

ii

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Duke Swamn Date: 11/21/06
pplicant/OwnerBuck En ink Bering County: Gates
Investigator: Richard Darling Reviewer: State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ~ Yes O No Community ID: U
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Q Yes O No Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
O Yes ~ No Plot ID: UDP
If needed, ex lain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Soy bean Herbs FAC s. Herbs #N A
2. Herbs #N A 10. #VALUE! #N A
3. Herbs #N/A 11. #VALUE! #N/A
a. Herbs #N/A 12. #VALUE! #N/A
5. Herbs #N/A 13. #VALUE! #N/A
s. Herbs #N/A 14. #VALUE! #N A
~. Herbs #N/A 15. #VALUE! #N A
e. Herbs #N/A 16. #VALUE! #N/A
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding
FAC-).
100%
Remarks:
More than 50% of dominants are OBL FACW and or FAC on lant list
HYDROLOGY
/ Recorded Data (Describe in remarks)
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage
^ Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
Q/ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
Q Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surtace Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 4 (in.) ^ Water Stained Leaves
Q Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ~ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forml.xls Page 1 Of 2

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Noboco fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes NoA) Drainage Class B

axonomy (Subgroup): Fine-loam S111Ce0US Field Obsevations
thermic T is Paleudults Confirm Mapped Type? ~ Yes Q No
Profile Descri lion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Structur
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast etc.
OZ
0 - 18 Al 10YR6/4 sand, lti oam
Bl
B2
######
######
######
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odorl ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes • No
etland Hydrology Present? Q Yes ~ No
Hydric Soils Present? Q Yes ~ No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Formi.xls Page 2 of 2

1 Appendix G
' Photographic Log
1
1

1
~~

1

1

Duke Swamp Photographic Log, page 1 of 4.

~~ ~
!t~ '~s'~kR'a1a~
k s
s
r
%~~*
4
F
~
r~f.
,e~
~~~ ~~~
may;. y
'~" yb2 Y+~'
v~"6 y~'~, r~~
~+°
w PS ~~7. 1P
.krj~
L.
~ ~ r
e ~ 'Y'~c;';
~ ~
~ r~
et~}ry
¢~ -~!! - i. . ~. ~:
Looking upstream at Farm Pond # l Agricultural fields surrounding reach UT l
and existing UT1 channel. during growing season.

_ .
A'yr' ~1 ~ ---~ ~b
,~•-
~~'~~
l,. ~ 3~

~_, g '
~~"
P
_
# .
~. ~~y ~, a~ ~t
«1 _.. „ _
4' ri
- d
~
'~~ ~.rt 6 .ems ~~ ,~~ ~ F Nom. y t+ T:

~ai•~'w. ~.»wlx i s ~.a i'~-"'.'* Fs4a iM'•r•'""' '~'~
Looking at Pond #2 lacking bank vegetation
and buffer protection.
Culvert crossing under Kellogg Fork Rd (SR 1320)
at beginning of project reach UTl.
Existing fiber optic line along SR1320 ROW
at beginning of UT1.
Looking at Pond #1 near upper section
of reach UT1.

Duke Swamp Photographic Log, page 2 of 4.
~~
~~~~~~ppp ~~,
..My-
. gal""A-' ~.. ..
,y
ooking at Pond #3 lacking bank vegetation an
butter

i ,.
~l, I ivi ~ , v j~ `R'
xrr > ,
Existing UT1 culvert crossing along
farm access road.
Farm access road at existing culvert crossing.
Drainage ditch to tie into proposed reach UTI.
Example of existing drain file to remain and tie
into proposed stream and wetland areas.
Looking downstream towards woodline at
overly widened UT1 channel.

Duke Swamp Photographic Log, page 3 of 4.

i-. .
.. ~

,~' ~ ~`~ ~
~- ~..~
s
Looking downstream at UT1 as it enters the
existing woodland area.
Looking upstream at Pond #3 tying into
UT1 channel.
Automated Well #1 in reference wetland area
Far downstream end of reach UT1 after a storm
event within forested wetland area.
Looking downstream at UT2 backwater and
excessive duckweed near beginning of reach.
Looking at cypress pond outfall near beginning of
reach UT2.

Duke Swamp Photographic Log, page 4 of 4.
UT2 backwater located at cross-section 7,

'' ~
~ ~ t~
~
a ~~ ~ 7
~ ~
'
0
3
k
~ } _
~
~'
~K '7e i P
~Y ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
Y
1
1
.
2
A
k ~
'~
~ 4
t S d
~
'
'
'
'

~ ~~, ~~~
., ~ `
i t~
~~x
i ~'
i ti $ ~~i ~ ~ r:
~'t ~
t ~
~
_
r t:
I f ~! ^x .r Y
1 j ""b
r
~ ..'~
. eau , y E
.. `~~irsy
i
}

d~ k ,"'

;,~ _y _~. 1 ~~ p~' ~ ~
~ a r
~
t k t 6 t
t ,~ 'Y.
~ ~~
'~~i ~

Looking downstream at UT2 backwater effects
before confluence with UT1.
a roximate sta. 1 i+~u.
t1k i
y .r3 ;"~l ~ ~lf
., ~ ~. ... T` M1 # _
sit ~ t'= ,~ ~ ~ ' a ~.:
Z a~
#34 .r f ~~ Ai».~v!'
~~ I
~" x
~ y € ~.
.:"
~~ `~
~~
Looking upstream at UT2 backwater effects
before confluence with UT1.
Looking upstream at backwater conditions along
UT2 channel.