20071055 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070615

20071055
RESTORATION PLAN
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION SITE
Hertford County, North Carolina

,
l
~
.. r °~'+. A ~ }~ '~hd ~rt y{`{1i1y1 M;~
~i Pt ~ ~ ,~
$~~°'
:_~ ~ {r~ ~~~ s
.
mP~ ;
~ {F _
pJfp l~ ~ ~~ }
. , ~ A
"fi" 4 ~~ ~~`` ~ ! ~~~.
i
1 ~~~~
t
~
e4 +f a%' "~ . yy
.
'
„~
,~ ~
: ~
•_ ~ `
y' i +eB
' ..» tom, ~
,
:
~
,
\
L~ ~ ,
Fes
~ ~~
'
~~~ ~ 't
1
~
~
~
.
k
~ ~
(
:;~ ~ji
,
~
I~ y~

Prepared for:
r~
,~
~'aCt7S~StE'lil
NCDENR -ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ; ~,~ ~ °°'
1652 Mail Service Center ~~
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-16152 ~u~
I~FiJ~2 - YVr#I "°k
fk 1({Un~U'. P,i~U ~ ((J`~M11~fiu i .,r.r,`~Jt;N
January 2007

1
1
1
t
t
t
RESTORATION PLAN
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION SITE
Hertford County, North Carolina
Prepared by:
''~ irE~~lll~ ,z7, ~z:c~,
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
Project Manager: Jay St. Clair
and
EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
Project Manager: Jens Geratz
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site ii Hertford County

t
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), a division of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) is currently developing stream and wetland restoration
strategies for the Chowan River Basin (Cataloguing Unit 030]0204200010). NCEEP has circulated a
1 request for proposals (RFP) for full delivery wetlands and stream restoration in the region. In response to
the RFP, Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) proposed to perform stream and wetland restoration at the
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site (Site) located in Hertford County.
This document details proposed stream and wetland restoration procedures for the 23.9 acre Site located
within the Chowan River Basin. The Site encompasses approximately 4930 linear feet of intermittent and
perennial stream channel, most of which has been channelized for agricultural and flood abatement
purposes. The primary Site watershed, comprising approximately 18.2-square miles, supports a mixture
of agricultural, silvicultural, and light residential uses. Land use within the Site is facilitated by the
historic modification of the local water table through dredging and channelization activities.
Under existing conditions, Cutwhiskie Creek and its unnamed tributary (UT) have been dredged and
straightened to support various agricultural and silvicultural practices. Impacts resulting from stream
alteration include bank erosion, channel incision, and loss of characteristic riffle/pool complex
morphology. Natural vegetation within adjacent areas, including stream buffers zones, has been removed
throughout much of the Site. The floodplain has been impacted by deforestation and groundwater draw-
down from stream channel dredging activities. A significant increase in nutrient and sediment loading
has resulted from such site modifications, and adjacent wildlife habitats have been eliminated or
fragmented.
Restoration activities have been proposed to restore historic stream and wetland functions that existed at
the Site prior to dredging and vegetation removal that supported agriculture activities. Site alterations
will include removal of debris and backfilling of the existing UT, re-establishment of the adjacent
floodplain, and construction of a new stream channel within that floodplain. These activities will
' reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 0.9-square mile watershed along the newly
restored length of stream and floodplain. Characteristic wetland soil features, groundwater wetland
hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation communities will develop in areas immediately adjacent to the
constructed channel. The new channel will be constructed to reflect regional stream characteristics and
accommodate bankfull flows. Subsequently, wetland and adjacent slope soil surfaces will be restored and
the Site reforested with streamside and riparian hardwood and mixed-mesic forest communities. Forested
stream and upland buffers will be restored along the entire stream and floodplain to further protect water
quality and enhance opportunities for wildlife.

Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site iii }}ertford County

A Monitoring Plan has been prepared that entails a 5-year analysis of stream geomorphology, wetland
hydrology, and plant communities. Success of the project will be based on criteria set forth under each of
the three monitored parameters.
After implementation, restoration activities are expected to provide the following mitigation units.
Proposed Available
Restoration Design Component Mitigation Type Design Units Credit Mitigation
Ratio Units
UT to Cutawhiskie Creek
Restoration 2630 LF 1:1 2630
Upper Reach
UT to Cutawhiskie Creek
Restoration 190 LF 1:1 190
Lower Reach
Cutawhiskie Creek Preservation 2790 LF 5:1 558
Total Stream Mitigation Units 3378
Riparian Wetland Restoration 13.1 AC 1:1 13.1
Riparian Wetland Enhancement 1.2 AC 2:1 0.6
Total Wetland Mitigation Units 13.7
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site iv Hertford County

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECU TIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ .iii
1 1.0 INT RODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. .. 1
1.1 Restoration Project Description .......................................................••-----.................................... ..1
1.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. ..1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. ..2
2.1
2.2 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .................................................................................
Soils ....................................................................................................................................... ..2
..4
2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... ..4
2.3.1 On-Site Streams .............................................................................................................
2.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology ................................................................................................ .. S
..7
2.4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams .......................................................................................... ..7
2.5
2.6 Water Resources .........................................................................................................................
Plant Communities ..................................................................................................................... ..8
..9
2.7 Federally Protected Species ........................................................................................................ l l
2.8 Constraint Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 12
3.0 WE TLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION STUDIES ................................................................ 13
3.1
3.2 Reference Streams .........................................................................................••---........................
Groundwater Modeling ............................................................................................................... 13
14
3.2.1 Model Description ......................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 DRAINMOD Application, Verification, and Results .................................................... 15
4.0 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ...................................................................... 17
4.1 Stream Restoration ..................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Floodplain Excavation ................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Floodplain Preparation and Grading .............................................................................. 18
4.1.3 Stream Channel Construction ..............................................................................•--••----. 18
4.l .4 Plugs and Backfill of Abandoned Channel .................................................................... 19
4.2 Controlled Water Outlet Structures ............................................................................................ 19
4.3
4.4 Riparian Wetland Restoration and Enhancement .......................................................................
Groundwater and Soil Restoration .............................................................................................. 19
20
4.4.1 Topsoil Excavation and Stockpiling .............................................................................. 20

4.S 4.4.2 Soil Scarification ...........................................................................................................
Plant Community Restoration ..................................................................................................... 20
20
4.5.1 Plant Community Associations ..................................................................................... 21
4.5.2 Planting Plan .................................................................................................................. 22
5.0 MONITORING REPORT ................................................................................................................... 22
S.l
5.2 Stream Monitoring ......................................................................................................................
Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................................................. 22
23
5.3 Stream Contingency ................................................................................................................... 23

Cutawhiski e Creek Restoration Site v Hertford County
t

r
t
5.4 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring .................................................................................................24
5.5 Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria ..........................................................................................24
5.6 Vegetation Monitoring ...............................................................................................................24
5.7 Vegetative Success Criteria ......................................_.................................................................25
5.8 Vegetation Contingency .............................................................................................................25
5.9 Special Considerations ...............................................................................................................25
6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................26
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Tables
Appendix C: Categorical Exclusion Documentation
Appendix D: North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams Regional Curves
Appendix E: Groundwater Model Inputs
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Local Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: USGS Sub-Basin 8-Digit Hydro Unit
Figure 5: Physiography, Topography, and Land-Use
Figure 6: NRCS Soil Units
Figure 7: Jurisdictional Mapping
Figure 8: Pre-restoration DRAINDOD Results
Figure 9: Post-restoration DRAINDOD Results
Figure 10: Restoration Design Units
Figure 11: Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
Figure 12: Existing and Proposed Stream Cross Sections
Figure 13: Target Plant Community
Figure l4: Planting Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table ] :Existing and Proposed Stream Geometry and Classification for the UT to Cutawhiskie Creek
Table 2: Reference Stream Geometry and Classification
Table 3: Groundwater Model Results: Zone of Wetland Degradation and Wetland Loss
Table 4: Stream and Wetland Design Units
Table 5: Planting Plan

t

t

1

1

f]
t
t
Cuta~chiskie Creek Restoration Site
vt
Hertford County
1
L

' 1.0

J
1

1
~~
t

RESTORATION PLAN
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION SITE
Hertford County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Restoration Project Description
Restoration Systems, LLC. (RS) proposes to perform stream and wetland restoration at the Cutawhiskie
Creek Restoration Site (Site) located in Hertford County (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site is located
approximately 9 miles southwest of Murfreesboro (36.3292N, 77.1645W [NAD27]) and encompasses
approximately 23.9 acres that is currently managed for agriculture and timber production. The Site is
positioned within the floodplains at the confluence of Cutawhiskie Creek and an unnamed tributary to
Cutawhiskie Creek (UT) [Figure 2 and 3, Appendix A]. The Site includes approximately 2080 linear feet
of the UT, approximately 27901inear feet of Cutawhiskie Creek, and approximately 13.1 acres of
restorable floodplain soils. The floodplains have been drained to support agricultural and silvicultural
activities. Streams have been dredged, straightened, and levees constructed to further support existing
land uses. The Site offers opportunities for stream and wetland restoration with benefits to water quality
and wildlife.
1.2 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
Restoration activities have been proposed to restore historic stream and wetland functions that existed at
the Site prior to dredging and vegetation removal that currently supports agriculture and silvicultural
practices. Proposed Site alterations will include removal of debris and backfilling of the existing UT, re-
establishment of the adjacent floodplain, and construction of a new stream channel within that floodplain.
These activities will reintroduce surface water flood hydrodynamics from a 0.9-square mile watershed
along the newly restored length of stream and floodplain. Characteristic wetland soil features,
groundwater wetland hydrology, and hydric vegetation communities will re-develop in areas adjacent to
the constructed channel. The new channel will be constructed to reflect regional stream characteristics
and accommodate bankfull flows. Subsequently, wetland and adjacent slope soil surfaces will be restored
and the Site reforested with streamside and riparian hardwood and mixed-mesic forest communities.
Forested stream and upland buffers will be replanted to further protect water quality and enhance
opportunities for wildlife.
Numerous ecological benefits are anticipated as a result of on-site restoration activities. Elevated water
tables in the floodplain adjacent to the UT will restore the characteristic flood regime to the stream.
Restored and enhanced wetland and riparian buffer along Cutawhiskie Creek and the UT will help to
improve water quality via nutrient removal, increase local vegetative biodiversity, provide wildlife
habitat, and serve as a forested corridor, linking the Site with adjacent natural areas.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 1 Hertford County
t

1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site watershed is located in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Cataloguing
Unit 03010204200010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Sub-basin 03-01-02) of the
Chowan River Basin (Figure 4, Appendix A). This region of the Chowan basin extends from points along
the Virginia border in Northhampton County east across the central portion of Hertford County. The Site
is located within the Mid-Atlantic Flatwood ecoregion of North Carolina (Griffith et al. 2002). In
comparison to the Rolling Coastal Plains to the west, this ecoregion is characterized by wider upland
surfaces, lower elevations, less local relief, and more poorly drained soils. Streams occurring within the
Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods ecoregion are typically low-gradient (i.e., slopes less than l percent) and highly
sinuous, with sand-bottom substrates. Soils such as Aquults and some Udults formed in the mostly
Pleistocene-age clays and sands provide for slow natural subsurface drainage, except near streams. Local
elevations range from 55 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) along low ridges immediately
adjacent to the Site to 45 feet NGVD along the Cutawhiskie Creek floodplain (USGS Woodland, North
Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle) (Figure 5, Appendix A).
Land-uses in the vicinity of the Site consist primarily of agriculture, forest, pastureland, roadside
shoulders, and residential lots. Row crops including soybeans, cotton, and corn are actively cultivated on
the Site and surrounding areas. The Site is immediately adjacent to a farm and timberland owned by the
Vaughan family. There is no livestock or poultry production in the vicinity. Timber is actively harvested
from adjacent forested areas. A large, contiguous bottomland hardwood stand was harvested just west of
the Site along the Cutawhiskie floodplain in the spring of 2006.
Relatively large areas of forest cover remain, relegated to non productive agrarian areas including
interstream flats, drainageways, and floodplain bottoms associated with the regions streams and rivers.
Throughout the area state roads provide access to scattered residential homes and commercial interests.
Based on the ocular estimates from recent aerial photography, agriculture and livestock operations occupy
approximately 25 percent of the Site's watershed areas while small commercial and residential
development occurs within less than 2 percent of the watershed. Forest cover occupies the remaining
73 percent of the land area.
The Site encompasses approximately 23.9 acres of primary and secondary floodplain associated with
Cutawhiskie Creek. The Site includes a UT that flows into Cutawhiskie Creek from the north (Figure 4,
Appendix A). Portions of the Site have recently been logged (Photo 1 and 2). Other areas within the Site
are currently in timber or agricultural production. Site vegetation is generally characterized by
bottomland hardwood forests along un-logged areas on the Cutawhiskie Creek floodplain and low
terraces, row crops including soybeans and corn, and successional communities associated with cut-over
timberland.
The headwaters of the UT are approximately 1 mile northwest of the Site just north of SR l 158 on the
Hertford/Northampton County border. Land-use within the unnamed tributary's approximate 0.9-square
mile watershed is comprised primarily of agriculture (row crops), forest (typically pine plantation), and
light residential. Land-use within the Cutawhiskie Creek watershed, comprising approximately
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 2 Hertford County
r-.
~~
u
1
1

1
1
1

t
i,
r.~
i
1

1

t
t

t

~.
~~
7 ~:
" ~: ,
{
+

Wlt
I ,e ~ff
~
,~
)~,
t }f1+t a1
-
,*
,. J
°~.°` T
.,xr~e
,
~
rt
;1 ~ 9 d
ac,, ~
~ ~e
asOr ~,Et
r

is .' ~ s ~ d ~__., ":~:~'a _..._~6-r.~'
Photo 1. Recently timbered urea within [he Site.
18.2-square miles at the Site outfall, is similar, with a higher proportion of light residential and limited
commercial and light industrial land-uses (Figure 3, Appendix A).
The primary restoration features within the Site include the UT and approximately 12.9 acres of drained,
hydric soils. The UT has been dredged and straightened, such that it no longer retains stable dimension,
pattern, and profile. Side-cast material (spoil piles) from dredging lines the west bank of the channel
(Photo 2 and 3). A moderate headcut (approximately 2 toot drop in elevation over 20 linear feet of stream
channel) was observed near the upstream (north) extent of the Site boundary, indicating vertical
instability. Due to its high level of entrenchment because of dredging/incision, large flooding events are
confined within the channel at its current dimension. These high-energy flows, which are ordinarily
dissipated along the floodplain, exert high shear stress on stream banks, intensifying erosion.
Cutawhiskie Creek is a third-order stream that is approximately 40 feet wide and 9 feet deep through the
on-site reach (Figure 3 and 4, Appendix A). According to the former property owner, Cutawhiskie Creek
was dredged along its entire length in the mid-1960s in accordance with historic agricultural/silvicultural
management practices. The side-cast material from dredging activities lines both banks of Cutawhiskie
Creek, creating levees approximately 3 to 4 feet in height. The levees are vegetated with mature
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 3 Hertford County
Photo 2. UT to Cutawhiskie looking south.
Photo -1. Cntuwhi.rkie Creek
Photo 3. UT to Cutawhiskie Creek.

bottomland hardwood species. Minimal bank erosion is observed within, upstream, and downstream of
the Site (Photo 4).
2.2 Soils
Two distinct land features occur within the Site: 1) primary floodplain and terrace associated with
Cutawhiskie Creek, and 2) the adjacent low, flat terraces and broad depression. The floodplain portion of
the Site is underlain by the Wilbanks general soil mapping unit characterized by clayey, nearly level very
poorly drained soils. The adjacent flat terraces are underlain by the Craven-Leaf-Caroline complex
characterized by nearly level, somewhat poorly drained to moderately drained, loamy surficial soils.
Based on soil mapping for Hertford County (SCS 1984), the Site is underlain by three soil map units:
Craven fine sandy loam (Aguic Hapludults), Leaf loam (Typic Albaquults), and Wilbanks silty clay loam
(Cumulic Humaguepts) [Figure 6, Appendix A). The Leaf and Wilbanks series are considered hydric by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) [ 1997]. Landscape alterations associated with
current land-use practices including channel modifications (dredging and straightening.) and lateral
1 ditching for agricultural and timber production have resulted in disturbances and alterations to the hydric
soils identified on-site. Site soils are described below.
Craven line sandy loam, with slopes ranging between 1 and 4 percent consists of moderately well
drained soils on Coastal Plain uplands. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is medium, and
the shrink-swell potential is moderate. The depth of the solum exceeds 60 inches.

f'
u

t
t
r

t
t
1
Leaf loam, with slopes typically less than 1 percent, consists of poorly drained soils on Coastal Plain
uplands or low terraces. Permeability is very slow, available water capacity is high, and shrink-swell
potential is high. The depth of the solum exceeds 60 inches.
Wilbanks silty clay loam, with slopes typically less than 1 percent, consists of very poorly drained soils
on floodplains. Permeability is slow to moderately slow, available water capacity is high, and shrink-
swell potential is moderate. The depth of the solum exceeds 60 inches. This soil is subject to frequent
flooding for brief periods.
2.3 Hydrology
The Site is located in a hydrophysiographic region which is characterized by low elevation, wide upland
surfaces with little local relief and significant areas with poorly drained soils. This description is
considered characteristic of the Coastal Plain physiographic province, which extends throughout the
eastern portion of North Carolina (see Section 2.1, Physiography, Topography, and Land-Use). In
Hertford County, precipitation averages approximately 46.3 inches per year with peak annual
precipitation months typically occurring in July and August (SCS 1984). Large floods (25-year plus
return interval) correspond with tropical systems and hurricanes, spawned over the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic Ocean.
Valley slopes in the region typically range from 0.004 rise/run (0.4 percent) in small drainages to less
than 0.001 rise/run (0.1 percent) in larger drainages (usually third-order or greater). A combination of
low valley slopes, dense vegetation, and bed material consisting of coastal coarse sand and silts induce the
formation of relatively slow flowing, highly sinuous streams and rivers. The relative lack of land slope
discourages runoff, promoting elevated groundwater tables, predominantly vertical groundwater flow,
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 4 Hertford County

extensive wetland presence along interstream divides and broad, relatively low relief valleys with well
developed floodplains along streams.
Hydrology within the Site is complex, driven by landscape-level interactions between riparian
groundwater flow and discharge and stream hydrology. A summary description of stream geometry,
hydraulics, and substrate and description of surface and groundwater features is included below.
2.3.1 On-Site Streams
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration based on a
classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification system stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics.
Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity,
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. The stream classes characterizing reaches within the
Site include G, F, C, and E. Each stream type is modified by the number I through 6 (ex. ES) denoting a ,
stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel,
5) sand, or 6) silt/clay.

Historically, stream reaches in the region appear to have been characterized redominantl as E- e
P Y h'P
streams. E-type streams are slightly entrenched, riffle-pool channels exhibiting high sinuosity (greater
than 1.4). In North Carolina, E-type streams occur in both narrow to wide valleys with well-developed
alluvial floodplains (Valley Type VIII). These streams are typically stabilized with dense riparian
vegetation. E-type streams typically exhibit a sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous
flow pattern. E-type channels are considered very stable. The proposed on-site stream restoration will
emulate E-type channels based on the width-depth ratio predicted by regional curves and reference
streams in the region. Channel substrate is dominated by sand and silt (subclassification 5/6).

Cutawhiskie Creek
The on-site reach of Cutawhiskie Creek includes approximately 2790 linear feet of channel (Figure 5,
Appendix A). Cutawhiskie Creek supports a primary watershed of approximately l 8.2 square miles at the
Site outfall. Cutawhiskie Creek has been dredged and straightened with stream-side spoil levees apparent
throughout. Stream channel assessment surveys affirm that Cutawhiskie Creek is currently an entrenched
stream that is confined within the existing channel even under very large storm events. Relative to the
abandoned floodplain, the current channel supports a width of approximately 40 feet wide, an average
depth of 9 feet, and across-sectional area of approximately 260 square feet. The channel cross section is
effectively enlarged to 475 square feet by the constructed levees. Conversely, estimated cross-sections of
the historic channel approximated 81 square feet (Sweet and Geratz 2003). The dredging of the channel
and spoil levee construction has effectively eliminated over bank flooding events.

UT to Cutawhiskie Creek
The sub-watershed for the UT originates from the interstream flat located 1.0 mile northwest of the Site
outfall and encompasses approximately 0.9 square miles or 576 acres (Figure 2, Appendix A). The
watershed is comprised of approximately 3000 linear feet of intermittent stream channel upstream of the
Site and approximately 2080 linear feet of perennial stream channel within the Site. All streams and
conveyances within the UT watershed have been straightened and channelized for agricultural and flood
abatement purposes. The valley along the UT is relatively flat with a slope of approximately
0.0021 (rise/run).
r
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 5 Hertford County

t

Discharge appears to be dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and
precipitation. Based on regional curves (Sweet and Geratz 2003), the bankfull discharge fora 0.9-square
mile watershed is expected to average approximately 8 cubic feet per second and occur approximately
every 0.1 to 0.3 years (Sweet and Geratz 2003).
The UT has been characterized based on fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). Table 1
(Appendix B) provides a summary of measured stream geometry attributes under existing conditions
(considered to be unstable) and potentially stable stream attributes for the post-restoration channel.
Estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon data observations from the existing stream,
' reference streams in the region, and regional curves for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Sweet and
Geratz 2003).
' Dimension
Reference streams and regional curves (Sweet and Geratz 2003) were utilized to determine the natural
bankfull channel cross-sectional area of the UT, associated with effective discharge. The cross-sectional
area was then utilized to determine the bankfull width, average bankfull depth, maximum depth, and
floodprone area of the existing on-site channel. Using this method, a departure from stability was
estimated based on a comparison of existing and proposed/stable dimension variables (Table 1 and 2,
1 Appendix B). Based on the regional curves a stable cross-section for the UT would be approximately
9 square feet.
During field investigations across-section was measured at several locations along the UT. Based on
field measurements, the stream is characterized as an enlarged and entrenched channel, where flood flows
are fully contained within the channel. Under existing conditions the UT has been classified as a G-type
stream, with abank-to-bank cross sectional area between 64 and 137 square feet. The regional curve
suggests a stable cross-sectional area of 9 square feet.
Based on the cross-sectional area from the regional curve, the UT is characterized by eroded and/or
highly incised channels (i.e., entrenched) with bank-height ratios greater than 2.0 (i.e., low bank
height bankfull maximum depth). Measures to restore suitable channel size (cross-sectional area and
bank-height ratio) will be targeted for this project.
Prnfila
Based on the Site stream measurements, the on-site valley slope, measured from the infall and outfall
locations, is approximately 0.002] rise/run (Table 1, Appendix B). The low estimated valley slope is
typical for the Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina. Sinuosity of the UT was estimated
at approximately l.0 (thalweg distance/valley distance). Water surface slope of the UT was calculated
from survey points collected in the thalweg in the upstream and downstream reaches. The calculated
water surface slope of the UT measures approximately 0.0031 rise/run.
t

t
t
The UT has been over steepened due to human manipulation and increased erosive forces have resulted
from stream straightening and channelization. Measures designed to dissipate energy and increase riffle
and pool complexes will be targeted within the restored stream.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 6 Hertford County

Plan Form
Current sinuosity of the UT measures approximately 1.0 (thalweg distance/valley distance). Sinuosity of
1.0 is indicative of a channel with no discernible pattern. Stable sinuosity for E-type streams is expected
to vary significantly (thalweg distance/valley distance). Reference streams typically exhibited a sinuosity
of 1.4 to 1.6, with some values measuring greater than 2.2. Due to the lack of a distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools, values for belt-width, pool-to-pool spacing, and meander wavelength were not
readably measured.
Based on plan form variables, evidence of the degradation of the UT include 1) slight to moderate bank
collapse and erosion, 2) channelization, resulting in very little discernable riffle and pool sequences and
negligible sinuosity, and 3) a subsequent reduction in the overall length of the on-site channel.
Restoration efforts along the degraded sections will target restoration of riffle and pool pattern and
bringing pool-to-pool spacing and meander wavelength into suitable ranges for this region.
2.3.2 Groundwater Hydrology
Periodic and prolonged river and stream flooding, fluvial sediment deposition, flood storage, and
hydraulic energy dissipation represent important attributes of floodplains and riparian swamp forests in
the region. The infiltration of surface water (through flow) and movement of groundwater through the
permeable soil horizons generally flow along pathways that are a combination of downward, down slope,
and radial vectors. Because the slopes within these systems are very low, the corresponding movement of
water tends to be very slow. The surface water elevation of the stream directly relates to the surface of
the groundwater elevation, and the stream will rise and fall as the water table rises. Local stream channels
intercept groundwater flow (effluent streams) and therefore represent groundwater withdrawal
conveyances throughout most of the year.
The groundwater inputs represent the primary hydrologic factor in the development and maintenance of
riparian wetlands at the Site. Wetland hydroperiods tend to be greatest along the outer floodplain at the
toe of adjacent upland slopes (i.e., groundwater discharge areas). Hydroperiods decrease across the
floodplain as the groundwater table approaches large stream channels (i.e., groundwater discharge
features). The dredging of Cutawhiskie Creek and the UT has increased the size and depth of these
channels which has significantly lowered the groundwater table and steepened the groundwater discharge
throughout much of the Site (see 3.2 Groundwater Modeling).
2.4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams
Jurisdictional areas are defined using the criteria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
Wetlands Delineation Manual (USAGE 1987). Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence for wetland hydrology during the growing season
(USAGE 1987). Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with
respect to Section 404 review. Site jurisdictional areas include surface water in bank-to-bank streams and
vegetated wetlands.
Site jurisdictional areas were delineated and located utilizing Trimble XRS Differential Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology on September 6 and 7, 2006. Based on the jurisdictional boundary
mapping approximately 4870 linear feet of perennial streams, 60 linear feet of intermittent stream, and
0.7 acre of jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the Site (Figure 7, Appendix A).
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
7
Hertford County
1

1
1
1

1
t
1

t

2.5 Water Resources
The Site is located within sub-basin 03-01-02 of the Chowan River Basin (NCDWQ 2002). This area is
part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03010204 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. Cutawhiskie Creek and its
' UT occur within the Site. The portion of Cutawhiskie Creek that lies within the Site has been assigned
Stream Index Number 25-4-8-8 by the NCDWQ [NCDWQ 2006a].
' Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated
best usage of various streams or segments of streams within the basin. A Best Usage Classification of
C-NSW has been assigned to Cutawhiskie Creek (NCDWQ 2006a). UTs are considered to carry the
' same classification as their receiving waters and therefore the UT to Cutawhiskie Creek is assumed to
also carry a Best Usage Classification of C-NSW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. Class NSW
waters are nutrient sensitive and require limitations to nutrient inputs. No Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply lI (WS-II), or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur
within 1.0 miles of the Site (NCDWQ 2002).
The NCDWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins
within the state. Water quality for the proposed study area is summarized in the Chowan River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2002). Cutawhiskie Creek and the UT are currently Not Rated for their
designated uses. With respect to temperature regimes, both streams are designated as warm water streams
(USAGE et al. 2003).
The NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, (Section 303(d) list). The list is a comprehensive public accounting of
all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards
including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in
40 CFR 131. Cutawhiskie Creek and its UT are not listed on any section of the Section 303(d) list
(NCDWQ 2006b).
There are no NPDES wastewater discharge permits in this subbasin (03-01-02). No point-source
dischargers are hydrologically connected to the Site. Major non-point sources of pollution for the entire
Chowan River Basin include agriculture, construction, forestry, onsite wastewater disposal, solid waste
1 disposal, and atmospheric deposition (NCDWQ 2002). One Superfund site is listed in Winton, NC
approximately 8 miles from the study area (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2006a).

t
The project will entail stream restoration work that will temporarily impact the subject streams and
adjacent areas. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution
(NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt
basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of
chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality;
and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 8 Hertford County

i~
~j
2.6 Plant Communities
Four plant communities were identified within the Site: agricultural land, timbered land, mixed hardwood
forest, and bottomland hardwood forest. These communities are described below. Wildlife directly
observed in a plant community or determined to be present through evidence (i.e., tracks, scat, and
burrows) during field investigations are indicated with an asterisk (*). Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz 1998).
Wildlife and habitat use were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat type
distributions, and available supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 2006, Webster et '
al. 1985, Hamel 1992, and Palmer and Braswell 1995).
Agricultural Land -Less than one acre of the Site is agricultural land that is actively managed for t
soybean cultivation. Borders along agricultural fields that were not actively managed were dominated by
common field weeds including fescue (Festuca sp.), wild onion (Album canadense), clover
(Trifolium sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), dandelion (Taraxicum oj~cionale), and ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
Within the agricultural land, it can be expected that mammalian, avian, and reptilian diversity will be
limited to species adapted to fragmentation and disturbance. Agricultural land may provide an easily-
traveled corridor between forested communities as well as foraging habitat for herbivores, granivores, and
insectivores, but little cover from predation. Insectivores which take advantage of available food
resources in such areas include American robin* (Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird* (Sialia sialis),
common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus ryrannus), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulates), five-lined skink (Eumeces faciatus), American toad* (Bufo americana), northern '
cricket frog (Acris crepitans), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and red
bat (Lasiurus borealis). Herbivores that graze many of the grasses and fortis present include meadow
vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus). Granivores that feed upon the seeds of grasses and
herbs include northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), house
finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), field sparrow* (Spizella pusilla), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura),
and eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis). Other wildlife which may find food resources
within agricultural land include carnivores such as red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis), rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis);
omnivores including American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon*
(Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina);
and scavengers such as turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura).
Timbered Land -Approximately ] 0 acres of the Site is comprised of timbered land. Recent timber
harvesting activities on the Site have left cut-over areas dominated by coppice regeneration and early-
successional shrubs and herbs. This areas is characterized by a sparse sapling layer of red maple (Ater
rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and American elm (Ulmus americana). A dense shrub and
herb layer is comprised of pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), rushes (Juncus spp.) and sedges (Carex spp.).
Several wildlife species are well-adapted to using the disturbed ecotone along agricultural land, and
roadside edges. The herbivorous eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and white-tailed deer* forage
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 9 llertford Countv

1

in disturbed/maintained land but prefer brushy clearings and shrubby woodland edges that provide shelter
from predators. Birds commonly found along forest/grassland ecotones include northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), indigo
' bunting (Passerina cyanea), and eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). These species provide food
for predators in disturbed/maintained land including black racer, timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus),
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and red-shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus). Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians which may occur within disturbed maintained land
include eastern box turtle, six-lined racerunner (Cnemidomorphorus sexlineatus), eastern garter snake,
and five-lined skink.
r Mixed Hardwood Forest -Approximately 5 acres of the Site is comprised of Mixed Hardwood Forest.
This community exists east of the UT, and extends from the northern boundary of the Site to a transition
zone with bottomland hardwood forest. This community consists of a mature forest characterized by a
relatively well-developed mid-story. Loblolly pines are scattered amongst hardwoods becoming less
frequent at the southern end of the Site.
This community is dominated by willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
loblolly pine, red maple, American elm and southern red oak (Quercus falcata) in the canopy. Canopy
species as well as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), winged elm
(Ulmus alata), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) dominate the subcanopy/shrub layer. Honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose, greenbrier (Smilax sp.), poison ivy (Toxicondendron radicans), and
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) occur in the herb layer.
This community provides food for wildlife, while its stratification creates numerous shelter opportunities
for species such as Virginia opossum, meadow vole, red bat, raccoon, eastern mole, eastern box turtle,
and white-tailed deer*. The proximity to a water supply is also beneficial. Wildlife species which may
take advantage of food sources such as herbaceous vegetation, hardwood mast, or seeds from red maple
and gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), northern cardinal*,
field sparrow,* Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor), purple
finch (Carpodacus purpureus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias strzatus), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), brown thrasher, and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Some wildlife species that may take
advantage of cover such as the forest floor, loose bark, and arboreal areas, or prey upon species utilizing
these habitats include northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), harry
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), American toad,
five-lined skink, upland chorus frog (Pseudacris trasertata), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris),
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), white-
spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindriceus); sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), eastern
screech owl (Otus asio), eastern garter snake, copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrax), timber rattlesnake,
and gray fox (Urocyon cineareoargenteus).
Bottomland Hardwood Forest - A roximatel 5 acres of the Site is com rised of bottomland
PP Y P
hardwood forest. This community type exists adjacent to Cutawhiskie Creek in the southern portion of
the Site. Due to the dredging and levee construction along Cutawhiskie Creek, the historic floodplain no
longer receives frequent overbank flooding as would be expected under natural conditions. The mature
canopy is dominated by red maple, box elder, loblolly pine, and green ash. Bald cypress (Taxodium
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 10 Hertford County

1
distichum) exists in the lowest areas and along stream banks of Cutawhiskie Creek. The understory is
relatively thick and includes canopy species as well as Chinese privet, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
jewelweed, poison ivy, and Japanese stilt grass.
Birds which are likely to inhabit bottomland forest, especially along water courses, are likely to include t
sharp-shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American woodcock (Scolopax minor), barred owl (Strix
varia), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), Louisiana
waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), eastern phoebe (Sayonoris phoebe), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulia), Carolina
chickadee, downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and northern
cardinal.*
Mammal species expected to occur within this area include raccoon, southeastern shrew, golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nuttali), eastern cottontail, white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, and red bat. Some terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the forest include eastern box turtle, five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), copperhead, spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), American toad,
eastern garter snake, northern fence lizard, and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus).
2.7 Federally Protected Species
The most current USFWS (2006) listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Hertford County (September 18, 2006) is considered in this report. The Site was walked and visually
surveyed for potential protected species habitat. Species with the federal classification of Endangered,
Threatened, or officially Proposed for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (] 6 U.S.C. 1 S31 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. IS32). One federally
protected species is listed for Hertford County: red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Due to the
absence of available habitat, the proposed project will have No Effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records indicate the presence of Chowanoke
crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis) in Cutawhiskie Creek approximately 8000 feet downstream of the Site
(September ] 8, 2006). Chowanoke crayfish is listed by the USFWS as a Federal Species of Concern
(FSC). FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of ] 973, as amended,
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, species that are listed as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and
are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. '

Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 11 Hertford County

w

1

t
L'I
Il
l_J
t
t

t

2.8 Constraint Analysis
A site constraints and potential fatal flaw analysis has been completed for the Site. The purpose of a
constraint analysis is to evaluate the suitability of the Site for restoration and identify any outstanding
issues which may jeopardize the success of the project. As a part of this effort, a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) document has been completed for the Site. The CE documentation is provided in Appendix C. A
list of potential constraints that are examined during the feasibility stage of most restoration projects is
provided below.
Potential Constraint Constraint Comment
Assessment
Access to Site No Agreement with the adjacent landowner provides access to Site
during the construction and monitoring period.
Presence of Utilities No No utilities or easements are located within the Site.
Threatened and No The only endangered species listed for Hertford County is the
Endangered Species red-cockaded woodpecker. There is no suitable habitat on the
Site, and the Biological Conclusion is No Effect.
Hydrologic Trespass Yes An increase in ponding within the bottom of the existing ditch
immediately upstream of the Site can be expected. The
adjacent landowner has been apprised of the situation. From
conversations with the adjacent landowner, the additional
ponding was acceptable as long as the ditch remains at least
3 feet deep and water does top the ditch. (Mr. Vaughn,
personal communication). Over-banking of the existing ditch
from large events is not expected following completion of
restoration activities.
Environmental No No known or potential hazardous waste sites occur within or
Limited Phase 1 adjacent to the Site.
Historic Places No No historic resources will be affected by the project.
Soils/Bedrock No No limiting soils or bedrock have been identified.
Property Ownership No A conservation easement has been recorded for the Site.
CAMA county Yes The project does involve ground-disturbing activities within a
CAMA Area of Environmental Concern. The project meets
CAMA's consistency requirements. A General Permit from the
Division of Coastal Management will be obtained prior to
construction.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 12 Hertford County

1

3.0 WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION STUDIES
3.1 Reference Streams
A fundamental concept in stream classification entails the development and application of regional t
reference curves to guide stream reconstruction and enhancement activities. Regional reference curves
can be utilized to predict bankfull stream geometry, discharge, and other parameters in altered systems.
Regional reference curves for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina were published in 2003 (Sweet and
Geratz, 2003). Regional curves for the coastal plain are located in Appendix D. These curves
characterize a broad size-range of streams within the Coastal Plain physiographic province. However,
small watersheds or deviations in valley slope, land-use, or geologic substrates may not be accurately
described by the curves. Therefore, verification of individual watersheds (or regions) may be necessary
and are typically accomplished through the use of reference studies.
Three reference stream reaches located within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain have be
en utiltzed m
conjunction with regional curves for detailed planning and stream characterization for this restoration
project. All three reference streams are characterized by awell-developed floodplain, moderately sinuous
channel pattern, moderately low channel gradient, cohesive channel materials with high accumulations of
organics, and dense floodplain vegetation with root mats along the channel banks. The reference stream
channels are classified as E-type channels. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a summary of the reference
streams utilized to establish reconstruction parameters. The tables include common reference stream
geometry measurements as well as ratios of geometry relative to bankfull width and bankfull depth.
Black Branch
Black Branch is located in south central Craven County, which lies in the Carolina Flatwoods sub-
ecoregion of the MACP (Griffith et al. 2002). The watershed encompasses approximately 1.2 square
miles at the reference reach and is characterized as gently undulating with wide floodplains and broad,
flat, interstream divides. Land cover within the uplands of the Black Branch watershed is primarily
southern yellow pine (77 percent). Mixed upland hardwoods and shrubland are also found in the uplands
and cover a combined 12 percent of the watershed. Bottomland hardwood swamps found along drainages
cover approximately 8 percent of the watershed. The plant community type adjacent to the reference
reach was classified as Coastal Plan Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley
1990). The dominant canopy species within this community type are bald cypress, swamp blackgum
(Nyssa b~ora), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, and sweetgum.

Bullard Branch
Bullard Branch is located in north central Duplin County, which lies in the Rolling Coastal Plain sub-
ecoregion of the MACP (Griffith and Omernik 2000). The watershed encompasses approximately
1.3 square miles at the reference reach and is characterized as gently undulating with wide floodplains
and broad, flat, interstream divides. Land-use within the watershed includes primarily cultivated land,
Bottomland hardwood swamp, and southern yellow pine. The cultivated areas occurring primarily in
uplands, constitute approximately 44 percent of the watershed. The remaining watershed acreage is a
mosaic of various forested land cover types. The plant community type adjacent to the reference reach
was classified as Coastal Plan Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
The dominant canopy species within this community type are swamp blackgum, tulip poplar, American
holly (Ilex opaca), sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), and water oak (Quercus nigra).

Cutawfiiskie Creek Restoration Site 13 Hertford County

t

Unnamed Tributary to Town Creek
The unnamed tributary to Town Creek (UT) is located in north central Brunswick County, which lies in
the Carolina Flatwoods sub-ecoregion of the MACP (Griffith and Omernik 2000). The watershed of the
UT encompasses approximately 0.6 square miles at the reference reach and is characterized by low
slopes, wide floodplains, and swampy interstream flats. Land-use within the watershed tncludes is
primarily yellow pine plantation (46 percent), cultivated land (35 percent) and pocosin swamp
(12 percent). The plant community type adjacent to the reference reach was classified as Coastal Plan
Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The dominant canopy species
within this community type are swamp blackgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple,
sweetgum, and bald cypress.
3.2 Groundwater Modeling
3.2.1 Model Description
Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize the water table under current drainage conditions.
DRAINMOD groundwater modeling software was utilized to simulate subsurface conditions,
groundwater behavior, and the lateral effect of ditches and dredged stream channels within the Site on the
depth to the groundwater table. This model was developed by R.W. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E., of North
Carolina State University (NCSU) to simulate the performance of water table management systems
implemented by parallel drains. Dr. Skaggs recently developed a method for determining the lateral
effect of a single drainage ditch on wetland hydrology (hereafter referred to as the "Skaggs Method",
Skaggs et al. 2005). This method employs the Boussinesq equation supplied with input parameters
calibrated to reflect threshold drainage intensities determined for local drainage conditions in each North
Carolina county. The Boussinesq equation can be used to estimate the effect of a single ditch on water
table drawdown (Skaggs 1976).
DRAINMOD was originally developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and water
table control systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD predicts water balances
in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two drains of equal elevation. The model is capable of
calculating hourly values for water table depth, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, infiltration, and
actual evapotranspiration over long periods referenced to climatological data. The reliability of
DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range of soil and climatological conditions. The result of tests
on a variety of sites (He et al. 2004, Chescheir et al. 1994, Amatya 1993) indicates that the model can be
used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates. Methods for evaluating water balance
equations and equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs (1980). DRAINMOD has also been
used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et al. (1993).
DRAINMOD was modified for application to wetland studies by adding a counter that accumulates the
number of events wherein the water table rises above a specified depth and remains above that threshold
depth for a given duration during the growing season. Important inputs into DRAINMOD include rainfall
data, soil and surface storage parameters, evapotranspiration rates, ditch depth and spacing, and hydraulic
conductivity values. The length of the growing season was obtained from the soil survey for Hertford
County (SCS 1980). Inputs for soil parameters such as the water table depth/volume drained/upflux
relationship, Green-ampt parameters, and the water content/matric suction relationship were derived from
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 14 Hertford County

1

published sources utilizing the method described in Amatya et al. (2001). Input values for each model is
provided in Appendix E.
Wetland hydrology is defined for the model as groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for 12
and 28 consecutive days during the growing season (5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season
respectively). For the purpose of this study, the growing season is defined as the period between
March 28 and November 7 (SCS 1984). Wetland hydrology is achieved in the model if target
hydroperiods are met for one-half of the years modeled (i.e., 17 out of 32 years).

3.2.1 DRAINMOD Application, Verification, and Results
DRAINMOD simulations were used to model the current zone of wetland loss within the Site.
Simulation results were compared to applications of the Skaggs method as well as the Boussinesq ,
equation with drawdown times of 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season. Mode] applications and
results are summarized below.

Application
DRAINMOD was used to model the zone of wetland loss resulting from the presence of the shallow on-
site ditch, Cutawhiskie Creek, and the UT. This zone was estimated by determining the threshold drain
spacing of parallel ditches that would result in the area adjacent to the ditches meeting the wetland
hydrology criterion in just over one-half of the years simulated. Ditches spaced any closer than this
threshold distance would result in the entire area between the ditches experiencing a loss of wetland
hydrology. If ditches were spaced any further apart than the threshold distance, there would be a strip
between the ditches which would still meet the wetland hydrology criteria. Since only one ditch exists
,
areas outside of one-half of the threshold distance are predicted to have wetland hydrology; therefore,
one-half of this threshold spacing provides asafe-side estimate of the drainage effect that the subject ditch
will have. This application of the model recognizes that the water table midway between ditches spaced
at the threshold spacing will be lower (i.e., the soil at that point will be drier) than would be the case at the
same distance from a single ditch (i.e., at a distance of one-half the threshold spacing from a single ditch).
Therefore, the width of the strip of land that would experience hydrologic conversion from wetland to
upland hydraulic conditions due to a single ditch should be less than a distance equal to one-half the
threshold spacing.
The floodplain is mapped as Leaf silt loam and Wilbanks silty clay loam. Amatya et al. (200]) describe a
process for using the County Soil Survey Report's mapped series to collect soil input parameters for
DRAINMOD. In the absence of undisturbed soil samples obtained from the field, the taxonomic class of
the mapped series is matched to the class of soil series for which soil hydraulic properties for
DRAINMOD have been published. Of the soil series closely resembling Wilbanks with published soil
information, Cape Fear loam was judged to most closely resemble the soils mapped as Wilbanks at the
Site. Soil water characteristics, drainage volume, upward flux, infiltration rate, depth to impermeable
layer, and hydraulic conductivities were assigned for the Cape Fear (Skaggs and Nassahzadeh-
Tabrizi, 1986) and Leaf soil (Tweedy 1998). Surface depressional storage was estimated from published
ranges (Skaggs et al. 1994 and Skaggs ] 980).
Weather data fora 32-year period were obtained for Murfeesboro, NC in Hertford County. Missing
measurements were estimated to be the average value of that date for the period of record (]974 to 2006).
Potential evapotranspiration rates were calculated based on Thornthwaite's method and adjusted using
monthly factors derived for Eastern North Carolina. The DRAINMOD simulation was conducted for the
-_
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 15 Herttbrd Counri

time period from January 1974 through April 2006. The on-site, shallow ditch was estimated to be 3 feet
deep throughout. Cutawhiskie Creek is estimated at 9 feet deep within the Site. Depths for the UT
ranged from 6 feet in the upper reach to 9 feet in the lower reach.
Verification
DRAINMOD is currently the most widely used and studied method for determining ditch influence on
adjacent wetland soils. However, concerns over the accuracy of DRAINMOD have led to a comparison
of results to the Boussinesq equation and the Skaggs Method.
1 The Boussinesq equation calculates the zone of influence from a single drain given soil hydraulic
conductivity, drainable porosity (i.e., a measure of water holding capacity derived from the soil water
characteristic), depth of drain, and depth to an impermeable layer, and length of drawdown. For this
application the length of drawdown was considered to be the target hydroperiod (i.e., 12 and 28 days).
The Skaggs Method was developed for the North Carolina Department of Transportation to address
concerns with the two previously described methods. The application of DRAINMOD described above,
yields a theoretical maximum zone of influence for a single ditch. The application of the Boussinesq
equation described above, using drawdown times of 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season but
ignoring precipitation during the drawdown period, can overestimate the zone of influence. The Skaggs
method defines new drawdown periods for each county (Phillips 2006 and personal communication).
These shorter periods were calibrated to reflect the removal of wetland hydrology for 5 percent of the
growing season using a variety of ditch depths and surface storage conditions. Not all soils and depths
have been published. The maximum ditch depth published using the Skaggs Method is 6 feet.
Based on various published investigations, the Skaggs Method appears to be most accurate in determining
wetland influences. However, values greater than 6 feet are currently not available for soils found at the
Site. DRAINMOD estimates are reasonably close to estimates using the Skaggs Method and always less
than those predicted by the Boussinesq equation for 12.5 percent of the growing season. Therefore, for
the purposes of this report, DRAINMOD results were used to estimate the pre- and post drainage effects
of the on-site ditch and dredged stream channels.

Results
The wetland loss models have been applied to the Site to determine which areas may not achieve wetland
criteria (i.e., less than 12.5 percent of the growing season) under existing conditions. In Leaf soils, the
maximum wetland degradation predicted by DRAINMOD ranged from l54 to 233 feet away from the
specified drainage feature, 3 to 9 feet in depth respectively (Table 3, Appendix B). These soils were
located adjacent to the ditch and UT. In Cape Fear loam soils, those adjacent to Cutawhiskie Creek, the
wetland degradation predicted by DRAINMOD was 262 feet (Table 3, Appendix B).
Figure 8 (Appendix A) provides a depiction of modeled wetland hydroperiods based on ditch depths and
spacing under pre-restoration conditions. The DRAINMOD simulations indicate that most of the hydric
soils have been effectively drained (i.e., support hydroperiods less than 12.5 percent of the growing
season). Only a couple of areas including jurisdictional wetlands were excluded from site drainage
effects. The model suggests that approximately 19.2 acres of hydric soils are currently in a degraded
state.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 16 Hertford County

1
The model was applied to predict post-restoration site alterations to restore wetland hydrology. Primary
alterations include effectively eliminating drainage along the man-made drainage systems (i.e., on-site
ditch and dredged UT). However, the dredged channel along Cutawhiskie Creek must remain intact in
order to drain the upper watershed. Without auxiliary inputs of surface or groundwater, hydric soils will
continue to be drained for a zone extending approximately 262 feet adjacent to Cutawhiskie Creek. A r
backwater slough condition will be established on the secondary floodplain that provides 1) an elevated
groundwater gradient across the primary floodplain and 2) re-introduction of periodic surface flows
estimated to occur several times a year for prolonged periods. These auxiliary sources of hydrology are
predicted to reduce the steep groundwater gradient associated with Cutawhiskie Creek, and provide
wetland d hydroperiods in areas with 50 feet or less of the stream channel. Based on post-restoration
simulations, wetland hydrology (greater than 12.5 percent of the growing season) is expected to occur
within approximately 12.9 acres of the primary and secondary floodplain (Figure 9, Appendix A).
4.0 STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ~
The restoration concepts being developed for the Site follow a watershed approach for stream and
wetland design. Therefore, the plan takes into account the surrounding land-use and management
practices that could realize additional benefit from having an adjacent restoration project in-place. This
concept also subscribes to the restoration of all ecosystems located within the Site including upland plant
communities. Restoration of land form in all areas that fit within the restoration scheme has therefore
been incorporated into the plan. The restoration planning approach, proposed design units, and available
mitigation units are depicted on Figure 10 (Appendix A). After implementation, restoration activities are
expected to provide the following stream and wetland design units (see Table 4, Appendix B).
• 2820 linear feet of stream restoration, including approximately 2630 linear feet of Priority 1
restoration of the UT and 190 linear feet of passive braided restoration of the UT.
• 2790 linear feet of stream preservation along Cutawhtskie Creek.
• 13.1 acres of riparian wetlands restoration.
• 1.2 acres of riparian wetlands enhancement.
Components of this plan may be modified based on construction or access constraints. Primary activities
designed to restore the stream and wetland complex include 1) stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration
and enhancement and 3) plant community restoration. Subsequently, a monitoring plan is outlined.
4.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts using Priority 1 methodology (Rosgen 1996) are designed to restore a stable,
meandering stream that approximates the hydrodynamics and stream geometry relative to natural
conditions in the region. Primary activities designed to restore the channel on a new location include
floodplain excavation, floodplain preparation and stake out, stream construction, followed by the
plugging and backfill of the existing channel. Stream design parameters will follow those depicted in
Table l (Appendix B). The excavation limits of the constructed floodplain and plan view of the proposed t
channel are depicted on Figure l lA-B (Appendix A). Representative cross-sections are provided on
Figure l2 (Appendix A).
Stream restoration activities will restore the existin ,entrenched UT channel with a roximatel
g PP Y
26301inear feet of a stable E-type channel configuration. Restoration of this channel will reduce
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 17 Hertford County

I
LJ
r
sediment and nutrient loading, introduce natural flooding frequencies within the floodplain, increase in-
stream habitat including pools and associated micro-habitat, and lower water temperatures resulting from
the shading by planted vegetation.
An erosion control plan will be developed in conjunction with detailed. Erosion control will be
performed locally throughout the Site and will be incorporated into the construction sequencing. Exposed
surficial soils at the Site will include primarily dense, nutrient poor subsoils that do not vegetate rapidly
after disturbance. Therefore, seeding with appropriate annual grasses and immediate planted with
disturbance-adapted woody species will be employed following the earth-moving process. Planting of the
floodplain with native vegetation is expected to quickly stabilize and help reduce flow velocities in
floodwaters, filter out pollutants and particulates, and provide wildlife habitat.
4.1.1 Floodplain Excavation
A new floodplain will be excavated in the upper reaches of the Site as depicted in Figures 11A and 12
(Appendix A). The objective of floodplain excavation is to reconnect the stream with the historic
floodplain at an appropriate elevation, minimize hydrologic impacts upstream, and provide quicker flood
dissipation from upstream in periods of high flow. Excavated material is expected to be used to backfill
the existing channel location within the Site. After excavation, the floodplain will provide a relatively
level surface that is expected to develop wetland functions. Planting of the floodplain with native
vegetation is expected to quickly stabilize and help reduce flow velocities in floodwaters, filter pollutants,
and provide wildlife habitat.
4.1.2 Floodplain Preparation and Grading
Preparation of the proposed stream channel corridor will include plugging and backfilling the on-site
' ditch, and clearing and grubbing large stumps. Spoil material stockpiled adjacent to the ditch will be used
to fill the ditch. Excess material will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to the existing stream channel to
be backfilled after stream diversion is complete. The backfilled ditch and adjacent stockpiled areas will
be graded to the floodplain elevation as specified in the profile.
Clearing and grubbing large stumps within the stream alignment will be required. Care will be taken to
avoid the unnecessary removal of stumps that may provide channel stability. Woody debris will remain
on-site and can be either buried or equally distributed on the floodplain to provide habitat.
After floodplain and corridor preparation, the design channel layout shall be surveyed in and staked out
according to the meandering pattern. The stake out will provide the radius identification (ID), radius
location, radius length, and the top and bottom of each riffle elevation. The surveyors will set an offset
stake outside the limits of construction. An off-set stake will allow the stream channel to be constructed
without disturbing the stake.
4.1.3 Stream Channel Construction
After the floodplain has been excavated, the proposed channel will be constructed to the average width,
depth, and cross-sectional area derived from regional curves and detailed measurements of the on-site
reach (Table 1, Appendix B). Stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be
immediately matted with coir fiber matting and planted with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Once the
proposed design channel has been excavated and stabilized, the abandoned channel will be filled with the
material stockpiled from floodplain excavation.
Cutawhiskie Creck Restoration Site 18 Hertford County

~~
~~
4.1.4 Plugs and Backfill of Abandoned Channel
Following stream diversion, impermeable plugs will be installed at regular intervals along the abandoned
channel. The plugs will consist of impermeable soils excavated from the adjacent spoil pile or floodplain
surface. The material shall be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of surface flow across
the Site. The plugs will be backfilled in 2-foot lifts of vegetation free material and compacted into the
bottom of the channel. The plugs will be sufficiently wide and deep to form an imbedded overlap in the
existing bank and bed of the channel.
The remaining portions of the abandoned channel will be backfilled usin the adjacent s oil material.
g J p
The backfilled channel sections will be filled, compacted and graded to the approximate elevation of the
adjacent wetland surface.
4.2 Controlled Water Outlet Structures
Flows from the constructed stream channel will daylight within the floodplain of Cutawhiskie Creek,
several feet above the normal water elevation. It is anticipated that the regular flows from the constructed
stream channel will rehydrate the hydric soils adjacent to Cutawhiskie Creek. Reducing drainage
outflows while conserving water during the growing season is the primary aim for wetland restoration in
this area. In order to regulate water from these wetlands into Cutawhiskie Creek, controlled water outfall
structures are proposed at designated outlets through the river levee associated with the creek. As surface
water exits the Site, the banks of the Cutawhiskie Creek may experience increased erosive flows from the 1
hydraulic head, causing instability to the bank and increase the risk of headcuts. To preclude erosion
events at the convergence with Cutawhiskie Creek, a proposed water control outlet will be installed
upslope of the Cutawhiskie Creek channel. The water control outlet will be a log weir in which multiple
logs are cabled together to form a confinement structure that wilt protect, reinforce, and restrain
vegetation, thereby controlling down-slope movement due to hydrodynamic and gravitational forces.

4.3 Riparian Wetland Restoration and Enhancement
Riparian wetland restoration will significantly reduce groundwater withdrawal rates and reconnect surface
water flood hydrodynamics from an approximately 0.9 square mile watershed onto the floodplain adjacent
to approximately 2608 linear feet of constructed channel. Restoration will be achieved through the
backfilling of the existing channel and reintroduction of surface water from overbank events.
Additionally, the plan includes the re-establishment of riparian swamp forest communities. Therefore,
riparian hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions will be restored, including pollutant removal,
organic carbon export, sediment retention, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and energy dissipation.
Ph
ysical wetland functions typically associated with water quality will be replaced within the Chowan
River Basin.
Riparian wetland enhancement will occur within areas where jurisdictional status has been verified or in
hydric soil areas where wetland models have not indicated wetland loss. Riparian wetland enhancement
will be achieved through the planting of a riparian swamp forest community.
Biological functions associated with the riparian system, including in-stream aquatic habitat, structural
floodplain habitat, and interspersion and connectivity between the restored stream, floodplain, and
adjacent uplands, will also be restored. Based on restoration analyses, the Site includes approximately
l .2 acres of riparian wetland enhancement and 13.1 acres of riparian wetland restoration (Figure ] 0,
Appendix A).
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 19 Hertford County

1

t
r

t

1

J
4.4 Groundwater and Soil Restoration
Restoration of groundwater, wetland hydrology and wetland soil attributes involves I) excavation and
grading of certain floodplain areas, 2) backfilling of the abandoned stream reach (described above), and
3) scarification of disturbed floodplain soils prior to planting. In addition, the construction of (or
provisions for) surface water storage depressions (i.e., small floodplain pools and depression) also
represents an important component of groundwater restoration activities.
4.4.1 Topsoil Excavation and Stockpiling
Based on local conditions, topsoil from the excavated floodplain and future spoil locations may be
excavated and stockpiled, then redistributed over excavated areas that lack sufficient topsoil depth.
Topsoil will provide a seed source and substrate for wetland vegetation establishment. Sufficient
amounts of this material will be stockpiled in areas adjacent to identified areas.
Because restoration success will depend on the creation of a productive wetland forest community, it is
critical that soils be adequate to support characteristic plant growth. Since local soils have a relatively
shallow layer of topsoil, it is expected that excavation of the new floodplain may expose very fine
textured soils that may have decreased infiltration and permeability characteristics. In the event these
phenomena are observed, the floodplain will be undercut and replaced with a nominal 12-inch layer of
topsoil. The topsoil will help in the reduction of the rate of groundwater flow through surficial soil
layers, which is critical to restoration of hydrology, and will increase the depth of substrate required for a
mature wetland community.
4.4.2 Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent important
components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex surface
microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools, oxbows, and
hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the
system. Efforts to advance development of characteristic surface microtopography shall be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping, or scarification shall be performed. Mixing of
vegetation debris in surface soils and surface modifications (i.e., constructed concavities and swales) shall
also promote complexity across the Site landscape. After construction, the soil surface should exhibit
complex microtopography across floodplain surface with up to 1 foot vertical asymmetry. Subsequently,
community restoration will be initiated on complex floodplain surfaces. Exposed surfaces will support
complex microtopography, including hummocks and troughs, to maximize water-storage potential.
4.5 Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of riparian and upland buffer forest communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows
for development and expansion of characteristic forest species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes
between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced
feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Plant community
restoration within the Site will include the planting of bare-root specimens consistent with reference data,
on-site observations, and community descriptions (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Revegetating the floodplain and stream banks will provide stream bank stability, shade, cool surface
waters, filter pollutants from adjacent runoff, and provide habitat for area wildlife. Scarification of all
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 20 Hertford County

planting surfaces will be required prior to planting. Species distribution and densities are expected to be
determined during development of the detailed restoration plan.
4.5.1 Plant Community Associations ,
On-site observations and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary plant community
associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities. These Community
associations include 1) Coastal Plain Levee Forest, 2) Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, 3) Cypress-
Gum Swamp, and 4) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Figure 13, Appendix A). Figure l4 (Appendix A)
identifies the location, based on elevation and position relative to the restored stream, of each target
community acreage to be planted. Targeted planting elements within each map unit are listed below.
Coastal Plain Levee Forest
1. Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 6. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
2. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 7. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
3. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) 8. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
4. River Birch (Betula nigra) 9. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
5. Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) 10. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
C vnress-Gum Swamn
1. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
2. Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
3. Overcup Oak (Quercus Zyrata)
4. Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
5. Carolina Ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swama
1. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora) 8. River Birch (Betula nigra)
2. Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) 9. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
3. Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 10. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
4. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) l l . American Ho11y (Ilex opaca)
5. Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) 12. Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana)
6. American Elm (Ulmus americana) 13. Red Bay (Persea borbonia)
7. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) l4. Giant Cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1. Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 8. Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
2. White Oak (Quercus alba) 9. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
3. Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata) ] 0. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
4. American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) l ] . Southern Sugar Maple (Ater floridanum)
5. Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra) 12. American Holly (Ilex opaca)
6. Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) 13. Sourwood (Oxydendron arboretum)
7. Mockernut Hickory (Carya alba) l4. Hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana)
i
Z
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site Zl Hertford County

t
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Forest and Cypress-Gum Swamp are the primary target communities
for the floodplain locations, whereas mesic hardwood species will be planted along the valley side slopes
and on adjacent uplands within the Site. Certain opportunistic species that may dominate the early
' successional forests have been excluded from plant community restoration efforts. Opportunistic species
consist primarily of pines, red maple, and sweetgum.
The following planting plan is the blueprint for plant community restoration. The anticipated results
stated in the Success Criteria (Section 5.7) are expected to reflect potential vegetative conditions achieved
after steady-state conditions prevail over time.
4.5.2 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to re-establish vegetative community patterns across the landscape. The
' plan consists of ])acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of proposed site preparation,
and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Advance
notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various non-commercial species. Bare-root
seedlings of the listed species will be planted within most specified map areas at a density of 1000 stems
per acre on 6.6-foot centers. Table 5 (Appendix B) provides the total number of stems and species
distribution within each vegetation association. The table only lists those species currently available in
the trade.

t

IJ
The Site shall be prepared for planting including soil scarification, topsoil excavation (see 4.4
Groundwater and Soil Restoration), fertilization, and lime application. Planting will be performed
between December ] and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root
during the spring. A total of approximately 18,000 tree and shrub specimens will be planted within the
Site boundary during restoration activities.
5.0 MONITORING REPORT
Monitoring of the Site will be performed over a 5-year period (e.g., five growing seasons), including a
minimum of two bankfull events recorded at the Site, or thereafter until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring reports will be submitted at the end of each monitoring year. Each report will include
compilation of collected data in spreadsheet, tabular, and graphic format. ESC will follow the format
provided by the EEP (Content, Format and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports, Version 1.1 -
9/16/OS). Monitoring is proposed for stream restoration, wetland creation, and buffer restoration. Three
distinct tasks are covered under the monitoring plan including stream monitoring, hydrological
monitoring, and vegetation monitoring. Each of these tasks is described below.
5.1 Stream Monitoring
As part of the post-project As-built Mitigation Plan, a baseline survey encompassing the stream
restoration reach will have been completed and will have become available for use for base line mapping.
The As-built Mitigation Plan will establish the channel plan view, establish permanent channel cross-
sections on riffles and pools, provide substrate analysis, and establish the channel profile. Profile
measurements will include bed facets (pool and riffles), water surface, and bankfull elevations. A
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 22 Hertford County
J

minimum of two pool and two riffle cross-section locations will be identified within the monitored reach.
Subsequent monitoring will revisit cross-section locations, re-survey of the pattern and profile, and
provide substrate analysts. Data will be presented m graphic and tabular format consistent with the EEP
format. Stream monitoring shall also include photo documentation of changes observed within the
channel, including bank erosion (Bank Erosion Hazard Index [BEHI] assessment), aegradation,
degradation, and presences of m-stream bars. Stgntficant changes in channel morphology will be tracked
and reported by comparing most-recent monitoring data with previous monitoring data.
In order to substantiate the extent of flood lain restoration one stream cr
p est gauge shall be placed m the
primary stream channel to verify bankfull stage events.
5.2 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel parameters that are indicative of a stable stream
system. Channel configuration will be evaluated every year to monitor for changes in channel geometry,
profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream channel
stability.
The channel configuration will be compared to the design plans and previous geometry data to track
changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to assist in determining the t
success of restored stream channel stability. Specifically, there shall be no significant change in channel
geometry from the constructed channel; pool depths and widths should remain consistent with the
constructed geometry; the profile should continue to show the development of bed features with no
significant channel aggradation or degradation; and over time the channel will be successfully classified
as an E-type stream. Field indicators of bankfull will be described in each monitoring year and indicated
on representative channel cross-sections.
Channel stability will be assessed based on dimension, pattern, and profile variables. Bank erosion and
headcut migration through the Site will be assessed visually (photo record) and through cross-section and
profile data.
5.3 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but is not be limited to repair of dimension, pattern, and
profile variables or bank stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon
stream variables not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns that may jeopardize stream
success include headcut migration through the Site or bank erosion.
Headcut Migration Through the Site - In the event that a headcut occurs identified visuall or throu h
( Y g
on-site measurements), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage caused by the
headcut may be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation of in-stream ,
grade control structures (log cross vane) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability
is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include stabilizing the material with erosion-control
matting, and vegetative stabilization (seeding or planting).
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 23 Hertford County

1
r

i~

ri
Bank Erosion - In the event that severe bank erosion results in width/depth ratios significantly higher
than that of the previous monitoring year, contingency measures to reduce these variables may take place.
Bank erosion contingency may include bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces
chute cutoffs or channel abandonment, the channel may be modified to reduce shear stress.
5.4 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
Following construction, groundwater monitoring gauges will be placed in accordance with specifications
in the USACE Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1,
August 1993). Monitoring gauges shall be situated in various microtopographic regimes within the
excavated floodplain area and at a frequency sufficient to provide representative coverage. Each
monitoring gauge shall be set to a minimum depth of 24 inches below the soil surface. Hydrological
sampling shall be performed throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy the
hydrology success criteria within each community restoration area (USEPA 1990).
5.5 Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics will require a minimum regulatory criteria or supporting
documentation for atypical dry years when success criterion is not achieved. Under normal climatic
conditions, the hydrologic success criterion requires saturation (free water) within 1 foot of the soil
surface for a minimum 5 percent (consecutive days) of the growing season. This hydroperiod translates
to saturation for a minimum 11-day consecutive period during the growing season, extending from March
28 to November 7 (224 days) (NRCS 1984). If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and hydrological monitoring, consultation with EEP personnel will be undertaken to determine
the extent of wetland restoration in these area.
5.6 Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring procedures are designed in accordance with the Stream Mitigation Guidelines
(USACE et al. 2003) and guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
(CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Level l-2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.0, 2006). A
general discussion of the plant community restoration-monitoring program is provided.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods and determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting
and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary. During the first year, vegetation will
receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted
elements by nuisance species.
Collection of the Year-1 data must be performed no earlier than six months after planting. The Year-2
and all subsequent vegetation sampling will be collected near the end of the growing season or until the
vegetation success criterion is achieved.
As part of the post-project As-built Mitigation Plan, approximately six (6}, permanent 100 square meter
sampling plots (modules) will be established at stratified locations within the Site. The sampling plots
will equally represent the various hydrologic regimes and plant communities found within the Site.
Vegetation Baseline Data will be collected on the new plots with new plants installed for inclusion of the
As-built Mitigation Plan. In each sampling plot, protocol Level l and 2 will be used to identify and track
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 24 Hertford County

1
both planted and volunteer stems. Exotic vegetation will also be noted during data collection. One
photograph of each plot will be required.
5.7 Vegetative Success Criteria ,
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for floodplain forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density
and survival of planted species identified in Plant Community Associations (see section 4.4.1). All
planted canopy tree species and species identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) will be utilized to
define "Character Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems-per-acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving following the first
year of monitoring. Subsequently, 290 character tree stems-per-acre must be surviving in Year 3, and
260 character tree stems per acre in Year 5. This is consistent with USACE Wilmington District ,
guidelines for wetland mitigation (USACE 1993).
5.8 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved, based on average density calculations from combined
sample plot data, supplemental planting will be performed with a tree spectes listed in Plant Community
Associations (see section 4.5.1). Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until vegetation
success criteria are achievement. No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb
assemblages as part of the vegetation success criteria. Development of the floodplatn forest over several
decades shall dictate the success in restoration and establishment of desired understory and groundcover
populations.
5.9 Special Considerations
The Site shall be periodically monitored for structures that significantly impede surface flow of the newly
constructed stream channel (e.g., beaver dams or fallen snags). Snags and other woody debrts that pose
such obstruction shall be removed by hand or "cabled out" of the riparian area with minimum impacts to
soil compaction and vegetation. There shall be no excessive clearing or pruning of vegetation within the
Site. Corrective action shall be applied to any monitoring activity that causes channelized flow within the
npanan area.
t

t
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 25 Hertford County

t

1
t

~I
t

1
1
1
6.0 REFERENCES
Amatya, D.M. 1993. Hydrologic Modeling of Drained Forested Lands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Amatya, D.M., G.M. Chescheir, R.W. Skaggs, G.P. Fernandez. 2001. NRCS Soil Survey Data in
Hydrologic/Water Quality Modeling of Poorly Drained Coastal Watersheds. 44th Annual
Meeting Vol. XLIV Proc. Of the 2001 Conf. Of the Soil SC. Soc. Of North Carolina, Raleigh,
NC, pp:59-73.
Chescheir, G.M., D.M. Amatya, and R.W. Skaggs. 1994. Modeling the Hydrology of a Natural Forested
Wetland. Paper No. 94-2597 presented at the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
(ASAE) International Winter Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, December 13-] 6, ASAE, St. Joseph,
Michigan.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Hamel, P. B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
He, X., M.J. Vepraskas, R.W. Skaggs, and D.L. Lindbo. 2002. Adapting a Drainage Model Simulate
Water Table Levels in Coastal Plain Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal.
66:1722.1731.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1984. Soil Survey of Hertford County, North Carolina, United States
Department of Agriculture. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. United States Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Pitt County, North Carolina. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
North Carolina. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2002. Chowan River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 26 Hertford County
1

J

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. Basinwide Information Management '
System (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reports.html. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006b. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired t
Waters List (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303d.htm. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Phillips, B.D. 2006. Methods to Determine Lateral Effect of Drainage Ditch on Wetland Hydrology.
Masters Thesis. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State ,
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, R.P. Teulings, and R. Davis. 2006. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. ,
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. Drainmod Reference Report. Methods for Design and Evaluation of Drainage
Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. Prepared for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. South National Technical Center. Fort Worth, Texas.
Skaggs, R.W., and A. Nassehzadeh-Tabrizi. 1986 . Design Drainage Rates for Estimating Drain Spacings
in North Carolina. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 29(6):1631-
] 640.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. Transaction of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers Meeting Presentation Paper Number 92l 590. 21 p.
Skaggs, R.W., D. Amatya, R.O Evans, and J.E. Parsons. 1994. Characterizations and Evaluation of
Proposed Hydrologic Criteria for Wetlands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49 (5):
501-510.
Skaggs, R.W., G.M. Chescheir, and B.D. Phillips. 2005. Methods to Determine Lateral Effect of a
Drainage Ditch on Wetland Hydrology. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 48(2): 577-584.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 27 Hertford County

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp.
Sweet, W.V and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence
Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA}. 39(4):861-871.
Tweedy, K. L. 1998. Hydrologic Characterization of Two Prior Converted Wetland Restoration Sites in
Eastern North Carolina. Masters Thesis. College of Forestry, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Misstsstppt. 169 pp.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington
District. Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, April 2003. State of North Carolina. 26 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-I5, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
j United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006a. Envirofacts Warehouse: CERCLIS
Query Form for the State of North Carolina. http://cf~ub.epa. og v/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfin
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006b. Envirofacts Warehouse: SDWIS
Query Form for the State of North Carolina.
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html#geography
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Pitt County Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). U.S. Department of the Interior.
Available: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cnt_ylist/Pitt.html [February 20, 2006]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 28 Hertford County

APPENDICES

1

1

ICI
LJ

t
1
1

A

Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site 29 Hertford County

i
APPENDIX A
' Figures
t

1
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site Appendix A Hertford County
1

i ~ ~/ .,,!
_ _ _ `~
\~
6000 0 6000
~1
I
7
~~~
v~.~-
`~,.} ,
i r
~'. t ~ _....-
UT to CUTAWHISKIE CREEK DRAINAGE AREA
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK DRAINAGE AREA
~- -,v- ~:~7 av
GWN JWG FIGURE
LOCAL TOPOGRAHPY AND DRAINAGE AREA
JAN zo~~
Cutawhiskie Creek -
~~ Stream and Wetland Restoration Site As SHOw~I
EcoSciencc Hertford County, North Carolina
Corporation 0 6- 3 0 6
8~ -
~ ~~ `'-~'
%° ~ ~"`
4i ~' ~~
~/ ' \ ~'.
` J h~..
`~

GWN JWV I VVi\
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ~aN 200
Cutawhiskie Creek
~~~ Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ~ ~ =500'
[;~+~~ticn~e Hertford County, North Carolina
Corporation 0 0- 3 0 6

_ ` ra eake
_ _ '~'' _ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ r_um,1-litt Co q
~Ieasant Hill - ~TAargyreYt§Ytt)e ~ ~d icksvilte~ ~eynot~sonp --
~ Severn ~t1 „ate
_ ..
5U ~w _ omo ! ~ $avage~.- -
_r" eaboard ."~ _ -~ _• Sarem- ~,13ucklan ~~,. ~ '
.- `~ ~r " Pendletpn j "~ _ Roduco
i- Garysou-~ ~ `Murfreesboro ~ _ e
fa+sens Conway %r A:
- Eure 111 ` ~-
"-~ Ma_pteLnw ~ `-~, ~~ ~ Galesville rdvi
cde. 3 i ;,<~ :~ ~ ;'"j ~ ~ Trotville . ~ S nc
ackson -_- o ~:~ ,t~~ -f ~ ~ um§~- ._
,..,r~ ,~ - ~ ,
Potecas~ ,~ ,, a ahfor la 5q ofield ! ' ~~r x Carte
' Reh oth Masker: ~' /.., ,Menola; ~ ~ o~' ~9 ~ D ~+,~^ Hobbsville ,@
GeorEe o -`Wo land ~'1 E ~ Gt~d
r~ 4 >~ a Ahoskie uoyd ~y~,
~ \
X v y ' ; ti.;oSS~oads , r Ic is Bets
sF
Brya quaff - i' (1
-a . .
- - v~ .Tiller)' - - E s _ -
i ~_
I', °9S^ •• o Wander Slte LOCatIOn Withln ~ ter
s ~ ~ 1Ronobel=E~ _ - '. TARGETED =-
J ~ '` 14-Digit USGS HU ~ 1` ~~
_~ R ckyhock
~etfard 03010204200010 ~ p - "'=
3nwson-~ f3urdegU -~-\ `~ t ,
`-- NOrfleef' ~ ~\ 4 ~ aihalia ~ ~,c
Scotland fYacK ~ _ Lewist ~ -~ _ b it Goulds ~`',
~,
c Woodville i ~ASkewyille'~,, Ma ock U '"
Toads. ,, \
~~~ - ~. Cro9s s '. ~ ~~
hn _ 1 ~ ._. ~ [~?pubiican ~ ~_ ,~ ~. _d~ tOn .
Roseneath~. ^~ ai ra ~ B - ~ R ~, T ~ ~~` _ ~. ~ .,. -
~ '~ ~ ~,1 ~ ~ ~~
- L_ . ~bi3ood ~ - -
I
_ _ ..
. - _. -T- - -_ - - ~ .. - -
eSLett f ~ ~ p
~ ..S d - `~ ~~+ ~,
\, ! ak CitY y~ ~ ~~ -`~ Quitsna ~Cr~ e3~v
Hamilto ~ ~ ~~.~~.r I '~^ '~~~.~ ackeys
-.~ ~ '. r ~SansSouc~t, °- ~-Plea
\ Coakley `~ , ~~ _ ' Woodard ~ _,~~z
,. j _ ~ >~~ stoveri _
ro ~ ,a,. _ - y - f9J _- - oRpper _
_ xPrincevJle ~ f ..._.. ~ _ _ --_ _
[~' E ~ ~otd Poi ~ l - .r= ~ - '~ Piy n s th --'
;* - ~ ~• L
0~ ~ • 1?~lfft3rti~tOn .? C 1_~ P
M.Idred EJeret `- ~ t `~
,. ~ eon ~ ~ =4 -_ rden ///j
ins Cr ssroads~, (•~ ~ ~ ~~,,,,.,---.~- ~t;~; yonville ~ ~,~ ( ~ ~ - .
Conetoe J \
Formats Jamesvrtig.
~~ R a '
- WTI hur t _ ~ F3ear Grass >~~' ft 1,'~ ~-~ -+ -
Id ~-. ~ - Qakiey f V- -... ~y•y~~c _ ~`" -
.~ ~,. _
1J/ ~'_,EY'J8n0
o _' ! ~) '~ ~ Co later _ .. ~ Y ~y"~ i^~ nay .
._. ~ ~ " Stokes` ~ \v ., .c _.. ' !~ ~ ~.'.. ~~,.. ~-
FaEk~and \ 1 \ - - Pa~feRead
.Sta CJI1~ ~ ~ T - ... N .. '-~ +~
y ~
~tp~ 0 5 mi. 15 mi ^~ ~, _ ~-~, _
a ~~ =~ ~ ~ ~'' ;Mineola 1t - -~ •. _ _ - ~.y
1:660000 tolu`t.__~ 4, _ - _
Source. 1986 North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map ~--..--_ ~'vB r Frjnetow~• _ `Ie~:i*~ GaytOrd
g ~~ . _ero
_ .,
' "~\ .; .. _ Walla Watta ~J Acre -
owN Iwo FIO.~RL
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP ,
Cutawhiskie Creek ~aN zoos
.~ Stream and Wetland Restoration Site As sHOw~
EcoSaence Hertford County, North Carolina
Cor oration 06-306

pppp EtEt ~
u
IP~Ttiai':
EcoScience
,Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
CUTAWHISKIE
CREEK
STREAM AND
WETLAND
RESTORATION
SITE
HERTFORD CDUN?Y,
ROklr CAROLINA
PHYSIOGRAPHY,
TOPOGRAPHY,
AND LAND USE'
F~cuRE
5
J

;rB CRAVEN FINE SANDY
LOAM (2%-6% SLOPES
F LEAF LOAM
VN WILBANKS SIL TY
CLAY LOAM
;rA CRAVEN FINE SANDY
LOAM (0%-2% SLOPES

600 0 6,00
--
ii Source 1984 USDA-SCS Soil Survey, Hertford Co., NC
SCALE IN BEET
~~~._,
GWN JWG -!GJRE
NRCS SOIL UNITS
Cutawhiskie Creek ~aN 200
_~ 6
i~ Stream and Wetland Restoration Site r =600
EcoScience Hertford County, North Carolina
Corporation ~6 306

m' J ~ o 0
W p Z ~Q Q N O o ,.~
U.O ~ Y Z O !~ Z ~ o ~,
0
~ ~ c~Y zH oo ~ z W
.U Q z', ~W~JOaC~ ~~ Ua.V ~ ~'
~ ~ .~ ~ QVWw~y oz ~QOC ~ ~ .> ~,
~ S-ti cn - F- ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ a ~
~O ~ ~ ~ w rro ~ ~
~~''~
i~
o,
~;a ~~ ~~-- ..-__ ~,
,- ~ ~ ~1 I~
_'~,~
~, ~~ _,
~?~ ~
,, ~l
_______ - _- _ - _ - ,,a Q __ ____
w
it
'-___
~9,OVN I 0 ~ _-_
aia~ ~N ~ ~, ~ ~ "~~, ;
a
~ -" ~~~\
--
~'~ ~~
,.
~.
f

~~ V,
Q
W
~ ?
H ~
C~ z ~-,
Z~
~~O'
cn O _
X00
WOE', ~J J
t
. y
~ >: ,
`
\ Y,T
} -~~N~a~c' O
~` ~
_
l
/ .~K
} Y
~ W ~
~
Q
~- --
~ _
___ ? ~ w
~
-'"
~ ~w
~ Z
~~
,___-. '~Y
_ Q
_
_
I~ ~
Q
~~ v~C~/
~ ~ _-~,~
~~ y Yl
J
Q
~ ' 1
~ '._ ~
Q .. ,,
~ ___„
Z ___
H
X
W
1
i
._ '~'.
._
._,
., ,,
-,
;~
~,,,
,_;
S ~--
~~,
,{
>~ -~
~_
i
~ ._

w
_~ ~ U
w
Y
i
T ~ --
--
. .
~ '~_ --
_ - __,
\ ~^
,~~I9~1.. ',
__ ~ ~ ~
~~
_1
__ ~~~
w
w ._,---
Z
O
Q
w
Z
O
O
~ _ ~ m
m c.
V C _ ~ ~ O u
O ~~
O O p O
rn ~ r t0 O
M n O ~ ~ ~`~
c~ ~'~ N iv ~ ~ o
W
~ vl
>- VJ Q O
~' Y
Q ~~~ Q u ~ Q ~ Q VJ
Z w~ T ~ r r
z ~O Q ~ U ~ ~ V~ ~ O
w m v~ w a ~ ~
(~ t- L ~'~. r- w O U
z - - o
~ cei~i F-~. z ~ '- ¢ >
~w U~''~~ w ¢ ~w ~ ~ w =
z v) ~''~, ~ i w w a c9 Z
O¢ ~ d U r~ ~ > w O
U ~U L ~ > Z
~'~~ ~~~
~ 1 ~,
I
I
~~ ~ ~ ~ ._
-~I i_.

~~ ~1 .'
I ~~~ ~~\ ~
`I ~ \`~ \` `\~
` ____ ~\~
Q ~ __ - ~
O -
M
O
F-
W
W
z
w
J
Q
O O
O- ~
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

EEGEN~~
CONSERVATION 23.9 acres
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
EXISTING CITCH
~_= EXIST'NG STREAMS
0
~~
~~
0
U Q
Z Z
UPLAND 1.3~ acres
i,
WETLAND HYDROLOGY
<12.5 PERCENT 19.2 ~ acres
F~~\\\~ ~ ` ~`;I
fi%~%~ >12.5 PERCENT 0.5t acres
5cc o 500
scA~~ iN r~~T
:~y
GwN ~wG FiG~~E
Pre-Restoration DRAINMOD Results >`,~
Cutawhiskie Creek ~aN 200
~~~F:
~~ Stream and Wetland Restoration Site r'=5oo
EcoScience ~ ~~" ` ~'°~
Corporation Hertford County, North Carolina o6-.5

1

1

LEG~ND~
fzvArloN W~ I ~AN~ HYUI~OLOGY
coNSE
.
~ ASF MEN I 130UNDAHY 23.9' acres
~~~ <125 ?ERCEN~ 7.0~ acres
RESTOREC S /REAM
~~~~%~/
L~2LLLLl1/La >12.5 PERCENT 0.5~ acres
C`/E~LAND F-1.OW
~ >12.5 PEHCEN I 10.2 acres
~~~_ ~ EXISTING STREAM (provided by backfilling on-site ditches)
~- ~
~~~~~~~ >12.5 PERCENT 2.7~ acres
(provided by overland flow from
UP~AND 1.5~ acres restored channeU
~ r,
~
T
vr~
c? o ~
r
~ ~ ~~

c~ Q
Z I ~
v
~L
~
~_ !j,
~`T
~~~~
` loll A
~ C
~ ~~
\`
~

o \ L:
z
_~,
;~
~ ~ ~_

-~. -- -_ ,-~'"
T AWN~'KIE CREEK
~
CU
:=_ .~- ..
--- __---
~,
i
~ ~ 500 0 500
KCAL= N ~ECr
GWN JWG ~ IGLRE

~~ Post Restoration DRAINMOD Results
Cutawhiskie Creek
~aN 200

~ Stream and Wetland Retoration Site r'=5oo~
EcoSciencc Hertford County, North Carolina ~~~
Corporation ;;;~- ~„

N ~ `"
c
~ . ~ ~ ~I
~ J--+ U II
• "~ ~ .~
- - V Q ~ i
'/~ ~ z
__. ~ ~ O ~
W U ~ ~'
III
I
I
I
~I
~I
o I
~
W ~ Z
Y Z O ~ Q
z z
II
1 !,
~~
I
NYaZI- oc~
= W Q W
W ~ J ~ I- v Q
~~ ~
aVWWOc~ j~
~ W o
r
~ F
U N ~ r
~__, z
O o '~ ~'
Z o ~ ~
_ N - ~
HZ~ z _~ w
~~H Q ~; I ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~
N ~
oWC 1,
0
0

n
i
i
~~ i
~~
z
w
c~
w
~,
Z Z Z
r 7 0 0 o w
~ C~ i- ¢ a w
Q Q > ~ U
~ W O Q W ~ Q
~° O O ~ (n ~ Z W W Z
~m z Z w ° ~ ~ w
Q~ o o z ~ ~~
~ z c~ c~ O ~ o~ ~ o 0
w~ w w F- a 'o a a a
cnw o Q w °~ w J
o ~ ~-
o w ~~ O cn m~ cn 3 ~
W i lei
ii
\~:i ~i
i i
i h
t:-~~
w r air r r r w w~ r r r~ ~s w w r w w w

~ _ - - - -
O
Q~
°
U
~
I
~ ~
~ ~ W Q
~
~ ~ Z
~ ~ 0 ~ O
~ o
O
-ei ens ~ ~ U
~'~ o a ~
~ ~
U Z
Q ~ ~ ~) O
N~g~~ ~~~ C Z ~ ~~
a~~~ _ O

'
\~ / ~
z Q ~ O to rY W H Q z ~ c9
~
~ ~ wWH c>
F pCw~a ~ ~ ~,
W i z ~
-
~' ~N ac r z ~ ~
U ,

i
i
~ -
W
~ ~
WC~~
~ O ~
U
~ ~ Q
~ W m
(n
~ ~ J
W
Z W Z
~ m Q
X~=
W {- (~
W
U
Q
m
w
m
O
z
z
8 N011~3SX Q
z
~-
x
W .
J
d_
J
W
Z
Z
Q
U
W
O
~ ~
~ o
~ ~
z II
7
~ W
U
W
O
W N
Z O
c~ Q
w F-
v Nolla s-x
i ~
~~~ ~ :Y \ 'r ~ Gry
~lti ~ ~ ~ as I
I ~~( ,
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
1
' ~,{~
~'' ,'~'
~ I, ~~
6 /~1 ~'I
A =~ i ° 1
~~ ~ i,i ~ ~ ~;, ~~jC~
I' iii ~) ~i ~W~
i i~ ~; ' - I' ~+~
u, ~,~ ~ ~~
~I ~i,i Ili4l~4'
i
i~ ~ ~ ~~~il~,
~ I '~'tl
~ '~ h
i~l
,i o`er, ~~
~~~ is
i i~
j^ Ij ~, it
~~~ ;' ~~~
I', _
vi Ni
U~
1j~
!I'. a;u
~~ ~~, ~ ;~~j'~
l+ h'~
o ~) ~~
I
,~,~ ~~, I o " ~ ~~
,,
~,~~~ ~ I~~I~~
i
~~~ '~'
G„ ;~~' ~ a
`i o
1, °+ '
v
~,~;
~ ~
~ ~.
I ~1i ~ ~
I~ ~
j, ~',~ ~ ~~'~
~~ ' ~~
0
,' o
'~ ~,{,
u
I ~ '..:
~II
~~~~~~' ~
,, ,~~~~~
i ,I
+''i, ~i ~
// /,
Z
W
w
-i
0
0
o-
~~
w
z
w
J
Q
I U
~ i(n
0
~ z
z Y W
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ z w
w ~ ~ z
c/~ z ~ ~ Q
~ ~ ~ ~ z O ~ Q W Z
~ Q ~ ~ ~,~ Z Q ~ 7 ~ U
~ I z z~ d D
~ D z W W
W~ W~ Q ~ J J
> ~ O ~ Q (n ~ cn ~ Z Z w -_I
z ~ ~ ~ (~ W Z LL
cn F= ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ v z ~
cn o o ~ oz oz ~ Q v
z
- ~~_i\ -
O x z ~ ~ ~O ~O z Q
(~ W ~ ~ 1_~ _~ ~ C~ Cl_ C~ 7 ~ U C]7
~~ r - ~
I ~
I ~
,I7 ~
C~ ~~ /~ I
~ I
I
____I
8L6 133HS H~1VW
'O\
~~~
Q
r
r
0
0
N
U
O
z
c~
w
0
N
Y
W
v
0
0
a
0
w~ r ~ ~ . ^w ~ rr . . war ~r ~ . rr w +~ ~ ~

A , ~ R
~ O
• •4
~ i
~ U ~
~~ _ ~
~
O O c
a
i ~~
Y
W
W > I
i
? !
UZ z
oo ~
~ ~
~ ~
'
Q
W ~
< <
~ ~ W
Y ~ ~ Q
~
~QF-OcA
2
- r
~ t
W~h
~~ W ~
HN ~ wl
~ `J
~~ U ~ -
~S7
z ~ ~
0 0 ~
~~
~p0 ° ~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ Z i ~, Q -. - ~~~
Q ~ ~
~W~J z ~ c~
(/~ L7 ~
to W
fx
~~
w ~
z ~

v
0
N
F-'
v
0
z
w
cv
Y
W
U
O
O
d
O
t-
W
Z
Z
Q
S
U
C~
Z_
~_
X
w
~~
~~~,~C~
7,/
~\
`L ~ ~ W J z ~ L ~
z ~ O O CO W~ O ~ U Q ~ ~
~ 0 Cn ~ Z ~ Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~
Q ~ O ~ _ w~ W~
> C~ U U Q ~ Z cn ~ W ~ ~ (n ~ Cn ~
C~ w ~ ~ ~ O v v ~~ Z ~ o o-~ ~O
W ~ ~ o O a_ ~ o ~_ ~ ~~ Q O z O z
-J z0 X z Q~ ~ w\ R"-,, 1 Q ~ ~O ~O
L~ L~- I ~ ~ W Z _- i i (~ ~ m
\1
n ;;,~ / J i i II
~ 11 ~
ii ,~ ~
' ~--
- - - --
-I--- __ -
I ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~

`~
V ~ ~o
•~ U
/ ~
~•~ ~ ~
,.~" O O
WU
,~
Q z
o
I II
.. ~~
o ~, ~ o ~ ,
~~ w ~~~
z ~ ~ ~ ~~
z
c~ ~ 0 0
fY X ~ fY_
^_ w d fl
~~^ .!I
~II~~
Q
z
U
~) ~
('~J
U
I
W
Z
Z
Q
I
U
ICJ
~: ~ ~ r~ w c~ cr. ~x~ I~ CO ~ ~ ~ Ml N
~~~ r~ ~~~~ ~~ .n ~~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.I ~ J
m
z
0
U
.J W
~~
~1~
U
W
Z
T_
Q
U
i
W
~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Y
i W ~
w a
o
~ I (/~

Z
O
i~
r~
~
c ~
u
~ ;
oc
z ~
vQOO ~~~ p
I C7 W~~ ° ,
~ «,
~~
Y~J~H ~
~, ~ Z ~ LJJ W ~ ~ ~i ~~~

y ~
a -~ N
~ ~~~N
~',~ X
~yN
W ~
~~ ~; ~
Q F.. W ~ 1
~, ~ v~ oc ~
`~ ~ d
O
,
~~~' ~ ' ~

c~
U O o I

I ~
~-i "~
~ ~ U
...., .~
~~ ~ U ~ o
O
„'
~ ~
~~,
I
C~
z ~, i ! ~~
U O :~
~
W ~,
'
--
U ~
-
w o
0
Q
~
~
_~
o

z

w ~,

W

o
o ~

z

~ ~

w

o
o ~ ,

~~

~-
~- X ~ ~-
w ~ ~~_
~~%~
~~~,. ~.
~___ ~
~
W >
Q
~
Z ~
o ~
o ~
~ i
~~,

- O Z i7
VZOp ~
Q ~~ U
w z~
~~~ ~

~H
z °

Q 1
~~
- ~
o

~~

w
~~~~F r,r~
a
~a
~
~
~,
~ W
~
~

Ov~
'
O
~ N
~
~
2wW
~ ~ W i~ CY d
N ~
~ ~
~ I ~ !~
i : ~ ~

z
n
W
~„
0
~~
,~.
~~
z
z
Q
T_
U
W
I) ~ r~ N O ~ cc? ~ CO ~I; ~I r~) N ~ C~ 0~ ,X) I~
w~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ rr ~ i r ~ ws ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~

COMMUNITY
ASSEMBLAGE
(Shafale and Weakley,1990) Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Cypress-Gum Swamp
(Relict Slough and Backwater Variants) Coastal Plain
Levee Forest
DIAGNOSTIC Southern Sugar Maple Bald Cypress Bald Cypress Bald Cypress
VEGETATION White Oak Swamp Tupelo Pond Cypress Swamp Tupelo
Southern Red Oak Overcup Oak Swamp Tupelo Overcup Oak
American Beech Swamp Chestnut Oak Overcup Oak Laurel Oak
Northern Red Oak Sweetbay Magnolia Green Ash River Birch
Pignut Hickory Green Ash Sweetbay Magnolia Willow Oak
Black Gum American Elm Ti-ti Ironwood
Giant Cane Buttonbush American Elm
o American Holly
~, Red Maple
M .Aar '3 ~rF~

Ida -
r
r
~Cu{c>wislde Creek' ~
LANDSCAPE
POSITION Upland Slope Headwater Stream/Secondary Floodplain Primary Floodplain Bottom levee and Stream Bank
SOILS Craven fine sandy laom (CrB) Leaf loam (LF) Wilbanks silly clay loam (WN)
Moderately Well Droned Poorly Draped Very Poorly Drained
Figure: 13
TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES
Restoration Systems,LLC CUTAWHISKIE CREEK RESTORATION SITE Ecoscience Corporation Project: 06-306
~,o~~~~~==~~o~ s~e,o, ~~~~~~nz,~e~~~~,~~z~ Date: JAN 2007
' HERTFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Rale,gn ~NUAA Carolina 215M 919155:G7J iii- h'al2hJli NmlT Cardlna :'i601 91_^B:A3133

~ ~i
c~
0 ~, '

a
.

W O z

~ Q r

o
0
~
0
~
~ - j
.

~ ~ o

~ Y Z ~
~
y,~az~ Iz
~ ~
<~~ ~

z

z
O
__
~

U

o
W

W
2
w~~OCF_ ~~

,c~ Z
-

H
a
ZJ Q

~ ~,;

~
~
r
~.
__ _

,~
-
~ ~
~ ~
0

a

U rY

s

o

a

a

J z C7

~ ~~

.,_
_ ~ ~
_
O ~ _ ?
W3N
~
~ w
~ '
~y
d c~ ,

~_
o

~~
~;
;~
~~
~~~ ~- ;
~ ~

~
i
w Q~
O _, W Z
~ ~~
LJ l w
OQ
Uw
u. O l'J X ~ u V)
a`` v, go ai
U) w ~ U ~ V7 W
Ow nr w¢ O~
U ~ U ~ S U Ul
~ ~ \ V
~ ~ \v
~ / \\yl~
~ ~ / ~
i i i~ i i i i i ! i A i i i i i i i

1
1

r
1

1
t
1
1
APPENDIX B
Tables
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site Appendix B Hertford County

Table 1. Existing and Proposed Stream Geometry and Classification for the UT to
Cutawhiskie Creek.

ATTRIBUTE EXISTING CONDITIONS
UT to Cutawhiskie Creek PROPOSED CONDITIONS
UT to Cutawhiskie Creek
Draina e Area (s . mi.) 0.9 0.9
DIMENSION
Bankfull Area (Abkf) [sq. ft.] 9.0 9.0
Ditch Area (Ad;,~h) [sq. ft.] 64-137 NA
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) [ft.] 9.1 (8.4-9.6) 7
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) [ft.] 1.0 (0.9-1.1) 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio (WbkdDbkf) 9.1 5.4
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmekf) [ft.] 1.6 (1.5-1.7) 1.8
Pool Width (W~i) [ft.] NA 8.4
Pool Width Ratio (W~f Wbkf) NA 1.2
Maximum Pool Depth (DP,,,~) [ft.] NA 2.8
Pool Depth Ratio (DP,,,a,~/Dbkf) NA 2.2
Floodprone Area (WFpA) [ft.] 12-13 125+
Entrenchment Ratio (W~n/Wbkf) 1.4 >18
Bank Height Ratio 3.4-5.0 I.0
PATTERN
Meander Belt Width (Wbe1) (ft.] 40 (30-50)
Belt Width Ratio (Wbei/Wbkf) No Distinct Riffles and Pools 5.7 (4.3-7.1)
Meander Length (LM) [ft.] or Repetitive Channel 50 (40-60)
Meander Length Ratio (LM/Wbkf) Pattern due to Channel 7.9 (5.7-10)
Radius of Curvature (R~) [ft.] Dredging and Straightening 19 (14-24)
Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rc/Wbkf) 2.7 (2.0-3.4)
Channel Sinuosity (SIN) I.0 1.5
PROFILE
Average Water Surface Slope (S,,,S) [ft./ft/J 0.0031 0.0008
Valley Slope (Svaiiey) [ft./ft/] 0.0021 0.0013
Pool Length (L~i) [ft.] NA 25 (20-30)
Pool to Pool S acing (L _) [ft.] NA 35 (25-45)
SUBSTRATE Sand Sand
STREAM TYPE GS ES
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site B-I Hertford County

Ll

1

1
1
t
1
t

1
1
Table 2. Reference Stream Geometry and Classification.
Black Branch, Bullard Branch, UT to Town Creek,
ATTRIBUTE
Craven County Duplin County Brunswick County
Draina e Area (s uare miles) 1.2 1.3 0.6
DIMENSION
Bankfull Area (Abkf) [sq. ft.] 11.5 10. 9.0
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) [ft.] 9.8 9.2 7.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf) [8.] 1.2 1.1 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio (WbkHDbkf) 8.2 8.4 5.5
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dmek~ [ft.] 1.8 1.5 1.9
Pool Width (W~i) [ft.] 12.0 13 l l.5
Pool Width Ratio (WP~~/Wbkf) 1.2 1.3 1.4
Maximum Pool Depth (DP,,,ax) [ft.] 2.3 2.1 2.5
Pool Depth Ratio (DP~x/Dbkf) 1.9 1.9 2.3
Floodprone Area (W~A) [ft.] 225 200 175
Entrenchment Ratio (W~A/Wbkf) 23.1 20.3 20.9
PATTERN
Meander Belt Width (Wbe1) [ft.] 53.2 (31-I 13) 30.5 (12-45) 31.3 (] 5-60)
Belt Width Ratio (Wbea/Wbkf) (ft.] 5.5 (2.5-14.0) 3.1 (1.1-4.9) 3.7 (1.1-8.6)
Meander Length (LM) [ft.] 1 I8 (65-175) 66.4 (54-79) 42.7 (28-63)
Meander Length Ratio (LM/Wbkf) 11.7 (5.3-21.6) 6.5 (4.8-8.6) 6.0 (2.1-10.3)
Radius of Curvature (R~) [ft.] 29.2 (18-58) 19.1 (14-27) 9.8 (7-13)
Radius of Curvature Ratio (Rc/Wbkf) 3.1 (1.5-7.1) 1.9 (1.3-2.9) 1.2 (0.5-1.9)
Channel Sinuosity (SIN) 1.6 l.4 2.2
PROFILE
Average Water Surface Slope (S,s) [ft./ft/] 0.0023 0.0013 0.0036
Valley Slope (S~a~ieY) [ft./tt/] 0.0037 0.0018 0.0080
Pool Length (L~oi) [ft.] 34.6 (5-84) 33 (22-44) 22 (15-30)
Pool to Pool Spacing (L~,) [ft.] 58.9 (20-]02) 48 (35-66) 51 (19-113)
SUBSTRATE Sand Sand Sand

STREAM TYPE ES ES ES
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
B-2
Hertford County

Table 3. Groundwater Model Results: Zone of Wetland Degradation and Wetland Loss.
Zone of Influence (feet)
Depth Soil T e
YP 5 percent of growing season
(feet)
Skaggs Met hod DRAINMOD Boussinesq
3 Leaf silt loam 187 0 256
6 Leaf silt loam 246 0 357
8 Leaf silt loam NA 0 371
9 Leaf silt loam NA 0 384
9 Cape Fear loam NA 0 482
Zone of Influence (feet)
Depth Soil T e
Yp 12.5 percent of growing season
(feet)
Skaggs Method DRAINMOD Boussinesq
3 Leaf silt loam NA 154 394
6 Leaf silt loam NA 223 538
8 Leaf silt loam NA 230 567
9 Leaf silt loam NA 233 587
9 Cape Fear loam NA 262 738
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site B-3 Hertford County

1

~l

1
1

1

1

.~
Q
3
C~
F-
.~
~.

~-~ ~
~
o _
~ ~ ~ ~, ~ on .~ 3 ~
~
v
..O O ~ ~ ~
~~ O ~ p
~ >C O V]
O ~ c~ '~ ~ O
N c~ id 'b

U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :-~ ~ ~ a4 ~. O a~

U ~ ¢b ~ .~ as ~ ~~' w.~.~ ~'
°' o
c~a }' ,+~~
~ o 0 00 ~'
'" o
.~
~
io c ~
N °` "'
~ ~ o
..
Q
'LS
p ^C w .-~ .~ .-~ .~
°
s
, U
a
~ a w
a ~ U
Q U

G ~ p ~ .-. N

~ N N
A

N
C ~
.~ N
° I i
~ i
i i
i
~ O
~ O
~-
O
~ N ~--~
CC ,T ,T
O
.
~
L O O i i i
~ a a

°
O
O
O
•
O Y
~~ ~
.~
.~
>
,--,
.~

~
~
H
O
~
O
~
s.
~
O
~ U
~
~
_ L f~ ~" ~ O
a W

~+ J.+ L L Ste. L' C
° ~ U U U `~ ~
CC bA C
~
° N V N U N N
3 ~
3
a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~. ~. 3 ~.
a. _n.
~ U ~ ~ U ~ U f~: u:

1

Table 5. Planting Plan

PLANT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990) Coastal Plain
Small
Stream
Swam Coastal
Plain
Levee
Forest
Cypress-
Gum
Swamp Mesic
Mixed
Hardwood
Forest
TOTAL
STEMS
PLANTED
Area (acres) 9.3 3.7 4.6 0.4 18.0
Stem Target (per acre) 1000 1000 1000 1000 --
SPECIES # planted # planted # planted # planted
Common Name Scientific Name (% total) (% total) (% total) (% total)
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1395 (IS) -- -- -- 1395
Red Bay Persea borbonia 465 (5) -- -- -- 465
Green Ash Frazinus pennsylvanica 465 (5) -- -- -- 465
Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana 465 (5) -- -- -- 465
River Birch Betula nigra 465 (5) 370 (10) -- -- 589
American Elm Ulmus americana 465 (5) 370 (10) -- -- 507
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1395 (15) 555 (IS) 1840 (40) -- 3790
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biJlora 1395 (15) 555 (15) 1840 (40) -- 3790
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 1395 (IS) 555 (15) 920 (20) __ 2870
Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagoda 930 (10) 555 (15) -- 40 (] 0) l 525
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 465 (5) -- -- 20 (5) 485
Willow Oak Quercus phellos -- 740 (20) __ __ 740
American Beech Fagus grandifolia -- -- -- 60 (15 60
Southern Red Oak Quercus falcate -- -- -- 40 (10) 40
Southern Sugar Maple Acer floridanum -- -- -- 40 (] 0} 40
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica -- -- __ 40 (10) 40
Mockernut Hickory Carya alba -- -- -- 40 (] 0) 40
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra -- -- -- 40 (]0) 40
Pignut Hickory Carya glabra -- -- - 40 (] 0) 40
White Oak Quercus alba -- -- - 40 (]0) 40
TOTAL 9300 3700 4600 400 18,000

1

e

J
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site Appendix B-5 Hertford County

~.
I
'~ ?
I
}
t
j
1
'~
~I
'~
1~
~~
1!
I
I
,~
~~
~!
Categorical Exclusion Documentation
APPENDIX C
Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
Appendix C
Hertford County

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
~~ _ }}~rt
L *? LU~~
Appendix A ~c ~~tw~a~~~~
Gategarcal ~xGlus~on Form far Ecos~/st~ern Enhanceme~#
'r+~gram P'rcr~eets
rs~ .
ltate~ +~nty Ap~ndix ~ ehc~ui! k€~ be suritted (ai!c~g with any su~p€~rtin da~cu~nta~mr,~t
as the enrortt~ter~tat ~3c~+~axrnnt. -
,~ # t
Pro"ecfi Name: ' Gutawhis4cie Greek Restoration. Site
Coup Dame: Hertford
~~P Number: Contract # D06066-A
Pro"ecfi S onsor: Restoration 5 stems,. LLG
Pro'ecfi Confiact Name: Ja St. Glair
Pra`ect Confiacfi Address: '[ 101 Ha nes Street, Suite 107,. Raiei h NC 27607
pro"ecfi Confiacfi ~-mail: 'a restorations stems:com
EEP Pra'ecfi Mana er: Gu Pearce
• • _ !- •
The project is located along Cutawhisitie Creek in the Chowan River Basin in Hertford County;
approximately 11 miles south-southwest MurFreesbaro vrithin HU 03g1E1204xxxx; The 23-acre site
is currenfiy utiiized far timber and agricultural production. The project will restore approximately
2,OQ0 feet of streams and 12 acres of wetlands and preserve an additional 2,800 feet a# streams.
~ ~ - !
Reviewed By:
Date ~ EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
_~_ _ _
Gate - For Division Administrator
FHWA
^ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
~-
For Division Administrator:
FHWA
6
Version 1.4, $118/05

~ . , # • ~
-~ s t- s '- a
stat Zone Mana emen~Act CZMA ~'
1. fs the project located. ~n a GAMA county? ~ Yes:
~ No
2. Does the projectinr-ohre grpund-disturbing acti~itieswithin a CAMA Area of ~ Yes
Environmental Concern (AI:C)? ^ No
C^ NIA
3. Hasa CAMA permit been secured? ^ Yes
No
tV/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management ~ Yes
..Program? ^ No
^ N!A
Cam rehensive Environmental Res onse Com ensation arrd l_iabili Act C ERCLA
1. is this a "full-delivery" project? Q Yes
^ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subjectproperty and adjacent properties ever bean ^ Yes
designated as commercial ar industrial? Q No
^ N!A
3. As a result. of a limited Phase l Site Assessment, are there known or potential ^ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the praject area? ~ No
NIA
a. As a result of a Phase 1 Site Assessment, are there known or potential. hazardous C! Yes
waste sites within ar adjacent to the project area? ^ No
NIA
5. As `a result of a Phase ll Site Assessment, are there known or potential .hazardous :Yes
:waste sites within the praject area? ^`No
NIA
6. is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? ^ Yes
No
~ N!A
_
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed: an, or eligible far listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the ro"ectarea? ,r No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPOITHPU concur? Yes
Na
/D NIA
3. ff the effects are adverse, have They been resolved? Yes
No
o NtA
Uniform :Relocation Assistance and R al Pro a Ac uisitinn Rol ties Act Unl forrn Act
~. is this a "full-delivery" praject? _ / Yes
No
2. Does the project require: the acquisition of real. estate? ~ Yes
Q tVo
NIA
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? ^ Yes
.~,~ No
N!A
4. Has the auvner of the property been informed: 'Yes
prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority;. and C} No
''what the fair market value is believed to be? ^ NfA
7 Version 9.4, 8/18105

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• ~ M s
- ~ Ame~icar: Indian-Re i loos Fre orn Act:::. AiRFA ~ ~
1. Is the praject located in a county claimed as "territory° bythe Eastern Band of [~ Yes
Chenakee Indians? 0 No
2. Is the site. of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
Na
NIA
3. Is the project listed an, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
... ^ Yes
Places? [~] No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
D No
_- D NIA
Anti cities Act AA
1. Is: the project. located an Federal lands? , ^ Yes
~ No
2. Will there be loss ar destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antigraity? ^ No
~ NIA
3. Will apermit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ^ Yes
^ No
[V1A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
^ No
U wA
Archaeolo icaiResources Protect on Act ARPA ' ` -#
1. Isthe project located on federal. pr jndian lands (reservation)? [] Yes
t'do
2. Will there be a loss or des#ruction of archaeological resources? ~ ^ Yes
^ Na
/[] NIA
3. Will a permit from. the appropriate Federal agency be required? ^ Yes
^ No
/U~` N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? ^ Yes

-- _,_ /D NIA
Endan erect ~ eies Act f~S# -
`1.Are federat Threatened and Endangered. species and/or Designated Critical Habitat ~ Yes
listed for the coup ? © No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present far listed species? ^ Yes
~ No
(~ NIA
3. Are T8~E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Yes
Habitat? ^ No
NIA
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/ar "likely to adversely modify" ^ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? [] IVo
NIA
5. Doss the USFWSINOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? ^ Yes
^ No
~ NIA
6. Has the USFWSMbAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy' determination? -Q Yes

~ WA

Version 1.4, 8/1$105

Executive Qrder~~€30t77 [tttlian Satre Sites
t. Is the project located on Federal lands that are uvithin a county claimed as "t~rritpry° ~ Yes
b the EBCI?
` Cp No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred'sites may be impacted by the proposed° ^ Yes
:protect? ~ Na
NIA
3. Have accommodations been made foraccess #o and ceremonial use of Indian sacred [^ Yes
Sites?
No
WA
Farmland Proisetlon.Polic .Act: FPPA _ ~ -
1. Wilt real esta#e be acquired? __ QQ Yes
^ No
2. Has NRCS determined that fhe project contains prime, unique, state+,vide or locally f Yes
important farmland? ^ No

~ ^ NIA
3. Has the
completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? / Yes
^ No
^ NIA
[~ish and WitdlifeCoordination Act YWCA
1. Will the project impound; divert, channel: deepen, or otherwise controllmodify any Q/ Yes
vyater bod ~ No
2. Have the USi='WS-and the NCWRC been consulted? [/,Q Yes
D No
_ _ _ ^ N/A
_
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use otherthan public, [ j Yes
..outdoor recreation? / _No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
,~ N/R
Ma nusoi~-Stevens Fishe <.Conservation and Mana ementAct Essential Fish Ha bitat .
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
/~,] No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? ^ Yes
No
~`]/ NIA
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination. of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH? ^ Na
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
^ No
,~ wA
5: Has consultation with NOAH-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
~ NIA
_
Mi rato <~BiT~ i'rea Act MB~'A
1. Does the USFWS have. any recommendations with the project relative tothe META? ^ Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ^ Yes
No
D N/A
Wilden}ess Act
7. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Mas a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? ^ No
O.N/A
9 Version 1.4, 8/1.8/05 '

1

Envirata,mental Documentation
for
EEP Contract Number D05066-,
Categorical Exclusion Fornr~;items
CZ1yIA

t
ii
See the attached letters to-and from the Division of Coastal l~ianagement. DCIvI has determined
that a portion of the projectfalls within an Area of Environmental Concern by encroaching the
30 feet buffer of Public Trust Shoreline along Cutawhiskie Creek. As such, the project will
require a General Permit from DCM. This permit wi1T be applied for along with other necessary
permits. The project will require a NW27 permit and we have been informed verbally by Mr.
Stephen Rynas of DCivl that it is consistent with the NC Coastal Management,-Program by virtue
of DCM's review of the USACF/'s NW27 {see page 21 of the NW27 permit). The project is
also consistent with Hertford County's Land Use Plan with respect to mitigation projects.
CERCLA
' See the attached Executive Summary of the limited Phase 1 Site Assessment.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section l:Ofi)
See the attached Letters to and from the State Historic Preservation C?ffice.
Uniform'ACt
See the attached letter that was sent to the. landowner.
American Indian 1Zeligious Freedom Act
' Nat applicable, as the project ~s not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians..
.Antiquities Act
Not applicable, as -the project is not located on Federal lands.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Nat applicable, as the project is not located on Federal or Indian lands.
Endanuered Species. Act
See attached internal memo related to protected species. The only endangered species listed for
Hertford County is the Red-cockaded. Woodpecker. There is no suitable habitat on the site. and
the Biological Conclusionis Into Effect.
Executive Order 13QQ7
Not applicable, as the project is not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians.
___
t

Farmland Protection. Palicy Act
See. the attached USAA Form AD-l'006
Fish and. Wildlife Coordinatioxi A.ct
Seethe attached letters to the NCWRC and the USF'WS: Neither agency made a comment. on the
project.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
Not applicable: The project will not convert. recreation lands.
Nla~nusan-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Mana ement Act ~ .
Not applicable. The project: is:not located in an estuarine system. See previous response from
NC Division of Coastal Management.
lVligratoty Bird Treat,,~ct:
See the attached letters to the NCWRC and the USFWS. Neither agencymade a comxnenton the
project.
Qther Miscellaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in the Jacksonville Daily News.

1
t

1
fl

Environmental Docu~nentatvn
For
utawhiskie Creek Sfream and We#lan~
EEF Contract Number D06~6E
Categorical Exclusion Form Ytems
CZMA
See the attached letters to and from the Division of Coastal Management. DCM. has determined
that a portion ofthe project,falls within an Area of Environmental Concern by encroaching the.:.
30 feet buffer ofPublic Trust Shoreline along Cutawhiskie Creek. As such, the project will
require a General Permit from DCM. This permit will be applied for along with other necessary
permits. The project will require a NW27 permit and we have been informed verbally by Mr.
Stephen Rynas ofDCM that it is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program by virtue
of DCM's review of the LTSACE's NW27 {see page 23 of the NW27 permit}. The project is
also consistent with Hertford County's Land Use Plan with respect to mitigation projects.
CERCLA
See the attached Executive Summary of the limited Phase l Site. Assessment.
National Historic Preservation ACt (Section
' See the attached letters to and from the State Historic Prescrvatian Office.
Uniform A,ct
Seethe attached letterthat was sent to the landowner.
American Indian Relrgious Freedom Act
Not applicable, as the project is-not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band oI' Cherokee
Indians.
Antiquities Act
Not applicable, as; the project is not located on Federal lands..
Archaeological Resources Protection- Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal or Indian lands:
1

Endangered Species Act
See attached. internal .memo related to protected species. The only endangered species .listed for.
Heriford County is the Red-cockaded. Woodpecker. There is no suitable habitat on the site and
the Biological Conclusion is No Effect.
Executive prder :13047..
Not applicable, as the project' is not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians.
t

Farmland Protection Polic~ct
See the attached USDA Form,AD-1006
Fish and Wildlife Coordination: Act
See the attached letters to the NCWRC and tlae USFWS. Neither agency-made a comment an the
project.
Land and Water Conservation-'Fund Act
Not applicable. The project will-not convert recreation lands.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Not applicable. The project is not located in an estuarine system. See previous response from
NC.Division of Coastal Management.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
See the attached letters'to the NCWRC and the USFWS. Neither agency made a comment on the
project.
Other Miscellaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in the Jacksonville Daily News.

1

1
1

1

N~>tural Re.uw.tz~,s
lte,~ft}r<ttr~n ~ Ct1n.~v<ttic~n
oetober 4; 2406
North.Carolix~a Department of E~lvironent
-And Natural Resources
Dir~isiol~ ofCoastal Management
Washington Regional. Office
943 Washington. Square Mall
Washi~tgtan, North Carolina 27889
ATTN: T erry ll~oore, District lY7anager
SUBJECT: CAMS: Jurisdietiantal Determination. forthe Cutawhiskie Creek Stream. and
Wetland Restoration .Site i l-l! ez•tford Co~ktrty
On C}ecember 19, 2QOS, the North Carolia~a Ecosystem Enhancement Pragraxn (EEP}
issued a Request for. Proposals for stream and wetland rraitigatiaxt in the Chowan River:
:Basin, Catalc~ling Unit 133014204. Subsequently Restoration Systems, I:LC (RS}, of
Raleigh,: NC was awarded a contract bythe EEP to previ.de 3,375 Stream Mitigation
Cents (SMUs} and 12.3 Riverinc Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs} at :the Ctta~~=laiskie
Crcclc Stream and Wetla~ad Restoration Site. EcoScence Corporation is under contract
to RS fo provide technical. environmental consulting and design sennces.
I One o f the earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
screezung and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE} document, This
document is specifically required by the Federal HighwayAdministration ~FHWA} to
ensure compliance with various federal. environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must dernanstrate that its. projects-comply with federal mandates as a precondition. to
FHWA reimbtx~•sement of compensatory mitigation casts borne by the North` Carolina-
' Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order far the.project to proceed under t1~e EEP guidanee,`RS is obligated.-to coordina#e
with your office to defern~ine if our propflsal will impact any Areas of Environmental
Concern (A.ECs}: This' letter provides yotz with certain details of the Cutav~rhiskie Creek
r Stream. and 'W'etland' Restoration Site, including the project's location, a general
.description of its physiography, hydrpgraphy and existing land rises, as well as'tYie
intended ~nodifcations to the siteprop~sed by RS. Vie request yourreview of the details
provided and a field determination of whether CA1vIA: jurisdiction will be t<~,lcen an any
portion of floe proposed site.
-_
Plt>t P~1ill • l l (} l l-lrtynes St., .Suite l t)7 -Raleigh, ~~' 27(~t)4 • www,restezt~~ttic>nsystr>>~s.ct~m • I'ho-~e 9I9.7~5.~~90 - l~ax 919.755.9492

Page 2
October 4, 2005
Nlr. Terry'Moore, NCDCM
Project Location & Desexiption
The mitigation site is located approximately. 9 miles southwest of Murfieesboro, in
southwestern Hertford County (Figures 1 and 2). The site. it#cludes approximately 23
acres a€ land that is n~araged for agriGUlture and. timber production and is situated on the
floodplain and low terraces of Cutawhiskie Creek. The propez-ty targeted #'or restoration
activities includes approximately 1,970 linear feet of an uztnamed tributary to
Czitativhiskie Creek and 2,786 linear feet of the Cutawhiskie -Creek .main channel.
Portiaxzs of the site ha~re recently been logged (Photos l and 2). Site vegetation is .typical..
of bottomland hardwood forests and, in portions of the site, row crops asad suceession~.l
areas predominate. .
The unnamed tributary has a drainage area of approximately 0.9 sclzzare mile at the point
it flows south into the site.. It has been dredged and rechanneiized over the years so that it
no longer retains stable dimension, pattern. and profile. A large spoil pile lines the west-
bank of the clxannel (Photo 3). A moderate headcut is appaz-ent. near -the upstream end: of
the site boundary, suggesting vertical :instability. Due to its. high degree of entrenchment
resulting from historical dredging and channel incision, bankfull flowrs are confined
within the channel in its existing morphological configuration. High energy flows, wlzi:cl~i
are normally dissipated through a floodplain, presently exert high shear stress on the
walls of the channel, exacerbating erosion..
The. main-drainage feature, Clztawhiskie Creek, is a third-order stream with. a watershed
area of approximately 18.2 .square miles, .measured at the point where it enters the
mitigation site. Property otivner reports it was dredged. along: its entire length iri the mid-
19b0's in accordance with historical .agricultural/silvicultural rrzarzagemenl practices>
Restoration Means & Methods
Rork proposed. includes construction of a stable, E-type stream channel, restoration of
riverine wetlands, enhancement of water quality functions: such as reduction ofnon-point
source sedimentation and nutrient. inputs, establishment of a forested buffer along both
stream reaches, anal restoration of wildlife habitat.. All of these goals will be achieved
.through the implementation of new stream channel design, which will reconfigure pattern
profile and dimension of the unnamed tributary to Cutawhiskie Creek. The results of this
work. will be a stable stream channel, which will shed storm flows to the adjacent
#loodplain where wetlands were historically located...
The adjacent floodplains will again be hydrated from overbank floodixzg events, :restoring
the missing hydrology to these important areas. Surface contours of the adjacent
floodplains will be "roughened" to facilitate temporaryponding of surface water in the
wetland restoration areas. No work is proposed: that would impact the main channel of
Cutawhiskie Creek.

t

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page
Qc#aber 4,-2006 --
Nir. "ferry Moore, NCDCM
Sho~.tid you bave any questions or if any additional information is needed to co~~np~ete
yo~.~x review, please feel free to contact the Project manager, Say St. Clair at (919) 75.5-
94~90, or {919) 21;9-027.1 (cell).
I'aur valuable-time and cooperatio~~ are much aplarecated.
SirZCerely,
i:.:>
1N1. Randal Turner,. Senior Scientist..
:Attachments
ce: tt!Ir Dave SclzillEr, Resto~•atioi~ Systems, ~,,~.,C

r ..,~
.. . ,•
;=
M...
,~_ ~~
,Cam 1, ~ t
#=ram VNood#and, trave# east on US' Route 2;38, 2:5 mi#~s. ~ ~~+.%%~~ ~` ~ ~ ' ~ ' '.'~ i -
,- -~.~_
Turn right on Jirn Haro'y Road, cant#n~re 2 mi#+es. ~:~> ~~ , '~ ~ ~ ,
~`'` Sits is can Right w. ~~` ~ ~:a ~,,,~`~ ,
~~ ^i ~ r~ T r" ~ b s ~
- 'r . • ~ ~._Y jay ,. -.-~' ; `~..
$ iZ ~1 ~ ~
. ...,> >~ s• ~ 1 f r'.. ~ Alti:~ '~ :' ~ +'• "+n -hat ,..~
~fff ~ ~ 1 > ~~ t
.' . t .~-431 y `.. ~~~
Y ~3
~zyx~ •~' \\ ~ r
•
_,_ ~ ~ ~ _ ,
~y _r-. ~j / >,~• .~ ~A~3,~•'' t' .~} ~ -~ ~ .. '\ '} Vii. ~ .
~, {
..
I ~ 3 i . (~o ,,, - .
~~' . '7t i Y ~ ~~~`
~~ , }
,{._...,
1K{.(1tM ~ ~ ~ :Z
"#
f
1 M1: Q ~ rXSI. .-T- 4 NSF ~ ' l y `~ L~
~, ~, , r ~
,.
Sosace: 1997 North CarofinaAUas and GazeBeer, p.23-29. .. r ~v ~
... _, •
/ y! ; ~ °h ~ ~ ,vim
£Yahl: Prpiet:4: `~..r...
~ MG4F FIGURE
Sl7E L.f7~CA71C}N ~~~,.
CUTAWN#SK1E CR{EK 3
• STREAM AN#? WETLAND REST4RATIQN SITE °'~ '~ ,
~t zoos
#-#ertFord .County, North. Carolina ~'°~a: pos-oso

~ - --
~.
North ~aca4ir~a Dep~rtmen~ of Enviranmettt aril Natlarai Resarces
pivisic~ t~~ Coastal ~f~riaement
Michael F. E~slr~y; Governor Charles S, Jones, pireclt3r °~~1(iam G. Ross, Jr., Seceetary
26 Octal~er 2006`
Restoration Systems, LLC
l~lr. ~, Randall Turner
~ 1.01.. ~ay~es St.
j s~it~ ~ o~, Fx~~t Mill
~talcigh, North Caraliria z~~aa~
Dear lvir, Turner.
This letter ~s in referezace to your request for a jurisdittxanai cle~e~mnation foz the purpose
of conducting stream and wetland restoration of ~ unnamed ~tributaiy to Cutawl~iskie Creek:
Iocat;ed off SR 1 S~ ne~xr A1~oslcie in i~ertfprd .County, Z have reviewed in-house jttt~~diotc~nal
deteruaination references -anti been an-site with Terry Ntooi-e to determine if perrruts fore t12
t praposed development are required per-tole Coastal A3•ea Management Act or the Stag's Dredge
azzd Fill Law.
1

1

1

from our review ©f the area we -have determined that Cuttflwl~iskie Creek does fall within
the jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal yl~zaagem~nt'{DC) at that location. Additionally the
lateral dxtch/stream that flows into Cutflwhs~ie'Creek >tt the project location is also Found to bar
within the juris>~.iction'of the. DCM ~'or a; distarcc a~ approximately 75 feet as measured in an.
upstreail direction from its confluence ~.v>;th Cutawhrskze Creek. The specifxt: Areas of
Environmental Concern ~~G) that vuoutd be afeoted h~ the proposed prcjecr are Putalic Trust
Aria and Public Trust Shoreline. Aany activities defined, as development oaouraring in or wii:hin
30' of Cutar><rhiskie +C~reel~ and the downstream end of the .lateral ditch/stream will :require.
permit from the Division of Coastal 1Vlanagement.l'er our previous conversation tlxe DC1Vl hl~s ~:
~seneral .Permit fcn such. prc3jeet~ pra~ided all permit conditions cuxx be .complied with isee
attached).
Thsuak you for your time and canceni vn these m~.ttars, If you have a.>x~ aiuestions
re~ardimg permit requirements for this nrc~ject ar future projects, Please do not }~esitate tt~ contact
me at-(2S2) X48-3853,
Siratrerely,~
R Ttelly Spiuey _•liJ
Gaastal i~ana~exnerzt nepresetatative
Attachment
cc: Tezary E. Moore- Dsct manager, Washington C7fhae= DCM
Raleigh :Bland -T.T.S. Army Cons df Engineers, Wlashingto~t office

943 W~sh{nglon Square Mai, Wacl~Ingtat, North Carob 2788$.
Fhons; 252.948.6Aa1 1 PAX; 252.949-04?8 1 Intsrna3; www.r.tel<na~ta8ell,n~J
rin >wquet Opportunity 1 Att4rmailve Ac~a*~ E1'~1oYar - 5fl°Jo Recycled l #RBi6 P~a# ConeUMer PeAar

environment.
For the most recent General Certification conditions, call :the. NC Division.: of Water Quality,
Wetlands/401 Certification. Unit at (919) 733- 1786 or access the following website:
http:!/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetland sicerts.html
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL. MANAGEMENT
STATE CONSISTENCY
Consistent.
Citations:
2002 Nationwide Permits -Federal Register Notice 1S Jan 2002
2002 Nationwide Permits Corrections -Federal Register Notice l3 Feli 2002
2002 Regional Conditions -Authorized 17 May 2002
21

EDR,~ En~ironrnental
Data Resources Inc
'I"'he ~D~ Rat~ius Va
with GeaCheck°
Cutawhiskie Creek Restpration Site
~er~ord County
Woodland, NC 27897
Inquiry i~lumber. 0171~8$82.22r
July 20, 200b
Thy Standard in
~nviranmental ~:isk
Manar~ement information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut D64~1
Nationwide :Customer Service
Telephone: 1-8D0-352-0050
Fax: ~ -800-23 ~ -6802
Internet: www.edrnet.com
~~

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5ECT1t3N
PAGE
F-xecutiveSumrnary:...__.._---_~------------------.:____.._.:_..-------------.-- ES1
Detail Map-------------------_,:--------------________-------____________ 3
Map Findings Stlminary-------------------------- --------___. 4
Map Findings----------------------------------------------.------------- ~
C~rphanSutntnary______________________..________~..______-----------____-- 7
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking_ .... _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-1
GE~CHEGIt ADDENDUM.
Physical Setting Source Addendum________________~_____________-____-___..__ Al
PhysicalSettittgSotirce5ummary_________________________________---_______ A-2
Physical Setting Source Map---_..----------------------.._~_----_~_~----____. A-7
PhysicatSettingSourceMapFindings___<_____________-------=--=----=---_..__ A-$
Physical Setting Source Records Searched-______-_~____..~______------_--_-_-- A-9
Thank you. for your business.
Please contact EDR of 1-800-352-U0~0
with any questionsorcomments.
Disclaimer- Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report corrxains certain irromzation obtained from a variety of pubiic and othersources reasonably available to Env~onmenfal Data
Resouroes, Inc. it cannot be rxsnduded from this Reps that covesgB information for the torg~t and surnaunding pr s does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED GR IMPLIED, IS' b1ADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECifON WITH: THIS REPOR7.~-_~NY~e1RONIYIENTAL
Di4TA RESOtSRGES, N+IC. SPEC)FkCAIt.YbISCLkIMS'THE tAAK1NG OF AHIY SUCH WARRANTIES. INCWDING WRHai1T L11diTAT30N,
MERCHANTABILITY ~2 FfrNESS FOR A'PARTICULAR tiSE ~R PURPOSE. ALL RISK:lS ASSUMED'BY THE USER: 3N NO EVENT SHALL.
$NVlROHRlENTALDATA RESOURCES, LNG. BELIABLE'rD ANYONE, WHETHER ARISti~#t'a oUT OF' ERt20R3;oR OI~SSIONS NEGLIGENCE.
ACCIDENT ~ ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE,.INCLUDING, YfitfHOtlT LIMITATION, 3AEGU~t., ING1[3ENTAt,.,
CON£EQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY 4N THE PART OF EN1rIRONNIENTAL DATA FfESOURCES, INC=1S STRICTLY
LItIiITED 70 A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser afxeppts this Report "AS lS'. Any analyses, estimates,. ratp~s,
ernrironmental risk levels or Fisk codes provided in this Report areprovided for ~lustrative purposes only, and are not rntended to provide, trot
shoutd they be in#erpreted as provkling any facts regartGng, or prediction or forecast of, any ernrirortmeMal risk for arty property_ Only a Phase b
Environmental Si#e Assessment performed byan environmental professional can provide information regarding: the environments! risk #or any
property. Additionally,. the information provided iii this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmeniai 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., ar its affiliates, is prohibited. without prior rvrii#en permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and SarSbom Map) are trademarks of Environmental I?ata Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the of their res ctive owners.
TCOi718882.22r Page 1

1~
r

1
C
LJ

EXEGt1TiUE SUMMARY
A search of: available: environmental records was conducted by Environmental Bata-.Resources. Inc (EI7R}
The report was designed to assist perties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for'-All Appropriate Inquiries {40 CFR Pact 312}, the ASTM Standard Practice far
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-D5} or custom requirements developed far the evaluation of
.environmental risk associated with a_parcel of real esta#e
. TARGET PRbPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
rlE~Tl=oho CouNr~
WO©DLAND, NC 27$97
COgRD1NATES
-
Latitude {North}: 3Fi.3273tN1 36' 19' 38.3"
Longitude (West}: 77.161fl00 - 77' 9' 39.6"
Universal Tranverse Mercator:- Zone 18
t1TM X (Meters); 306(323.7
UTM Y {Meters): 41322218:0
EEevation: 45 ft. above sea level
USES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property.Map: 360Ti-C2 WOC}DLANC}; NG'
Most Recent. Revision: 1997
TARGET` PROPERTY SEARCH FtE$uLTS
The target property was not. listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NQ MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in Et7R's search of available {"reasonably ascertainable "}'governinerit
records either on the target property or within ths-search radius around the'target. property #or the
following databases:
FEDERALREGORDS
NPL,._.._-.---
_-- National Priority List
--------
Proposed NPL~ _ _-- Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted- NPI~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .National Priority Llst [7eletiarss
NPL REC(}VERY______------- Federal 8uperfund Dens
CERCLIS____>---__-- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
----.
system
-_---
CE12C-NFR~1P------- CERCLtS No Furfher Remedial Action Planned
C~i2RACTS_________________. Corrective Action Report
CRA-TS[3F_ _ _ Resource Conservation and .Recovery Act lnformatian
RCRA-I.QG..__-------------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act lnfarmatian
1
--
TCfl3T1$882.22r EXECUTIVE $UMhAARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RCRA-SQG------------------ Resource Cor3senation and Recovery Aci Informatior
ERNS------------------------ Emergency Response Notification System
HMiRS----------------------- Hazardous Materialsinfonnation Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS. _ _ _ _ _ .. Engineering Controls Sites List
1151NST CONTROL _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . Sites with lnstitutianal Controls
DQL}________~-..-------------- DeparimentofDefenseSites
FUDS________________________ Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS_ ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ A Listing of Brovvnfields Sites
CDNSENT_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_____-_----------------- Records Of Decision °
UMTRA_____________________ Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODl------------------------- Open Dump Inventory
TRiS ________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA_______________________ Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS_________________________ FIFRA! TSCA Tracking System - F1FRA (Federal fnsec#icide, Fungicide; &
Rodenticide Act}tTSCA (Toxic Substances Gontral Act)
SSTS------------------------. Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS__________________________ Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS-_---------------------- PCB Activity.Database System
MLTS________________________ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES_______________________ Mines Master Index File
FINDS------------------------ Facilitylndex System/FacilityRegistrySystem
RAATS_ _ _ __ __ __ _ ______ ___ _ _ _ RCRA Administrative Action. Tracking Sys#em
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS________________________ Inactive Hazarclous Sites Inventory
NC NSDS____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMR_________.__-_~-----__-- incident Management Database
SWFJLF --------------------- List of Solid Waste Facilities
t3LL-------------------------. OId Landfill inventory
LUST________________________. Regional UST Database
Lt1STTRUST________________ State Trust Fund Database
USi'__________________________ Petroleum Undergrc3und Storage Tank Database
AST_-------------------------- AST Database
INST CONTRUL_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . No Further Action Sites With Land Ilse Restrictions Morii#oring
VCP_____--_----~_~_----___--• Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycleaning Sites
BRUWNFIELDS-------------, Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES______________________. NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRtBAI RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV_____________.Indian Reservations
INDIAN L11$T:___~____-.----- Leaking Underground Storage Tanks orrlndian Land
INDIAN US7'______------.___-. Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants.,_ EDR Proprietary,Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto 5tatiansEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Historical'Cleaners.-__. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
SURROIINDINGSI7ES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were na# identified.
Unmappable {orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TCOi71$882.22r EJCEGUT1vE SUMMARY 2

i
i
i
r
I
EXECUTIVE SUII~lMARY
Due to pooror inadequate address infarmation~ the following sites were not mapped:
Site !Name ' Database{s}
MINUTE MAN FDOL7S LUST,.UST, LUST TRUST,
1MD
SQINENS GROCERY t13ST
PARKER MANUFACTURING LUST, IMD
PEEDE STORE (MILDREq) LUST
SOOI+IE'S MARKET AMt1C0 LUST TRUST
RED: APPLE MARKET #1 Q LUST TRUST.
BLADES ;GROCERY !1ST
VERAlt?N til~NSt}N GRQCERY 1JST
E.T. N4LLQWELL FARMS. INC. UST'
MINUTE MAN UST'
LEE MOTQR CO. ' UST
WOUDLANC7-0LNEY ELEMENTARY SCH USl"
BOONES MRRKEi" i1ST
PARKER MF'G: CU.. INC. UST
FRI€NDLY`MARKEI'S UST`
NEl-VSOME OIL CO INC (WUt7DLAND F'LT} AST
PARKER Mi=C Cb RCRA-SQG, FINDS
PEEDE STC3RE (MILDRED) IMD
TG41 71 8882 22r' EXEGUTfVESUMMARY 3

1
OVERVIEW MAP - 01718882.22r
x 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

i;
o va +n 1 Miks
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
/v County Boundary Disposal Sites `
Oil & Gas pipelines ~~
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Cutawhislde Creek Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Hertford County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Woodland NC 27897 INQUIRY it: 01718882.22r
LAT/LONG: 36.3273 / 77.1610 DATE: July 20, 2006
Ccpyrght =' 2000 EC~R, Inc >. 20Cb Tela Atlas Rel. D712005.

DETAIL MAP - 41718882.22r
Target Property
r Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
L Manufactured Gas Plants
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
D 1116 7!B 1
- - -~ta-~n~s
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
National Wetland Inventory '`~'
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display andlor hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.

SITE NAME: Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: Hertford County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Woodland NC 27897 INQUIRY #: 01718882.22r
LAT/LONG: 36.3273177.1610 DATE: July 20, 2006
~oFlf~9ht ~:- 2006 ECR. I~,c. ~ 2GC6 Tek wlas Ral 0?12005.

1
1
1
i
1
t
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
FEDERAL RECORDS
search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 118 1f$ -114 114 -1I2 1t2 -1 ~ 1 Plotted
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 D 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1 A00 0 0 d 0 NR 0
NPL RECOVERY TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
GERCLIS 4.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
GERG-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRA TSD 4.500 0 D d NR NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 4.250 0 D NR NR NR d
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen. 4.250 0 D NR NR NR d
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR d
HM1RS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.504 o d 0 NR NR 0
US INST CONTROL 0.500 D d d NR NR 0
DOD 1 ADD 0 d d 0 NR D
FUDS 1.D40 d d d 0 NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.540 d d 0 NR NR D
CONSENT 1.000 d d 0 0 NR d
ROD 1.000 0 0 d 0 NR D
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 tVR NR 0
ODt 0.500 0 0 d NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR d
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR d
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR d
ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR d
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.254 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.DDD D d 0 D NR 0
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
IMD 0.50D 0 0 0 NR NR d
State LandfiA 4.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
QLI 0.504 0 0 d NR NR d
LUST 0.500 0 0 D NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 4.500 0 0 4 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 4
AST 4.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 4.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VGP 4.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYGLEANERS 4.250 0 0 NR NR NR d
SROWNFIELDS 0.5dd 0 0 D NR NR 4
NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TCfli718882.22r Page 4

MAP 1=INDtNGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Da#abase Property (Miles) < 1!8 1l$ -114 114 - 1/2 112 - 1 > 1 Plotted
TRIBAL RECORQS
INDIAN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN t.UST D.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
EDR FRt)PRtETARY RECt7t2QS
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
EDR Historical Auto Stations TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
EDR Historical Cleaners TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
NOTES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TCt}1T18882.22r Page 5

1
N~~tL~i~~l iZesot~~~es
l~t~{tQr:;tlo]a cS'L C~t?nSGI'VElllt)r1

1
t

ALI~;USt ~ , 20Q6
Ms. Renee tzledhiff-l;arfe.y,
Environme~ltal Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC' 29699-461.7
Subject: Request for I.,etter of Concurrence on Cutawhislde Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project
Dear pls. (.iledltill-}arley:
Restoration Systerrzs {:>~Sj has laeen awarded a contract by the NC l;casystem Enhaneei~nent Program
{ilEPj to restore; a stream and wc;tland restoration site providing 12.3 acres of riverine wetland and
3,375 feet of stream in the Chowan River Basin. The project is located in Hertford County,
approximately 9 miles southwest of the Town af'Murfreesboro adjacent to Jim Hardy Road. ~ map
t shawii~g the location of the site is attached.
"t"he site consists of 23 acres of land that is currently managed for agriculture and timber productio~-~.
Within the Site, approximately 1,970 Iinear feet of an unnamed tributary to Cuta~vhiskie Creels and
apprax~mately 12.3 acres of hydr~c soils exhibit nnitigation potential. Additionally, apprax~mately
2,7H6 linear feet of Cutawhiskie Creels is available for stream preservation. The pz•iary goals of this
5U-eax~ and wetland restoration. project focus on improving water duality, enhancing flood
attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat>
'1'hert: are no structures on or adjacent to tha site. RS staff examined the records in yoLtr office and
determined that there are no listed historic properties or archc;olagical records on or within 0.5 miles
of the site. A letter of concurrence Pram your office is required as part of the Environmental
Screening of the project. I would appreciate receiving such a fetter for tf~is project at your earliest
convenience.
incerely,
.lay St. Clair
Project Manager
Attach meets
7. i - ~ ~ 5 t 490 ~ 1"ax 919.7559492
1 ~1nt A/f;i! . 1 i fl E t-Tavnr~c Ct C,,;t~ t(i'7 .17s}1Qiah i~f??(,(kl www rrctna~ahnncvCtem~-rr~€n PhOtle 91).7.5.

~a~a
~~~ .
'~'~~„~"
~3;chael It. I:aslcy, Governor
I.asberh t;. I_r-ans, Sc~crctary
Jeffrey J. C:r{xv, Deputy Serrerary
September 15, 2005
Jay St. Clair
Rest<)ratian Systems, I.I C
I'ilat l~iill
1101 1-Iaynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, I~1C 27604
~g~~~d~ r
SEP "i 9 200&
£)fT;ce of Archives and Iiietrny
Division of Tiistarical Resourc~ut
I.)a~id Brcx>k,I~irector
Re: EEP, Cutawhiskie Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, Hertford Counter, ER 05-2102

I

Dear iv1r. St. Clair:
Thank ou for our letter of A st 1, 2006, cancemin the above ro'ect.
Y Y ~ g P )
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of nv historic resources that would be
affected by the project. `Illerefore, we have no comment an the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pwrsuant to Section 105 of the National Histaric Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council an Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 146 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you far your cooperation and consideration. if you have questions concerning the above comtnez3t,
contact Renee CCledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck ~' M'~~

1
J
North Carolina I}epartment of Guttural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
23cter B- SaRill7~C1[, Ads»inistratar
Al)A22NIS';fRATIaN 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh 1,1C 4677 Mail Sen=ice Gcntet, Raleigh NC 27699-4627 {929)733-47fi,3/T33-$65.'i
ItESTORA'TION 525 ~2. Blount Street, Raicigh Nf. 4627 Mail Stn=ice Center, Itale"sgh ?~C 27699-4577 {929)733-6547/715-413Q1
SURVEY & PLANNING 525 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, 2V{; 4617 Mail Se.~vice Cenrcr, 2iales52t'3C 27499-4627 {929)733-G545J713-4802

1

1

r

1
I

1
1
1
Ntt~ttriti Rt:~SOUr-ce.~,
l;estc~ra~ion ~: Conse;x•vati~»a
April 3, 200
Jahn S. Vaughan, Jr,
Charles J. Vaughan
.Toseph B. Vaughan
Hannah Vaughan
Cola Franklin Vaugla.ata
I~avzd F. Vaughan
I?. 4. Box S
Woodland, NC 27897
To Whom It May Cokac;ern:
`l'he purpose of this letter is to notify you that IZc~Storation Systems, l,l.,C, in otferint; to
purchase a cotaservation easement on yQU~• property in Hertford County, North Carcalina,
does not have the power to acquire it by eminent domain. Also, Restoration Systems'
offer to purchase your property is laased on what we Eae~ieve to be its fair market.
If you have axay questions, please feel free to call ix~e oz~ my mobile phone at 919-219-
0271 ar at work at 919-755-9490.
S incerely,
~• ~'
Jay St. Clair
Pro~~~t ~~n~ge~
Uilnt \Rili a 3 3 (li 1-Iotinar ~:F C'~~it,o t ll"1 a 1?olni~l, i~rr'7'7~ru a iirisraa~ rF+rtn~•citlnnctleianZC f•nm a ~jl(ltl(: ~~ ~.~~i~_~}~~~ a }'+f1X ~)~~.~rl~.~}~92

1

Au ust 8 2446
g
MEMO TO: Dave Schiller
PROM: Jay St. Clair ~~-
SUBJECT: Cutawhiskie Creek Biological Conclusion

Project I.oeatlon & Description
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), of Raleigh, I~IC was awarded a contract by the North Catalina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program to provide 3,375 stream mitigation units and 1.2.3 riverine wetland mitigation units
at the Cutawhiskie Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site. The Cutawhiskie Creek Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site is located approximately 9 miles southwest of Murfreesboro, in southwestern
Hertford County (Figure 1). The Site is located at 3b.327332 North and -77.161424 West artd
encompasses approximately 23 acres of ]and that is managed for agriculture and timber production.
Portions of the site have recently been logged Within the Site, approximately 1,974 linear feet of a
highly disturbed, dysfunctional unnamed tributary to Cutawhiskie Creek will be restored, and
approximately 12.3 acres of hydric cropland will be restored to riverine wetlands. Additionally,
approximately 2,7861inear feet of Cutawhiskie Creek will be preserved via a conservation easement
(Figure 6}.
Site vegetation is generally characterized by a mixture of relatively undisturbed bottomland hardwood
forests along the Cutawhiskie Creek floodplain and tow terraces, row crops including soybeans and corn,
and successional communities associated with cutover timberland. Topography within the site ecoregion
is characterized by !ow relief and broad interstream divides. Due to the history of extensive dredging of
the unnamed tributary and Cutawhiskie Creek, the loco! water table has been lowered in elevation,
effectively removing jurisdictional wetland hydrology from adjacent hydric soil areas. L
Restoration Means & Methods
Primary activities designed to restore the stream and wetland complex include lj stream restoration, 2)
stream preservation, 3) riverine wetland restoration, and 4) vegetative planting. Stream restoration is
expected to entail 1} belt-width preparation, 2) channel excavation, 3} spoil stockpiling, 4} channel
stabilization, 5) channel diversion, and b) existing channel backfill.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and wetland vegetation may involve 1 }existing channel cleaning prior
to backfili, 2} channel plug installation, 3) channel backfrll, and 4) scarification of soils prior to
planting. In addition, the construction of surface water storage depressions (ephemeral gaols) also adds
an important component to groundwater restoration activities.
Revegetating the floadplain and stream banks will provide stream bank stability, shade, cooler
surface waters, habitat far local wildlife, as well as filter pollutants from adjacent runoff. The
vegetated stream buffer will extend approximately SO feet on both sides of Cutawhiskie Creek.
Scarification of floodplain surfaces may be required prior to planting. Plant community
restoration within the Site will include the planting of bare-root seedlings consistent with
reference data, on-site observations, and descriptions of the community.
1

Dave Schiller
Page 2
81$/2006
Federally Listed Species
There is one federally listed species with at least historical records afoccurring in Hertford County as
identil•ied through the US Fish & Wildlife Service web site {htt :/tnc-es.ftivs. ov/es/coun fr.html .

Table 1. Federally Listed Soecies for Hertford County
SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS
Pic~ides I~orealis l2ed-cockaded
Endangered
wood esker
Nate: "Endangered" is a taxan in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range;
"Threatened" is a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable fixture throughout all or a
portion of its range; "Threatened tS1A)» is a taxon which is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with other rare species, This species does not require Section 7 consultation.
Red-c©ckaded woodpecker Pacnirles barerrdis Endangered Current
I The red-cockaded woodpecker requires mature, open pine stands for roosting/nesting habitat. For
foraging habitat, it requires pine and mixed pine/hardwood stands 30 years or older with a preference for
pine trees IO inches or great in diameter. Site vegetation consists primarily of recently harvested
timberland, cultivated raw craps, and battamland hardwood forests with dense under story growth. Thus,
there is na suitable roosting/nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker on-Site.
Biological Conclusion: No Affect

1
C

1

_~ t_,_,,,,~ - y .m... ~ ~~,..~F tea, .. ~ _ ~ 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~}` ~i a
. ._ ,.n
slT~ oIRECTroNS: K ~~' _ '~' _ >•~ r-„'~+~~'° K _.1 ~~' r`
~..-. ._
.~ ~ ~:
From Woodland, travel east on US Route 258, 2.5 miles. _f - ' ~`~" ~ .:
Tum right on ,lim Hardy Road, continue 2 miles. ~; '; - _. ~~ $° , . 3r- ''
Site is on Right ~ - - ~ '4°y ~ ~`
`., r ` yJ
\\ :~
..
3} ii 3 ¢
.. ... f 'y~ y~
1 __ _~ f ~, `'` l~sG+~ 7;r ~ \\~' P ~ 158 `~i
gip- J~ ~,,._ LM.rY.,-.~_. „`--J ~ i ~ ~i `t~ }~y.~,~- }{ b ! ' 1~
S ~, /r I:~. ~: 1~.. ~.,.,~, L > • ~ ~ it •f - :tiw'aP r`i i ~ .y~ t77 ~ -~W4 `)'. `_~
~ t ~lr~~!
i ~ ~ . t-- w+a' 4
YYYt ~
.L~ ~'`:.~.,rl 1 :._.~ ~` I+ ..~ 1 F jam.. ;t , i ~ 'w X~+e-„ .o'~~ «! y~~~~`~ •/., a Ll ; •~+r yb
~ ~.. .,
< /
_ ti~ .. ar~„.,~;,,. ` .'~ ~°f~..~--?'.'l }-~'~-~; ~ .r'~ cam. ~~ ,N ,.~ r ° ~i t}.
,4
~t^-..,_ f ~ 1 ~~' _ ~ ~ /~~ ` lr...~4 ~ ~!"_ ~..~`.. ~D . s ~ ~ y ~ ~~,. X61
_ .,,
..
r; y ~ ~ ~ 3~: ~ . ~, ,3j ~ ~._ r._ C' ~ 483 ~ ., 1 lA,its_ -
. ,i ~ 5 i
~{ ~ ~ .... ro.e. j' '` .. r
r i .. LAM l r:,.»., ~__ r ..
., ~ h $;..~L ~:s IZ,
1 T
~~
., _ ..
LOCATION ` ' r ~~ `~
,j ; sue.. \ ~ ~~; ... ~`
~ ,~
. 1..; ~ 1 ~ ~ !i ~~ f .""~„~~ _ „pos. ~ _ C , t 't j~ j `~ '
~, ,% ~S' .] ' qM,w~ ' yam` :%a!~/ ~ ~ ~`"~~ ~.^~ ~` 14 ,. ,~+ ~ Y;~ f'i rY~~ `Fa
1,.., ~_._ 1 _ L ~ ~ f `. ~ F ~..
~ .,
s'
a
_ .: i +~ -
~. t -__a. ~ ~ ~`- !s r 1` s `~..--` l . ~- ~~ ms's°<
f
"., i x t
"~$j•, - a
# mi. 0 # mi. 4. mi. ~ ~ ~ - ,
•
._ ___ .___ _ ~ r ~ : ' .
#:#44,000 ~____ ~ ,~ -' =oG'._ ~ ,.,ti
.:- ...~ ~
Source: 189'7 Nonh CefOlirea Atlas and Gazetteer, p.29-24. ~ ` -- -> -'`:' ~°3 i ~ i
t - -.r. it Avg .~~ ~ _ .~:,.. F .
Chant Prgect: ~'. by. MAF FIGURE
SITE LQCATI~N c~a bY:
CUTAWHlSKlE CREEK ~Qc
r STREAM AND WETLAND RESTQRATION SITE °~`~~ '~
APR 2006
Hertford County, North Carolina ~'%a~: Pos-oso

__.~...._.._._....,~_^.,...,..... ~ U.S. I3epartrt~ent of A ric .
//~~ p~pp 1~ ff g uAl~tupre p- ~ n p~
PART € { i'o t3e compleiert 6y Federal ,~c~ency} gate Gf Land Evaluation Request 8/31dfi ~~~~"
NamL O[?rcject Cutavvhis#tie Creek Stream and Wetland f~estoratic Federal Agency involved
~~E'ro~osed Land tsse FH;1VA
stream and waffand restoration Co€,nty And State fiertford County, North Carolina ~"
PART II (To b s catnplefed by 1`Jl?CS} Date Request f2eceived~C~y=RJR,- &
Does tl~e site contain prima,~unique sfatevrrde ct local important farrrrland7 ~____ _.__.1'es __ N. 9 , ~~~ irrigated Average Fenn Size -~"'
__._'Tf no, the FPP,4 dons not apply-- da notcorriplate add{tioilAl ,parts of fhts:fot`rn). j~ j~ ~~ ~~~ ~-~
~) ~- g n A S ~~rmll~le Land to Govt Juristliotion. Aroaur~i=Q~ Fariplarrd 115.(3efis~d tp FPPA~''~`
-___ __ --\- _.__..` __ acres i d ~ i 73 °Irz ~ ~ ~:o~~ 1 ~ ~J 7 ~ f % 7' g
Name f3€ Land Evaluation System Usetf N~rne Of koca~e,~ssessrri~rit Syst`erti'-- t~ateL~i~ E+letudfiort Retura?etl t3y t~1FtG~ -- ~
PART III {To be completed by i"ederal Agency) .. . _ _ Alternative Site f2ating_,~_ _ _
A_ ~7btai Acres To Be Converted i?irectly ----~-----~_ .~'_-_..~._.________ StQ A ~ SitA s ~r"" She G ----
~13. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly_...._._........_..--_ ~ -. __...._~~ -.._.-.-_ ___.._~, _ ._~.
_C --~'otal Acres In Sits ____ ._._._......_..___.. ___....____.___~. .-__-- --- d_ ~_ ~_ _ _ _~_
- - -- - - - - _._.~...r_ ___ Z. -._.....0.0 _ Q.t] 0.0
PART [V (7'0. btu completed by NRCSJ t.and Evalrl~t;on Ir~"forrtt~~t.gn
A, 7'otai Acres PrimeF,nd Unlqus Fart'rt#~ricJ - ~ " ~ -- ---- ------ ---- - - -_.__________
_ 8. Tata!__Acres Statewrde:And L:czoaf ltrlpar~~~C~~~t`n3antl ' __- -.. ~ : - ---.____-------
C. Percentage Of Farmiartd IQ County Or Lodi Go~rt U;tttTo ~~ ~.onverted :G p _ ~`~'"
_~->?.~ Rercerltage Qf Farmland In Govt. Jurtsd,ct or,=V'~ttl ~~~a Or Hi~la~r R~(~(+ve tr}laQ ~ ~~~ o. 8 `_"~-- __ _.._...,-._.-..,
PART V (To be ccm~{efed by1V,RCS} Land Eva#uatiot~ Criterioh ~ ~ ..._._...
.__.. Relative Val;te Of #=attniand 7o E3e Cbivertt:Cf` {Scala pf ~ to 10Q t'oi,7fsJ ~ ? ~ ~ Q D 0
PART Vt (To be cornpletPd by Federal Ayencyj ~.gaxirnum
Site Assessment Criteria ; Ttaese ;~iteria are exptaineri in 7 GTR 85f3.6{b) Feints ~
t. ArEa !1 Nonurban tJse _ ___. -_ _
_15 __ __..__._
i - -_-_ _____.__ ~~
2 Perrmeter In Nanurban Use ~ - ~ -----_ _. _ __ ..____.__....___..__. _
3 Percent ©f Srte E3e,ng Fa,rned --_ -. ____~__~ _.w.. l _._~ r~..____.... _...~ _
4 Protection Provided By State An_d Local Goverrlrnent . °° - ~ _ ___.,._ ___._.________._
Distance Front Urban Btn,tu Area __.._.~__._..---__.____ ~~ _ __.___..__ __
___----__._ _.__ T...__.-._ p ~ ..._ _...__.-_....-_ __._.__~ __-_---_-----..~.___-...
6 Distance Tn Urban Support Services -- -- -._._ -. --__..~ ._.~ ~ _~..- ----.______..___ .... _ _._..._
.._ . _ __. _ _ -.._ .__~~.._ ._..__ __ __....._ _..__ L5
7. Srze O€ Present Farm Unit Compared To Average .__ --- ~~_~ 5 °"'-~-_"'_°
__ ------ - - --_ ____ i .-1 ~?.-._ _. __._„j_O . -
F3 Crept€c,n Of Not~fannable Farmland _..._._._....._..-.-_.. , _
~ __..,_
9 Ava,labr6ty Of Farm Suppor# Services --- --~_ ___ __.__ _- ~___
- --
10 On Farm Investments --- .__..___. ...~..~__-.. _.
------
_ ~....._.__~...__-~- -------~-- _-w---_ ~~ ... ~..~.._._.~ _ ____ ___._,~~
11 Effects Of Conversion On Faun Support Services -~-... ----_...._._._ __ . ___.---.__._.._
__...------~__,.-____...._~._._._ D _..._._-_.m._v~~_.
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use ---------_ -.. ----.---___..- ___...___...__- ..
__._TOTALSITEASSESSMENTE•'OINTS 160 8~ Q----------.-_ _~--__.__._.._..__.__.~.~._...____..._____.__
PART VII (To be camplet©d by l=ederai Agency) ~~~~~ "'°"°'
._. Relative Value Of Farmland {f=rom Dart V) 10Q •. ,~~~ • ~ Q ..~~---o__._-.•___..-~-__....-.___.._..-..~
Total Site Assessment (Aom Bart VI move or a tocaf '~ ---------- ~------ .-.-._
siteassesstnent) 160 _ ~~ 0 -_.0 ------_ 0 __
TOTAL POItJTS {Total of abn~re 2 linr~s) 260 t7 0 0 0
a
Site Selected: Date Qf Selection `ryas A Local Site Assessment llsed?
Yes No ~ -
Reason Far Selection: _._.._-...,...___-.---_.____..._....~....__.___._.~. .............---------._.__.._._....__.-_.._.-.._._...~_._
1
{See Irts[rerc[lons ort reverse side) Farm AD-144fi (14-83)
Ttss form was ~~sc*ctsonically prcxiucer! by Fialipn~i Pf()dUCliUrl SeNiCes 5tarf

w
N<ztt~r~il Rescx~rces
Resta~•~ilicx~t cYc Cor~set-~~atica~~
J~.~ly 31, 20{?~i
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of lz~l.and Fisheri.cs
Fails I1ake office
11421-SS Service Raad
Creedrnare, NC 27522
AT'I'N: David Cox, 'T'echnical. Guidance Supervisor
SUF3JEC7': Coordination with the North C~arolina't~ildlife 12esottrces Commission an
Behalf of the Dish and Wildlife Coordination Act for the C~utawhiskie Creek' Stream and
Wetland Restaratiozi Site in I~ertford County.
Mr. Cox:
Can December 19, 2045, tl~ze North Catalina Ecosystem. Enhancement Program SEEP)
issued a Request far Proposals for 5004 stream mitigation units, 3 riveritae wetland
mitigation units, and Snon-rivezine wefland mitigation units in the Chowan River Basin,
Cataloging IJnit 03010204. Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), ofl~aleigh, NC was
subsequently awarded a contract by the EEP to provide 3,37 stream mitigation units and
12.3 riverine wetland mitigation units at the Cutawhislcie Creek Stream and Wetland
Restoration Site. EcaScience Corporation is under contract to RS to provide technical
ezlvironzxterztal cansultinl; and design services.
one of tl~e earliest tasks to be performed by RS is completion of an environmental
scroenrng and prLparationlsubznittaI of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This
document is specifically required by the federal >`-ligl;way Administration ~FHWA) to
ensure compliance with various federal envirpnmental laws and regulations, The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal matadates as a .precondition to
F.I~WA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Catalina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams at2d
wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your ofhc;e an
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). This letter provides you with
certain details of the Cutawhiskie Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site project,
including the project's location, a general description of its physiograplxy, hydrography
and existing land uses, as well as the intended modifications to the site proposed by R.S.
You axe encouraged to determine if the actions proposed by RS may be inimical to any

1
t
1

t

P'tlo~ ;V1zll • 1 ? ()1 Haynes St., S~iite 147 • Rale:i~;n, NC 27C~Q~ • ~vwtiv.l~;sloa'£ttii)n5,-stei.is.co~~~ • Phc~i~e 9l 9.755.9~t~ ~ E~ax 919.755.9492

David Cax, ~~'t;Vvr:[Z~:
Page 2
7131 f200G
.
resources embraced by the I~WC:A, and provide comments to RS based on ya~u
evaluation. It is reasonable to assume tizat you will comment ifthe actions proposed by
RS are, in your opinion; likely to result in harm to resources embraced by the FWCA .
rroject I,vcation & .~escripti~ra
'l'he Cutawhiskie Creek Strea~~:x a~ad Wetland lZ.estoration Site i.s located approximately 9
miles southwest of Murfreesboro, in southwestern. IIertfard County (figure 1). The Site
~s lc7cated at 36.327332 North and -77.161020 l~l.test and encompasses approximately 23
acres of land t11at is managed far agriculture and tirnbe:r procluctian. Portions of the sits
Dave recently been logged. Within the Site, approximately 1,97Q linear feet of a highly
disturbed, dysfunctional ixniraXned tributary to Cutarrlhiskie Craek will be restored, and
approximately 12.3 acres ofhydric cropland will be restored to riverine wetlands,
Additionally, approximately 2,7$61ir~ear feet of Cutawhiskie Greek will be preserved via
a conservation easement (Figure b).
Site vegetation is generally characterized by a mixture of rc;latively undisturbed
t7attomland hardwood forests along, the Cutawl~iskie Creak flt~adplan ar~d law terraces,
raw crops includi~~g soybeans and corn, and successional communities associated with
cutover timberland. 'T'opography within tl~e site econgion is characterized by low relief
and broad interstream divides. Due to the hista~y of extensive dredging of the unnamed
tributary and Cutawhiskie Creek, the local water table has been lowered in elevation,
effectively removing jurisdictional wetland hydroloby from adjacent hydric soil areas.
RLStoraticrn 1Vlcans & Methods
Primary activities d~;srgned to restore the st~•eam and wetland complex include 1) stream
restoration, 2} stream preservation, 3} riverine wetland restoration, and 4) vegetative
planting. Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) belt-width preparation, 2} channel
excavation, 3} spoil stockpiling, 4) channel stabilization, S) channel diversion, and 6)
existing channel baekfill.
Restaratioz~ of wetland hydrology and wetland vegetratiorr may involve 1 j existing
' channel cleaning prior to backfill, 2) channel plug installation, 3) channel backfill, and
4} scarification of sails prior to planting. In addition, the construction of surface water
storage depressions (ephemeral peals} also adds an important component to groundwater
restorationa activities.
Revegetating the tloodplain and stream banks wilt provide stream bank stability, shade,
' cooler surface waters, habitat for local wildlife, as well as filter pollutants from adjacent
runoff. The vegetated stream buffer will extend approximately 50 feet orY both sides of
Cutawhiskie Creek. Scarification of floodplain surfaces may be required prior. to
planting. Plant community restoration within the Site will include the planting of bare-
root seedlings consistent with reference data, on-site cibservations, and descriptions of the
community.
1

natiii.d Cow, N(_:~I~c
Page 2
7f3112t)4fi
Summary of Anticipated Effects
w

The prapased stream and wetland restoration matrix will restore a dysfunctional stream
system to fi~il functionality and will restore wetland functions that have been absent for
many years. This work will provide the, capacity to efficiently transport watershed flows ,
and sediment Iaads, will enhance flood swrage capacity, provide nutrient abatement,
remove andlar neutralize toxic compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of
wildlife habitat. Reve~etation df'the floadplain will provide stream bank stability, reduce
erasion, prc~mate floodwater attenuation, and imprcive aquatic and terrestrial habitat. In ,
can.clusian, the proposed actions are not likely to result inlong=term negative effects to
fish ar wildlife, but instead improve wildlife habitat.
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your reviewlevaluatian, please feel free to contact me at work at 919-~55-9490 ar an my
mobile phone at 9l 9-219-OZ7l . Your valuable time and cooperation are much
appreciated.
Sincerely,
/f~' ~.~~
1 St. Clair, Project IVlanager
~1.ttach,ments
cc: Mr. Bove Schiller, Restoration Systenns, LLC

'I

1

n
ii

1

1

.. ...
,.. ..: h
L~
.5 :. sU ~ l -- i
5 ex"
SITS D}RECT(DTdS:
From Woadlanci, travel past orr US r~vute 258, G.) r~ti€es.
~1'urn right or Jim Hardy F~oad, continue 2 miles.
SItE: rs Ot1 Fight
,~
` ~V,,
r -~.- y f.
i
' ~,i{
s
i to t
FW ~ ~ INY
]i 7':
L nµl1. i t
<~
....

aY ~.

~ ' ~
.~..wK. n1
~' („ ~ ~
1 •
..
4
~
~
v5. ..xK .. ~$~'tt ((j . n,
. •a'k .,.

..,a ~ ~
q
, '~'-
~~ ~F
v
~~~ ~,
,
j
. '
.. ~~

.. r•'4r xa
!.
..
;
_. ...

.
I ' ;
, . ..
e ~
S _. ..
~a \l. !
L

IGS} a y,
'1
JYx..Y, a ~
~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~~,~' ... ~ ~~ ~~,.`>4{.) . t ~ 'ar srax~l+,,e ~i I~ ~~:E~"~. ....,~.... _y...---•_•.-• i, .J y.
... , F.: _
' r
,% ~; ''.. .. ~ ~ Fwf .yl F' 6U.).)(! slt 3` .. r• f -~4i(3~ ...
~•., i , r , e - ...
U •fn., Dlr. ~ ~ - ~ I ~ ~ ~ 7. a "'~`°`y. -
`e
.
x
_ •~ ~' ~ .t , ~ ,~ ~ _ gI
,.

4
f

!
111 a7

/ 1~ •
r' `y'~ `
a H.,,ulti t` _
r ~ a ....._ f ~ J~ `~}l~a_._ 452 ?
a ~~~;i ,~ 4 3 _ J
j ~ . ~ ; f ,. E §t3..'wn '~~f~Ff
.
D
"'n'-Gy ~. ,r rg ~4~5 iii /' i 4\ ~ t n
. '
yt ~_ ... 1 'ir `ti.~:i..;:
maw i
J } ~i k !1
,f
~~~Q L.lla
~$~ x
~.
' .~.
7LLLL~~~~ ~ StT~ 5 ,, ..,w
~. ( 1 ~ _ _ .,.J. ~ .. < kr..
+x ., "x e ~~ ~ a.~k
.r ~ Y
f '
.. ;
m„
•^.' k~ ~ T
-~.1 a fit • • Y a 94+ °j'. Y. r' ..aa ~ _# :F^ _. - i • ~.t f+l 5
<y_
•nR ` dy r ti~4 .. •, MsNn.ua r /' ~. ~.f y .~ `ry.
/ i r R
J _ ~ ~
D Ct3(
T t ~ e ~
\~ ,
~S
\
r
'
~, ~ _
-
.
~Xl~. fa(t rr 1, ~
I .
t--Yt. ~:
~ IiFB7f~R~ C.L2
\~~^- ~arma'_'
'
"`-~,
i _._. _ _.... _~..~.
f \
-
F
- _ ;rr,,.. 7 ~~ ~7' ., i .. ~.I, z : ~
~ L
Sync, ~'3a , ,~
Ht ~7tL ~X)
_ 'SL'S ~,1 f .y4 f . ~ .. ;° ~
i mr 0 1 mI A mi.
1;'r4A,00p
Source; 1997 North Carolina Atlas anG Gaxettaer, p.23-Y4.
>;4 1W~t1r
F tt `N,.'
!,'~ J - ~1, .nary ..
x
i-
wry a
Client: PrtyyCt_ qvm. hy:
SITE LC?CAT1C}N _ MAt' rrrcuRE
Ced ~~ JDC
I; ~ CUTAWHiSi{lE GREEK
Date:
STREAM AND WETLAND R~STORATiON SITE ASR coos
Hertford County, North Carolina ~r°;°": gas-oaQ

l~lalural Resau:rc;es
ReStardl"tOC! ~ CQi1SL'iVlkl'l01'1
July 31, 244b
U. S. Department of the Interior
Fish and .Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Uffice
P. O. Box 3372b
Raleigh, NC 2$801
A`I'T~I: Dale Suiter, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
SLIBJFCT: Coordination ujith fhe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Bcllaif of (1}Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act and (2} Migratory Bird Treaty Act far the Cutawhiskie
Creek Stream and Wetlal~d Restoration Site in Hertford County.
Mr. Suiter:
On December 19, 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP}
issued a Request for Proposals for 5000 stream rnitigatian units, 3 riverine wetland
mitigation units, and Snon-riverine wetland mitigation units in the Chowan River Basin,
Catalagit~lg Unit 43014204. Restoration Systems, LLC (RS}, of Raleigh, NC was
subsequently awarded a contract by the EEP to provide 3,375 stream mitigation units and
12.3 ri~verine wetland rxlitigation units at the Cutawhiskie Creek Stream and Wetland
Restoration Site. EcaSeience Corporation is under contract to RS to provide technical
cnviranrnental consulting and design services.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by KS is completion of an environmental
screening and preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) docunrzent. This
document is specif tally required by the Federal Highway Administxation (FHWA} to
ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws and regulations. The EEP
must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation casts borne by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands.
In order far the project to proceed, RS is obligated to coordinate with your office an
behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA} and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA}. This letter provides you with certain details of the Cutawhiskie Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration Site project, including the project's location, a general
Pilot Mlll • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 - www.restot~tionsystems,con~ • Phone [phone] • F~zx 919.755.9492

1
t
1
1

L'
1

Dale Suites, IISFWS
Page. 2
713 II200b
description of its physiography, hydrography and existing land uses, as well as the
intended modifications to tl~e site proposed by RS. you are encouraged to determine if
the actions proposed by RS may be inimical to any resources embraced by the FWCA, car
the ABTA and provide comments to 1Z.S based an your evaluation. It is reasonable to
assume that the Service will cam~ne~at if'tlze actions .proposed by RS are, in the Service's
opinion, likely to result in harrr~ to resources embraced by the I+VJCA or the MBTA.
~'roject ll.,oca.tion & l)escripti©n
"Che Cutawhiskie Creek Stream and Wetland :it.estaration Site is located approximately 9
miles southwest of Murfreesboro, in southwestern Hertford County (Figure 1}, The Site
is located at 36.327332 North and -77.1 fit p20 West and encompasses approximately 23
acres of land that is managed far agriculture and timber production. Portions of the site
have recently been logged. Within the Site, approximately 1,9717 linear feet of a highly
disturbed, dysfunctional unnamed tributary to Cutawhiskie Creek will be restored, and
approximately I2.3 acres of hydric cropland will be restated to rivexine wetlands.
1a,dditicanallY, approximately 2,786 linear feet pf Cutawhiskie Creek will be preserved via
a conservation easeanent (Figure 6).
Site vegetation is generally characterized by a mixture of relatively undisturbed
bottomland hardwood forests slang the Cutawhiskie Creek floodplain and low terraces,
rc~w crops including soybeans and cazn, and successional commzuzities associated with
t cutover timberland. Topography within the site ecoregion is characterized by low relief
and broad interstream divides. Due to the history of extensive dredging of the unnamed
tributary anti Cutawhiskie Creek, the local water table has been lowered in elevation,
effectively removing jurisdictional wetland hydrology from adjacent hydric soil areas.
Restoration Means & iltlethods
Primary activities designed to restore the stream and wetlaaad complex include 1) stream
restoration, 2j stream preservation, 3j riverine wetland restoration, and 4) vegetative
planting. Stream restoration is expected to entail I) belt-width preparation, 2) channel
excavation, 3} spoil stockpiling, 4j channel stabilization, 5) channel diversion, and 5)
1 existing channel backfill.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and wetland vegetarian may involve Ij existing
channel cleaning prior to backfill., 2) channel plug installation, 3j c;hannel backfill, and
~} scarification of sails prior to planting. In addition, the construction of surface water
storage depressions (ephemeral pools} also adds an important component to tnoundwater
restoration activities.
Revegetating the floodplain and stream banks will provide stream bank stability, shade,
cooler surface waters, habitat for local wildlife, as well as filter pollutants from adjacent
runoff. The vegetated stream buffer will extend apps©ximately SO feet on both sides of
Cutawhiskie Creek. Scarification of flaodplain surfaces may be required prior to

Dale Suites, USI`~WS
Page 2
7131 /2006
planting. Plant community restoration within tl~e Site will include the planting of bare-
root seedlings consistent with reference data, on-site observations, and descriptions of the
community.
Summary of Anticipated Effects
The proposed stream and wetland restoration matrix will restore a dysfunctional stream
system to full functionality and will restore wetland functions that have been absent for
many years. This work will provide the capacity to ~~cientiy transport watershed flows
and sediment loads, will enhance flood storage capacity, provide nutrient abatement,
remove and/or neutralize toxic compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of
wildlife habitat. Revegetation of the floodplain will provide stream bank stability, reduce
erosion, promote floodwater attenuation, and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat. In
conclusion, the proposed actions are not likely to result in long-term negative effects to
fish or wildlife, but instead improve wildlife habitat.
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete
your reviewlevaluation, please feel free to contact me at work at ~ 19-755-94~p or on my
mobile phone at 919-2190271. Your valuable time and cooperation are much
appreciated.
Sincerely,
/~" ~ C,~
Jay St. Clair, Project Manager
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dave Schiller, Restoration Systems, LLC

e

n

r
'J

e
r

~.
..

<

I

.:
.. . `-
_ ,,F
-~.._
..
,~." ~
"'

'.
~ .
. a
.
'`
SITE DIRECTi©N5: ~
,=
,
.._ ,
. tm~
r'
.... 2.5 miles.
From Woodland
travel east on US Route 25f3 `''.>;,,~-~, ~
_ ~'~ .
,
Tura right on Jim Ha ,
continue 2 miles.
rdy Road ~~~ ' T

~'
~ Site ~s on Rjght ,
~, _ 1~~~ s
~' ,t
~, `~
~,
.,,.
;. y
_., `
~. , ~

~~
.:

/ a
j ' .•
,P~ .,
~r'
....
. t( __
t nab'
"
. J ~~
r k"
, ~
~
.'4~ _.
a
F~ '
~
r t ~ .,
!
µ t
•

~ y ..n a
,,.. ~ -
~

Marh a , F' -*;

i 3

,.
I

i

j
. '' ~ S'f f ~ + :~ ~ ~_ c n
.
. u

s
_- }
' y y•r
~~ , '
Y ~1
~ F
T.
~.
~µ ~ ~
~1 ~
'

~ , 1- a.~ _...

7 `
i ~ t .~'"° yea ~\ w x ~
s` ~..,.~.~sln
co
~ / ~ ~

- ~ .

.r .~ ~ JJJ
t 1/. fc
_. ~' X ! ~ ~s.
~°
, y, ..
,..
~
,... -

._
.
~. ~, .
.,... . t;.mot .3 ` ^ ! ~ `~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ''S ~ 1 ~ 3i
~
.
r
,
.~~T'
~,w.gt tt ~~
j s ~ti33 q,.
4~ µ 6 4~. d~
~
t
.. ~ ~ r

.~
1 ~ "
r na #? j, ~
` t
,
~

'S
/y

/
, r
i
~ ,
tt ~
. r~ !

.~

: t/£O -:?. ~ '~ i .,.CSfi~ . as
•~
~
...
~ i .I
' .,~~
: 9
~y~ ~5~, 4 r. ~
~ cs7-Lai I
i~v
vpp ~~~
r
~r
yy
{C

~~ ~ ~~w=

a f - ~ ~ i ~ r
:t ~ .,
' ~ ~...,,
..
~ / ~~
~~
... y. f
--. .. ..... J
;'
j~a aat t ~ \ ' }. ,.~ ,_. _ ~i., ;~~ .. ~'Sb~ ~3~ ate, r~ ~ ~~ ... t ~ ~.
J
l.nawnaw, ~i"~t
~1qM ....... _.... _. S._ 1f -
..
~a
{j 8onree: 9987 NorthCarot[na AtEas and Gazetteer, p.23.24, " ~ ~ ~ - ~~ °A, ~ I '~
CSient: 1'rajsct: Own. Uy:
SITE Lt3CATl©N ~~F Fj~uR~
CUTAWHISKIE CREEK c~auy Soc.
! STREAM AND WIrTt_AND RESTORATION SITE Date. APR 200~i
Hertford Caunty, North Carolina ~`~ec1: nor-oso

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Tfrir dr rTC~t an tnv«ice
II~t ACCOUN'1` WITH
cloKristen Poillon
12estoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 1{)7
Raleigh, NC 27604
Past Office Bax 1325
Ahaskie, Narth Carolina 27910

~ , -.
~ ~ ~ ~~u~
B I • ~~ w ~~.w.rw ww,ar
k3ate .Description WoTds/f Ines hate Amount
09-29-200G
Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald
IVOT1.Ce OI' UppOT"tUnTty tOT' an Int6r. ,GX4
Pub_ fleeting or. the F'tTS-;ha:,c aT~d or t?se of
F't~operty for the Restoration o1 Sncatns and 1~'etlands
AttoitTeys pkacing le~si advertising ;ire held respausihlc for payment. All stateTnents payable l0 days alter biltin~.
Additional copies of this notice wil! he furnisbtxl except uprni payment of fes of ~iS.00.
1~oRTI-t cAROL~NA
HERTF O.RI) COUNTY
AFI+IDAVIT O~ PUBLTCA'I'ION
Before tike undersigned, a '~lotary Public, duly co~nmissianed, qualified, and authorized
ley Iaw to admi-nister oaths, personally appeared the undersigned representative whn
being duly sworn, depases ~ukd says that he (she) is an employee or othe~• officer
authorized to make this affidavit of Roanoke-Chowan Publications, LLC, engaged in
the pubiicatiatt of a newspaper ]mown as the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, issued
and entered as second class mailing in the Town Ahoskie, N.C., in said county and
state; that he {she) is authorized to make this affidavit and swo'~n statement; and the
notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in the Roanoke-Chowan News-herald an the follawing date
September- 23, 2006
And tl~~r kh~'.-said newspaper in whit~h such notice. paper, document or legal advertisement was pttblishezi
was at the tune of each and every such publication, a newspaper meeting; alit of the requirements and
qualifications of Section 1-597 of the C}eneral Statutes of North Garalina and. was a qualified Newspaper
within the trteaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This the 29``' day of September, 2006.
r.
~~ ~~~
{Signature t. representative merking aj>`tdavit) '~'A~ ly~ s~,,,
."`. ~ t ~
Sworn ~ and subscribed before me this 2~9~' day of September, 2006. ~ •
f ~ ~
(~Otarj% PttGfic) i~~ ~~/~+~#~•emsav'+~aq~O~~
tVIy Commission Expires October 17, 2009 `f°ii,~`F ~,~~','4~~`•,
i~

t
t

I~

s

f

PUBL[C N T
t~ ICS
' NOTICE ~QF OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ` INFORMA- .
TIaiVAL pUBLIE MEETING ONE THE PURCHASE
ANC3 OR USE OF PROPERTY: FOR THE
RE~TORA1"lON t~F STREAMS AND W~T(;.gNDS.
Hertford Canty -Restoration Systems proposes. toy
purchase andlor use a 23-acre tract ~f land in Hertford
.
County, North Carolina. The purpose cs€ acquiring
andlor using this property is trs provide mitigation far
impacts to streams and wetlands that will result from
.existing or future development in Phis area. Anyone
desiring that an informational public meeting be held for
this proposed action may make such a request by rog-
i
t
s
ered letter clo Kris#en Roillan to Restoration
Systems
.
:located at 1101 Hayes Street {Suite `C07), Raleigh; RC
276Q4. Request must be made by Qctober 4; 2q~6
if
1 .
..additional information is regerired,'".piease~ contact
.
Kristen Poillon at 919-755-g4g0. The NC EcosX~tem
'
_
Enhancement Program reserves.:the right to t}etermine
if a pubYc rrr~g v~ill b~e held:

e

1

I!

1
1

APPENDIX D
North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curves

Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site
Appendix D
Hertford County
;:i

ii

7

0

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1000

~ 100
a~
Q
X
to
w
as
1
0.1
Abkf = 9.43 0)0.74 i
Rz=0.96
f
i
~/ ~~
/• ~
'/
• ;
1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
100

¢ ]0
a~
Q
a~
x 1
O1
0 36
~bkf = U..98 (AW)
Rz = 0.92
:.
i
// ~g~
i
/` '~
• _i
1
_ ' 0 7s'
gbkf - 8.79 (q,~)
Rz = 0.92
/.
~'
~ •~ i
/ p
~° ~ ~/
• ~
0.1 1 ] 0 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq. mi.) Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Sweet, W.V and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and
Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association (JAWRA). 39(4):861-871.
1000
`~ 100
v
3
x
to
1
o.l
W ~ 9:64 (Ati,)°sa
bkf
Rz = 0.95
,U'
~~
~ ~
i
i
1 to loo 1000
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
10000
1000
w
U
N
s
~' 100
Q
CQ ] 0

APPENDIX E l
Groundwater Model Inputs ,
i

~~

Cutawhiskie Creek Restoration Site Appendix E Hertford County

m
c
o ~
v •o~
Q
~ ~

~-.
~ ~~ M

M M

M M

M M

M N

N
3~."'
U 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~
(0 ~

(0

O
O
L
C

~ ~ ~
O ~
~' ~
~ ~
~' ~
~ M
~
r~
C
U N~ O O O O O
U
N
f6

U U
~
'a.-.N
O O
t1')
M
O O
tn
M
O O
~
M
O O
~
M O
O O
OM
O~ ~ ~
O
O ~
O
O ~
O
O ~
O
'O 00
H ~t H d .
.
`.-'~
~ OHO
N N OtiO
N N OHO
N N OHO
N N .
tf)
c-

(B
~ ~
~ ~

2
N
T
fE
O ~
+~-' (6 ~ O O O O O
G N U M M M M M
0
N
Q

. ,~ L
U Q ~
O
~ U O ~ N N N
Y
N
U O O O ~
U

(d
~ ~
O to U- fl- Y
~
~ ~ O ~ O ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7
U

u
t

~L~
i

1
1

o o ° o 0 0 0 ° o 0
= rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ f~ ~ N ~ ~ h ~ N ~ ~
O O O O O O O O O O

,,_, >+ N N N N N o0 op o0 00 op
(B ~ •" ~ •- N N N N N

O O O O
~ O O O O
~
'~ M M M M O M M M M O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
~ M O O
Y ~ O M ~ ~ O M
E 0 0
0 0 0 ° ° 0 0 0
c
c N
p
u
i m
~6 ~
a
i

O
C

0

0

0 c_

O

O

O

O

O
~
L
~ O O O O O ~ O O O O O
~ M M M M M p M M M M M
O ~
C7
,~ O
O
0
o ~
~ N
r
0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0
L v
v N N N N N N N N N N
~ V ~ N O 0 0 O N O 0 0
N CO M M N ~ O M M
L L
w a E ° ° ° ° ° ° o 0
O N U ~ a
o v
N N N ~ o
o
~ ~
N N N

p N
L C C C ~ L C C C ~
U o _o _o U U o o_ o_ U
U ~ U ~ ~
N
~
V
~
~ N
Q Q ~ p a a
N O U ~
~ u
i ~
~ - O M O ~ Cfl M 0
L F- H I- 3 ~ H H H 3
,
~ 7
U U
N
d
w
d
L
n
C
~+
7
a
d
Q
N
d
C
.N
N
3
m
c I co ~
° o
~ ~
= rn rn
0 0
~ I !~ V
O O
.~ ~ I ~ ~
~ ~ ~
"' O O
IO O
O O
L
Y L .- r
E o 0
O ~ 0 0
L ~ O O
L ~ I !~ ~
N N
O O
~ ~ ~ N
v N ~
N
L
L L
~ ~ a~i v rn o°o
R ~ ~
t0
~ _U p
d U ~ U
~ O ~
Vl Q' ~ O
~ ~