20071212 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070712

p 7- 1 2 1 2
RESTORA TION PLAN
BROWN MARSH SWAMP STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION SITE
Robeson County, North Carolina
Contract No. 16-D06038
~ '
~~ ~~ ~;
;;

~t ~ ..
~, e,.
> 1" x-
,, .a
k f`
. ~, rv,` 3 ~. ~. ..
'.A4YY ~ ~ `~ aT `+.y3 Y ~.'i
'~ ~a da~D
»'-
'~ ,q x ~ ` ~~ _ ~
= s.
~~ ~, ~ ~~
~r ter v I i ~~ "' _~ x~^s,~
..
~ r
r~'
iry;+d
~;
Prepared for: ,,
I' ~c{ ~~~~s~~~~ 1 ~
NCDENR-Ecos stem Enhancement Pro ram ~~nn~~
Y g ~V
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1 H 103 (U'~~ ap1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 °~ Z ~'~ ~~~ ~
~~~'' ov"~' '
Jul 2, 2006 ~N~'~'s~~
Y ~~

i
1
1
i
1
1
t
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prepared by:
KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Consulting Engineers
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
919.851.6066
919.851.6846 (fax)
For:
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

1

t

i

t

1
1

J
t

t
1
~. J
t:`c~.r~trG~~t «. lfg_~~~~~~c~_x
13t•c~~~-r~ ~f~~~:h S~~•z~~~~~ 1Zust~~~-t~tic} Sit:. [~c~l~sc~s~ ~`~;c~t~ty, iti~;r~l~ Carc~ir~a
t~ li5"l~C~:[~.~~ 1`I)~ I'1_~.1N
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Site (Site) is located one mile east of the North Carolina
and South Carolina state line, and is approximately 15 miles southwest of the Town of
Lumberton, in Robeson County. The Site is situated due east of the intersection of Cotton Valley
Road and McCormick Road, approximately one mile south of Interstate Highway 95. The Site is
located within United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local
Watershed 03040204037010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin
03-07-55) of the Lumber River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit .Cataloging Unit
03040204 (USGS 1974, NCWRP 2003). The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in meeting its stream and wetland restoration goals.
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities at the Site. A 20.25-acre
conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities. The
Site contains 5.0 acres of hydric soils, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Contrary Swamp
(Northern UT and Southern UT), associated floodplain, and upland slopes. The purpose of this
project is to restore a stable pattern, dimension, and profile to the UTs; restore hydrology to
drained nonriverine wetlands; and revegetate streams, floodplains, wetlands, and upland slopes
within the Site. The contributing watershed is characterized primarily by agricultural row crop
production and pine plantation/forest land. Adjacent agricultural land uses, resulting in the
removal of riparian vegetation, straightening and dredging of stream channels, and ditching of
floodplain wetlands are responsible for the resulting degraded water quality and unstable channel
characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse).
Project restoration efforts will result in the following.
Restore 5,004 linear feet of two unnamed tributaries to Contrary Swamp (Northern UT
and Southern UT).
Restore 5.0 acres of nonriverine wetland within the interstream flat
Reforest approximately 20.05 acres of floodplain, stream bank, upland slopes, and
nonriverine wetlands with native forest species.
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, decreasing floodwater levels, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat, which will be
accomplished by:
• Reducing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural land uses by
providing a forested buffer adjacent to streams to treat surface runoff.
• Reducing point sources of pollution associated with agricultural land uses by constructing
a BMP at the convergence of a large drainage ditch and the Northern UT.
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and
sediment loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation by;
It'C7 cf~ ASSCICIATE.S, P C'. ['<a~~~. i.
~'artsarllirr~; LS`n~irrcera
t

I3~•0~~~~ ~•la~s~ ~~.~r~r,l~ 1Zestor~tic>r~ `site. E~c~l}v~$~~~ C:o~~nt~~•, `~c~rtl} ~=aroli~~a
RE`s"1'C~1~;~ 1`1:C1_"~ F'LA`Y! t
o excavating a floodplain at a new bankfull elevation;
o restoring a secondary, entrenched tributary thereby reducing floodwater velocities
within smaller catchment basins;
o increasing storage capacity for floodwaters within the Site limits; and
o revegetating floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters.
• Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability, restoring aripple/dune-
pool complex, and by incorporating grade control/habitat structures.
• Providing wildlife habitat including a forested riparian corridor within an area highly
dissected by agricultural land uses.
A BMP in the form of a stormwater wetland will be placed in a large agricultural drainage ditch
at its convergence with the Northern UT. The drainage ditch has a watershed area of

approximately 50 acres, almost all of which is in agricultural (row crops) land. The stormwater ,
wetland will help to enhance water quality by reducing the amount of nutrients, including
phosphorous, nitrogen, and heavy metals from stormwater flows. Construction of the
stormwater wetland is a voluntary effort on the part of Restoration Systems to improve water
quality and habitat for waters within, and downstream of, the Site. No mitigation credits are
expected to be received from this effort. ,
The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources developed a draft "Information Regarding Stream Restoration" document
on April 4, 2007 which is to help guide compensatory mitigation providers in evaluating and
'
planning stream mitigation projects. The objective of the document was to ensure that potential
mitigation sites had streams that occur naturally, rather than streams that may have been ditched
and intercepted groundwater causing intermittent or perennial flow. The primary tools used to
assess if channels support natural drainage ways in the Coastal Plain include 1.) sufficient natural
slope (drainage ways/valleys), drainage area (typically greater than 100 acres), soils in the
drainage way with higher organic content than surrounding (upland) soils. Data collected on
both the Northern and Southern UTs indicate that a natural stream may have been supported by
slope (a natural valley), drainage area (watershed areas greater than 100 acres), and soils (organic
content greater than in adjacent upland soils).
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed for the
Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and
forest studies; 3) restoration plans; and 4) monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval of this
plan by the EEP, engineering construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented as
outlined. Proposed restoration activities may be modified during the design stage to address
constraints such as access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway
constraints), or other design considerations.

[~J~ ~ f1SJ©CIfl1 E.J, ! ~ ~D:iiJ' 11
C'o~tat~ltin~ L.ngrn~ers
1

Coz~tr~~ct ~c>. I Ei-1:){.}F~E.338
1_t~~c?t~.t~ ~,-l~rsh ~a~~ai~~}~ Restoration iite, ILob~;si>~~ C:oLgr~#~-~ '~c>ri1~ Carolia~a
1 IZF?STOIZ~'1.~1'IC)?a~ E'1..`~N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ..I

' 1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION ................................................
1.1 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE .............................................................................................. . 1
. 1
1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION ..................... . 1
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................................... . 3
2.1 DRAINAGE AREA .................................................................................................................. . 3
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION/WATER QUALITY ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ........................ : 3
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS .......................................................... . 4
' 2.5 PROTECTED SPECIES .............................................................................................................
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ . 4
. 6
2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................... . 6
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ...........................................................................
2.7.2 Project Access ........................................................................................................... . 6
. 6
2.7.3 Utilities ...................................................................................................................... .7

i 2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass .....................................................................................
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ............................................. . 7
. 8
3.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................. . S
3.2 DISCHARGE .......................................................................................................................... . 9
3.3 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ..................................................................................................... . 9
3.4 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... . 9
3.5 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ................................................................................................... 10
3.6 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS .........:........:.....................:..........:...............................................
4.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION . . 11
1 1
4.2 DISCHARGE ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 MILL CREEK ........................................................................................................................
4.3.1 Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................... 11
11
4.3.2 Bankfull Verification ............................................................................................... 11
4.3.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................
4.4 UT TO WILDCAT BRANCH ................................................................................................... 12
12
4.4.1 Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................... 12
4.4.2 Bankfull Verification ...............................................................................................
4.4.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 12
12
4.5 UT To Hoc SWAMP ............................................................................................................ 12
4.5.1 Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................... 12

r KIJJ cfc AS.SC?CIA~"ES, P. C: t><s~;~; iii
~ C'anstdting Gnkineers

1_~s•c~~~-n ?~~arsh ~r~;~.:~~~~i~ 1Z~~tc~r<~tio bite, I~t~besc~~~ ('oti~I~i~ ~ c~rtl~ Carc~li~~a
1Z1:~`~llf)I~<~"1'IC)iti' P3:...1?ti
4.5.2 Bankfull Verification ............................................................................................... 12
4.5.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 13
4.6 UT TO IRONHILL BRANCH ................................................................................................... 13
4.6.1 Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................... 13
4.6.2 Bankfull Verification ............................................................................................... 13
4.6.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 13
4.7 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY .................................................................................................... 13
4.8 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 14
5.0 SITE WETLANDS .............................................................................................................. 15
5.1 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ............................................................................... 15
5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................. 16
5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling ............................................................................................ 16
5.2.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions .................................................................. 16
5.2.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications ............................................................ 17
5.2.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results ..................................................................... 18
5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................... 22
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification ......................................................................................... 22
5.3.2 Profile Description ................................................................................................... 22
5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................... 22
6.0 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ............................................................................ 23
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ........................................................................ 25
7.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 25
7.1.1 Stream Restoration ................................................................................................... 25
7.1.1.1 Channel Structures ......................................................................................... 26
7.1.1.2 Culverted Channel Crossing .......................................................................... 26
7.1.2 Wetland Restoration/Enhancement .......................................................................... 26
7.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 27
7.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 27
7.2.2 Calculations and Discussion .................................................................................... 27
7.3 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 28
7.3.1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis ................................................................................... 28
7.3.2 No-Rise .................................................................................................................... 28
7.3.3 Hydrologic Trespass ................................................................................................ 29
7.4 STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................. 29
7.5 SOIL RESTORATION ............................................................................................................. 29
7.5.1 Topsoil Stockpiling .................................................................................................. 29
7.5.2 Floodplain Soil Scarification ................................................................................... 29
7.6 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION .................................................................... 30
7.6.1 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................ 31
7.6.2 Invasive Species Management ................................................................................. 32
KQ ~ ASSOCIATES, P. C' ~~ag~ ~~;
Cor~suhirrg~r7,~n~ers

r~~}~~tr~~~t ~~~. lei-l>{3f~( )38
13~•r~~~-n :Marsh S~va~~~E,1Lcstc>ration `site, IZobcsz~~~ C`t~€~nty, `~ortl2 Carol ina
1 RESTC)fg.~1.r1~It)N PLAN
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 33
8.1 STREAMS ............................................................................................................................. 33
8.1.1 Stream Success Criteria .........................:.................................................................. 33
8.1.2 Stream Contingency ................................................................................................. 34
8.2 WETLANDS .......................................................................................................................... 34
.
8.2.1 Wetland Success Criteria ....................... 35
' .................................................................
8.2.2 Wetland Contingency ............................. . 35
8.3 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................... 35
.
8.3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ............................................................... 35
.....................
8.3.2 Vegetation Contingency ..................................................................... . 36
8.4 SCHEDULING AND REPORTING ............................................................................................ 36
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................37
' TABLES
Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1
Table 2. Site Drainage Areas .................... 3
Table 3. USDA Mapping Units within the Site ............................................................................ . 4
Table 4. Land Use of Watershed .................................................................................................... 4
Table 5. Federally Protected Species for Robeson County ............................................................ 6
Table 6. DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod .................................... 19
Table 7. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss for Trebloc Soils ........................
Table 8. Reference Forest Ecosystem .......................................................................................... 21
23
Table 9. Planting Plan .................................................................................................................. 31
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures and Design Sheets
Appendix B. Morphologic Tables
Appendix C. Project Site Photographs
Appendix D. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix E. Reference Site Photographs
Appendix F. Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix G. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix H. Agency Coordination

KV C1C A.).7l/l..lAt G~~ PC.. t}rl~?,t; b"
~\ Cfanszzlting Grr~inters

1. } _~
13rc?~~~n ~:larsla ;~i~~~~~~-s l~estc>ratic~n Sits:, IZc~E?esi}t~ C c~i~r~t} °vc>rti~ Caroli~~:z

FIGURES '
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Watershed Map
'
Figure 3. Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Hydrological Map
Figure 5. Existing Conditions Map
'
Figure 6.1 A. Reference Site Vicinity Map: Mill Creek
Figure 6.1 B. Reference Site Watershed Map: Mill Creek
Figure 6.1 C. Reference Site Soil Survey Map: Mill Creek
Figure 6.2 A. Reference Site Vicinity Map: UT to Wildcat Branch
Figure 6.2 B. Reference Site Watershed Map: UT to Wildcat Branch
Figure 6.2 C. Reference Site Soil Survey Map: UT to Wildcat Branch
Figure 6.3 A. Reference Site Vicinity Map: UT to Hog Swamp
Figure 6.3 B. Reference Site Watershed Map: UT to Hog Swamp
Figure 6.3 C. Reference Site Soil Survey Map: UT to Hog Swamp
Figure 6.4 A. Reference Site Vicinity Map: UT to Ironhill Branch
Figure 6.4 B. Reference Site Watershed Map: UT to Ironhill Branch
Figure 6.4 C. Reference Site Soil Survey Map: UT to Ironhill Branch
Figure 7. Wetland Reference Location and Soil Map
Figure 8. Reference Site Location
Figure 9. Reference Vegetative Communities Map i
Figure 10. Figure Location Map ^
Figure 11. Drawdown Influence of Existing Conveyences
Figure 12. Nonriverine Wetlands Proposed Conditions
Figure 13 -Figure 18. Stream Proposed Conditions
Figure 19 -Figure 20. Stream Profiles
Figure 21. Planting Plan
1
t
1

Kt? cl~ A.SSUCIA7'E~S, P C. E'a~e ti i
C'orx trltir~~> Ea~irree~r~s

1
~1
u

1

t

~~
~.;fP~31?'€~(: ~. ~f>. 1. r_g-l.)Of~4} li3
l~ro~~ tt '~~i~sl~ ~~~~~~:t~~l, Rest;>~•~~tif~n Sfty, IZc3t~~:~;c~~t C;f~~~tsi~•. '~f~ri~ Ca~•c~iin~t
1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
The Site is located one mile east of the North Carolina and South Carolina state line, and
approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the town of Rowland (Figure 1, Appendix A). The center
of the site has a latitude and longitude of 034° 29' 31.85 N and 079° 16' 26.87" W. The Site is
situated due east of the intersection of Cotton Valley Road (SR 2492) and McCormick Road (SR
2491), approximately one mile south of Interstate Highway 95
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities at the Site. A 20.25-acre
conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities. The
Site contains 5.0 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Contrary Swamp
(Northern UT and Southern UT), associated floodplain, and upland slopes. The purpose of this
project is to restore a stable pattern, dimension, and profile to the UTs; restore hydrology to
drained nonriverine wetlands; and revegetate Site streams, floodplains, nonriverine wetlands, and
upland slopes.
5,004 linear feet of stream, and 5.0 acres of nonriverine jurisdictional wetlands are expected to
be restored at the Site. Table 1 describes the Site restoration structures and objectives.
Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Obiectives
Restoration Segment/
Reach ID
Station Range Restoration
T e Existing Linear
Foota e/ Acrea a Designed Linear
Foota a/Acrea e
Northern UT 10+00 - 54+65 Restoration PII 2700 4,465
Southern UT 10+00 - 15+39 Restoration PII 442 539
Nonriverine Wetlands -- Restoration 5.0 5.0
1.1 Directions to Project Site
Directions to the Site from Raleigh, North Carolina, are as follows:
- Take Interstate 40 East for approximately 18 miles to Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) South
- Take I-95 South for approximately 80 miles to Exit 2, North Carolina Highway 130 (NC-
130)
- Take alert/travel south on NC-130 for approximately 0.1 mile to Cotton Valley Road
(SR 2492) and turn right
' - Follow Cotton Valley Road for approximately 2 miles.
- The project is south of Cotton Valley Road and east of McCormick Road (SR 2491)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation
The Site is located in Robeson County, North Carolina within United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) and Targeted Local Watershed 03040204037010 (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-07-55) of the Lumber River Basin
and will service the USGS 8-digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040204 (USGS 1974, NCWRP
2003).
1~'C7 ~ ASSC}CI~1T`E~S, PG'. Page 1
Ccarasrtltirz~; E~~~;ineers

l3~•c3~v~~ ~'It~r~l~ ~~va~~~i~ I~e'ic?rati~~rz Sits:, l~E~i~~s~~~~ C;~>~~z~t~, ~t~r~I~ C:'art~it~a
Streams within the Site appear as perennial streams on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle (Dillon East, North Carolina). In addition, NCDWQ stream data forms were
completed for Site streams, which confirm a perennial flow regime on both the Northern and
Southern UT's (NCDWQ form score of 27.5 and 25.5-See Appendix D). '
1
1
[7
1

1

L
1
1
t
i
KU c~ ASSOCIATES, P. C. Page 2
~~! Ccor~.ctrTtirig>Grr~in€:err r

i

rl
IJ
1
~.~
1

u

{'«t~tr~tct ~o. 16-I:){){;{}yg
I3ro~~°gi ~~larsh Sa-~=att~l~ IZeStoration bite, TZc?t~e>t}n C'i~t~nty, Nartt Carolina
fZESTt_)l~r~~I°IC~N PI_:AN
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The Northern UT's contributing drainage area at the downstream most end of the Site is 723
acres (1.13 square miles). The Southern UT's contributing drainage area at the downstream most
end of the project is 117 acres (0.18 square miles) (Figure 2, Appendix A and Table 2). Onsite
elevations are relatively flat, averaging approximately 140 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) (Dillon East, North Carolina USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).
Table 2. Site Draina a Areas
Drama e Area
Reach
Acres
S uare Mile s
Unnamed Tributa Northern 723 1.13
Unnamed Tributary (Southern) 117 0.18
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality
Contrary Swamp and its tributaries have been assigned Stream Index Number 14-35-2, a Best
Usage Classification of C Sw, and are not rated for their intended uses (NCDWQ 2003,
NCDWQ 2006a). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating,
and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. Sw (swamp waters) is a supplemental
classification intended to recognize those waters that are characterized by very low velocities,
low pH, and low dissolved oxygen.
Site streams are not included in the NCDWQ draft 2004 or 2006 Section 303(d) lists (NCDWQ
2004, 2006b) of impaired streams in the state.
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
' The Site is located within the Southeastern Plains of North Carolina in the Atlantic Southern
Loam Plains ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized by dissected, smooth plains and
irregular plains on broad, interstream divides with gentle slopes dissected by many small, low to
moderate gradient sandy bottomed streams and Carolina bays (Griffith 2002}. The Site is
located on the Sunderland geomorphic surface in soils that have a very high content of very fine
sand and silt (USDA 1978).
Soils within the Site are depicted in Figure 3 (Appendix A) and described in the table below
(USDA 1978).
l~'D c~C A~SSOCI'ATES, P. C. Page 3
ConstrltirrAL:n~;incers
t

Ct71~tr~tct '~ c7. 1 Ei-I~()f}t}3
13t•c~~~~n ~•larsh Se-~:at~~lz IZestor~ttion Sile, :Robe:>ot2 t'c~ttnt}-, `~e~rll~ C'arolitta
I~l~,`~l(.)[Zd'i~i~1C);~r l'i.:A?V
Table 3. USDA Manning iJnits within the Cite
Soil Series Hydri*
Status Family Description
This series consists of briefly ponded, poorly drained,
Trebloc loam Class A Typic moderately stow and slow permeable soils on broad plains and
Paleaquults the lowest part of the landscape. The seasonal high water
table enerall occurs at the soil surface.
Nahunta very This series consists of somewhat poorly drained, moderately
fine sandy Class B Aeric permeable, nearly level soils on broad smooth plains in the
loam Paleaquults lowest part of the landscape. Depth to the seasonal high water
table is 1.5 feet.
Exum very This series consists of moderately well-drained, moderately
fine sandy Class B Aquic Paleudults permeable, nearly level soils on broad flats. Depth to the
loam seasonal hi h water table is 2.5 feet.
Faceville fine Typic This series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately
sandy loam Nonhydric Kandiudults Permeable soils formed in red clayey Coastal Plain sediments
on uplands.
Class A = riydnc sous; Class t3 = nonhydric soils, which may contain hydric soil inclusions
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The Site watersheds are characterized primarily by row crop production (approximately 80
percent of the total area) and pine plantation/timbered land (approximately 19 percent of the total
area). Low-density residential development near the Town of Echo occurs along Gerald Road
(SR 2465) and McCormick Road (SR 2491) in the upper reaches of the watershed; however,
impervious surfaces appear to account for approximately one percent of the watershed land
surface (Figure 2, Appendix A and Table 4). It is anticipated that land uses will remain constant
for the foreseeable future because there are currently no pressures from surrounding cities for
development.
Table 4. Land Use of Watershed
Land Use Acres Percentage
Row-cro s 674 80
Pine lantation/Forest land 160 19
Residential Develo ment g 1
Total 842 100
2.5 Protected Species
Species with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
K~ cQc A,S`S4CIATES, fA.C. Page 4
~\ Ccrrurrltirrg~"rr~inccrr

t

iJ
t
t
1

1

1
1
1
1

Contract ~c~. lE~-I)0(~{};~
I_ta•c~i~.n Mars1~ >r-~=a~n I~~°~i~~ra#ion Site;, i~c~k~esai~ Cc~~tnt~~', ~ortl~ Carolina
Cpl 57~(_)1Z1Lri`ICti~` t'L:,~N
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, three federally
' protected species are listed for Robeson County. The following table lists the federally protected
species and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each.
The state of North Carolina provides a measure of protection for species listed as Endangered,
Threatened, and Special Concern. A review of element occurrences recorded for Robeson
County at the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program confirms no known documents of
federally listed or state protected species within 4 miles of the Site.
ti 1 habitat occurs within the Site for American a11i ator• however this s ecies is
Poten a g p
' threatened due to similarity of appearance with another species and is not biologically
endangered or threatened. Therefore, American alligators are not subject to Section 7
consultation and no further analysis is necessary.
The Site is almost entirely composed of disturbed vegetative communities and contains no open
stands of pine that are suitable for red-cockaded woodpecker foraging (30 years or older) or
roosting/nesting (60 years or older) habitat; therefore, no suitable habitat for the red-cockaded
woodpecker occurs within the Site. Based on the absence of suitable habitat it is reasonable to
conclude the proposed project will have No Effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The Site contains suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac; therefore, plant-by-plant surveys were
completed on October 31, 2006 within areas of suitable habitat including all stream, ditch, forest,
and road margins. Prior to Site surveys, an existing population of Michaux's sumac was visited
off of Poole Road in Raleigh, North Carolina. This visit was undertaken to fix a search image in
the minds of those who would be conducting Site searches for the species. Sufficient plants were
located at the Poole Road site to assure that plants would be recognizable to the investigators on
the Site. No Michaux's sumac plants were found during scientifically sound plant-by-plant
surveys; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude this project will have No Effect on Michaux's
sumac.
No designated units of Critical Habitat occur in Robeson County.
In summary the project will have no effect on rare and protected species.
1
t

KO c~ AS.SC?C1'147"ES, F.C. Page 5
CtaruzzltinA ~ns;neer;s
t

('c?z~tr~tct '~ c~. 16-.f.~()(if)3 8
13ro~~°rt Marsh Sc~Ta~t7p RLStc~ration :~itc, fZc~f~eszttt C`oitnt~., North Carona
RI3S"i~OR~~T1C)N f'l:_:~1itii
Table 5. Federall Protected S ecies for Robeson Count
* Habitat Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Present Within Conclusion
Site
Vertebrates
Threatened (due
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis to Similarity of Yes Not Applicable
A pearance
Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis Endan ered No No Effect
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered Yes No Effect
*Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (due to
Similarity of Appearance) = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
2.6 Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800)
comments were received for the Site from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(NCSHPO). No documented archaeological sites or structures of historical or architectural
importance occur within the Site. See the approved Categorical Exclusion document for more
information concerning cultural resources.
2.7 Potential Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration
activities within the Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of
hazardous materials, utilities and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or
critical habitats, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding
constraints was acquired and reviewed. In addition, any Site conditions that have the potential to
restrict the restoration design and implementation were documented during the field
investigation.
No constraints that may hinder restoration activities have been identified for this Site.
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The property is held in the estate of Mr. John W. Ward, Jr. (Robeson County Deed Book 812,
Page 435). A perpetual conservation easement and recordable map of the easement boundary
has been signed by the owner and recorded in Robeson County.
2.7.2 Project Access
An access easement has been obtained along the soil road that runs north from East McCormick
Road (SR 2492) into the Site, and within the subject conservation easement. SR 2492 is located
along the southern edge of the Ward Property.
K(J ~ A.S;SQCIATES, P. C. Page 6
C'onstrlting Lr7,~irrcers
1

r

1
1

1
r
t
1
1
t
r
t

~`oz~tr~~ct'~c>. 1 fs-l:)Of~t)3S
13roL~n ~rlarsl~ ~o~-E~~~~~ l~estc~~tic~n ~it~:;, CZ~~[~csoz~ C;o~~nty, `vorti~ Carolina
t 2.7.3 Utilities
No utilities are located within or directly adjacent to the Project area.
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
The HEC-RAS analysis indicates that the restoration design will result in a no-rise in the 100-
year floodplain water surface elevations outside of the project area. The results of this analysis
affirms that hydrologic trespass to adjacent properties will not occur. Amore detailed discussion
and HEC-RAS analysis can be found in section 7.3 and Appendix G.
1
1
1

t
e
1
r

t

KD & ~ SSC}CLq 7'E.S, P.G. Page 7
Ccanstrltin~;> ~ngirF~e~rs

~ _ 0{i(}38
1 1~~•ot~-~i '~~larsh `~w:a~~~i-~ IZesto~•ation ~it~, Rc~l~~,:~~3~t {'~>c3ut~-~, North C`aroli~~a
1Z1:5T{:7I~.ArI`It)N F'I:_r~N
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Site streams proposed for restoration includes two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Contrary
Swamp (Northern UT and Southern UT) (Figures 4, 5, Appendix A). Both UTs are depicted as
second-order, perennial streams on the USGS Dillon East, South Carolina/North Carolina 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangle. The Northern UT flows generally west and southwest for
approximately 2700 linear feet until converging with the Southern UT at a tree line at the
downstream end of the Site. The Southern UT flows generally northwest through agricultural
fields for approximately 4421inear feet until converging with the Northern UT.
Conformity with Stream Guidance
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the DWQ developed a draft
document titled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration" on April 4, 2007 which is to help
guide compensatory mitigation providers in evaluating and planning stream mitigation projects.
The objective of the document is to ensure that potential mitigation sites have streams that occur
naturally, rather than streams that may have been ditched and intercepted groundwater causing
intermittent or perennial flow. The pnmary tools used to assess if channels support natural
drainage ways in the Coastal Plain include 1.) sufficient natural slope (drainage ways/valleys),
drainage area (typically greater than 100 acres), and soils in the drainage way with higher
organic content than surrounding (upland) soils.
The upstream most point of each UT within the Site appears to be the natural location of each
system's headwaters. This conclusion was made after reviewing elevations and contours
obtained from the USGS Dillon East, South CarolinalNorth Carolina 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, Robeson County LIDAR data, and a Digital Terrain Model that was completed on
the site using conventional surveying methods. These data confirmed that a natural drainage
way/valley is present on-site for each stream to flow down. Additionally, both stream channels
' have supporting drainage areas greater than 100 acres, with the Northern UT draining
approximately 1.1 square miles and the Southern UT draining approximately 0.2 square miles.
Also, both streams display distinct linear soil boundaries within their valleys that contain much
higher organic soils content than adjacent upland soils. This data should be sufficient evidence
that the Northern and Southern UTs support a natural stream.
i 3.1 Channel Classification
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions,
utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into
comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary
components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-depth ratio, sinuosity,
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Appendix B (Morphologic Tables) provide a
summary of measured stream geometry attributes under existing conditions (considered to be
unstable) in addition to stable stream attributes (reference and proposed).

K() c~ A~S'~SC1C1,4 ~'E.S, 1'. G'. Page 8
~\ G~r~suflirrg Gn~in~ers

- ~ ;- ; .~
t-st°oEa~~~ ~1ar4h io~~~~~~la 1~~;~tc~rati;~n bite. fZ~,t:~L:~cs~~ ~ t~~~nt~=. ~ortl~ C'aro~~~a
Both the Northern and Southern UTs have been channelized in support of agricultural activities,
as evidenced by the straightened channels following the fall line of their respective valleys with
unnatural berms/spoil piles adjacent to the channel banks. Land use activities have resulted in
numerous detrimental impacts to Site streams and floodplains including the removal of natural
meanders, disconnection of bankfull and higher flows from historic floodplains, and denudation
of riparian vegetation. Both the Northern and Southern UTs are classified as GS-type (gully)
channels using the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen 1996). The channels are entrenched
with very low to no sinuosity and asand-dominated substrate. The Northern UT displays an
entrenchment ratio of 2.0 which is slightly higher than normal in G type channels. However, the
channel functions as a G type channel because of a lack of bed form diversity (pool to pool
spacing is virtually nonexistent) and no meander pattern, which would help to reduce stream
energy during high flows.
3.2 Discharge
Streams within the Site have drainage areas ranging from 0.2 square mile for the Southern UT to
1.1 square miles for the Northern UT, which corresponds to bankfull discharges of 4.9 and 18.1
cubic feet per second, respectively (Appendix B).
3.3 Channel Morphology
Channel cross-sections and stream profiles were measured for each of the existing reaches. The
Morphological Stream Characteristics tables (Appendix B) include a summary of dimension,
profile, and pattern data for each reach. ,
Data collected at the existing reaches indicate entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.3 (Southern
UT) to 2.0 (Northern UT) and width-depth ratios of 5.8 (Southern UT) to 6.0 (Northern UT),
typical of entrenched G-type (gully) channels. Straightening of the channels has resulted in a
loss of pattern variables such as belt-width, meander wavelength, pool-to-pool spacing, and
radius of curvature. The channel is currently characterized by a sinuosity of I.00 (channel
distance/valley distance) and no distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools is present. The
channels are characterized by a channel substrate dominated by sand-sized particles.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
A visual assessment accompanied by a morphological assessment using data collected during a
Rosgen Level II survey was used to determine channel stability. These data, which can be found
in Appendix B (Morphological Tables) and in Appendix C and D (Project Site Photographs and
Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms), confirmed that the channel attributes do not
fall within acceptable ranges for a stable channel as evidenced by entrenchment, absence of
sinuosity, absence of a repetitive sequence of riffle and pools, a lack of riparian vegetation on
stream banks, and an inability of the channel to convey discharge and sediment loads without
aggrading or degrading.

KC1 c~C ASS~CI,ATE.~, P.G' Page 9
t
Cona~trltirtg Lnginetrs
i~

(_`E111tract '4 (). 1 ~}-.I){)fi()~5
13~•r~ivri ~~larsh `~®~°a~~~l~ 1Zestoration `~itc, CZt)t?~:Sif~i Co~~1~ty, i~Fortlt C aroli~~a
lZl `~"I~(;)E~~'1f1`1C)\~ ['1:.:1N
3.5 Bankfull Verification
Onsite data was compared with Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina
Coastal Plain Streams (regional curve) (Doll et al. 2006) and reference streams (discussed
below) to verify the Bankfull discharge. The Bankfull discharge on the Northern UT is estimated
to be 18.1 cubic feet per second and on the Southern UT is estimated to be 4.9 cubic feet per
second.
3.6 Vegetation
Existing vegetation is sparse due to constant maintenance associated with agricultural row crops
adjacent to the Northern and Southern UTs banks and riparian area. Existing channel banks are
sparsely vegetated with various grass species, which are frequently mowed. The wetland
restoration area is currently characterized by agricultural row crop fields that contain no natural
vegetation due to constant tillage and planting of harvestable crops.
The loss of a forested riparian buffer has greatly increased nutrient runoff and sheet flow into
streams within the Site, as evidenced by algal blooms. Additionally, the loss of forested riparian
vegetation decreases the ability to regulate water temperatures within the streams due to a lack of
overhanging vegetation to shade the channel. High water temperatures and nutrient inputs have
lead to algal blooms and presumably low levels of dissolved oxygen in streams within the Site.
Low levels of dissolved oxygen have a detrimental impact on aquatic fauna and flora, leading to
fish kills and the absence of macrobenthos.
I 1

1
i
1
r

KO c~C ASSOCIAT~.S, A.C. Page 10
\ ~unszrltirrhr ~n,~inc~r.r
t

1

1
t
1
1
t
1
t'orttrsrct .~i3, l Ci-I:~(){~{}38
13r•c~i~•rr ~~larsh ~~a°arj~i-~ l~c:slorati~~~ `~it:~, l~obesc~rr C'c~r~rrt~-~, ~`~~rtl~ C'~arolina
4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS
Four relatively undisturbed reaches (Mill Creek, UT to Wildcat Creek, UT to Hog Swamp, and
UT to Ironhill Branch) were measured and characterized as E-type channels. Distinct Bankfull
variables were identifiable in the reaches and pattern/profile characteristics appear to have not
been degraded, allowing for assistance with channel design. Reference site vicinity maps,
reference site watershed maps, and reference site soil survey maps can be found for each
reference stream in figures 6.1 A, B, and C (maps for Mill Creek), 6.2 A, B, and C (maps for UT
to Wildcat Branch, 6.3. A, B, and C (maps for UT to Hog Swamp), and 6.4 A, B, and C (maps for
UT to Ironhill Branch). .
4.1 Channel Classification
The reference reaches are characterized by E-type, moderately sinuous (1.15 to 1.33) channels
with sand-dominated substrates (Appendix B). E-type streams are characterized as slightly
entrenched, riffle-pool channels with sinuous flow patterns. In North Carolina, E-type streams
often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains (Valley Type
VIII).
4.2 Discharge
The reference reaches have drainage areas ranging from 1.92 square miles for Mill Creek, 0.44
square mile for the UT to Wildcat Branch, 0.08 square mile for the UT to Hog Swamp, and 1.61
square miles for the UT to Ironhill Branch. The reference reaches have Bankfull discharges of
30.6, 8.5, 2.3, and 10.3 cubic feet per second, respectively (Appendix B).
4.3 Mill Creek
4.3.1 Watershed Characterization
The Mill Creek watershed is largely dominated by mature forest (approximately 80 percent of
the watershed). Additional forest lands are experiencing impacts from timber harvests and minor
residential development (approximately 10 percent of the watershed). The remainder of the
watershed is comprised of agricultural land use practices (approximately 10 percent of the
watershed).
1

~l

t
4.3.2 Bankfull Verification
Onsite data was compared with Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina
Coastal Plain Streams [regional curve] (Doll et al. 2006) to verify the Bankfull discharge. The
Bankfull discharge on Mill Creek at the point of the survey is estimated to be 30.6 cubic feet per
second. The regional curve estimates the Bankfull discharge to be 18.1 cubic feet per second.
The high end of the 95 percent confidence interval of the curve however, is 30 cubic feet per
second, which verifies the Bankfull discharge for Mill Creek.
KU c~ A.SSOCI~ITES, A.C: Page 11
C onsarlting Err~ine4rs

Contr~~ct :tio. i6-I~t3Eit}38
Bra~~s~n lrlarsh S~va~~~~~ Restoration Site, ~[~obson t_;ounty, North Carolina
RF~,`~Tt~7RATION I'I.AI~F
4.3.3 Vegetation
Mill Creek is surrounded by a mature (50 years or older) vegetated floodplain. The vegetated
floodplain extends a minimum of 200 feet from both the left and right banks throughout the
study area. Dominant vegetation within the floodplain includes giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), red maple (Ater rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar sryrac~ua), red bay (Persea
borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), yellow poplar
(Lirodendron tulipifera), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Amerian holly (Ilex opaca), cinnamon
fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
4.4 UT to Wildcat Branch
4.4.1 Watershed Characterization
The UT to Wildcat Branch watershed is dominated by mature forests (approximately 60 percent
of the watershed). Deforestation is occurring within the watershed; however, most cleared areas
have been replanted with pine. The remainder of the watershed is comprised primarily of
agricultural land use practices (approximately 40 percent of the watershed).
4.4.2 Bankfull Verification
Onsite data was compared with Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina
Coastal Plain Streams [regional curve) (Doll et al. 2006) to verify the Bankfull discharge. The
Bankfull discharge on UT to Wildcat Branch at the point of the survey is estimated to be 8.2
cubic feet per second. The regional curve estimates the Bankfull discharge to be 9.2 cubic feet
per second, which verifies the estimated Bankfull discharge found onsite.
4.4.3 Vegetation
The UT to Wildcat Branch is surrounded by a mature (50 years or older) vegetated floodplain.
The vegetated floodplain extends a minimum of 250 feet from both the left and right banks
throughout the study area. Dominant vegetation within the floodplain includes giant cane, red
maple, sweet gum, red bay, sweet bay, Chinese privet, yellow poplar, greenbrier, Amerian holly,
cinnamon fern, doghobble (Leucothoe axilaris), and black gum.
4.5 UT to Hog Swamp
4.5.1 Watershed Characterization
The UT to Hog Swamp watershed is dominated by agricultural practices (approximately 85
percent of the watershed). The remainder of the watershed is comprised of residential housing
(approximately 5 percent of the watershed) and mature (over 50 years old) forest located
adjacent to the UT to Hog Swamp (approximately 10 percent of the watershed).
4.5.2 Bankfull Verification
Onsite data was compared with Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina
Coastal Plain Streams [regional curve] (Doll et al.. 2006) to verify the Bankfull discharge. The
Bankfull discharge on UT to Hog Swamp at the point of the survey is estimated to be 2.3 cubic
KtJ c4i ASSC3CIATES, P. C. Page 12
~'unsrrltinA ~aginrer:r '
t

1

t

1

t
t

1

r

(_`clntr~~i;t ~c?. l6-l.)t)f7(}3~
I3ro~~°~~ ~~1<irsl~ ~t~~a~~~l} I~estoratic~n Mite, IZobeso~~ Co~:~a~ty, North CYaroli~ia
feet per second. The regional curve estimates the bankfull discharge to be 2.7 cubic feet per
second, which verifies the estimated bankfull discharge found onsite.
4.5.3 Vegetation
The UT to Hog Swamp is surrounded by a mature (50 years or older) vegetated floodplain. The
vegetated floodplain extends a minimum of 100 feet from both the left and right banks
throughout the study area. Dominant vegetation within the floodplain includes giant cane, red
maple, sweet gum, red bay, sweet bay, Chinese privet, yellow poplar, greenbrier, American
holly, and doghobble.
4.6 UT to Ironhill Branch
4.6.1 Watershed Characterization
The UT to Ironhill Branch watershed is dominated by agricultural practices (approximately 65
percent of the watershed) and mature forest (approximately 30 percent of watershed). The
remainder of the watershed is comprised of residential housing (approximately 5 percent of the
watershed).
4.6.2 Bankfull Verification
Onsite data was compared with Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina
Coastal Plain Streams (regional curve) (Doll et al.. 2006) to verify the bankfull discharge. The
bankfull discharge on UT to Ironhill Branch at the point of the survey is estimated to be 10.3
cubic feet per second. The regional curve estimates the bankfull discharge to be 23 cubic feet
per second, which is considerably higher than the estimated discharge within the studied reach.
However, bankfull is at top of bank and actual velocity measurements were conducted at near
bankfull flows while surveying this reach, which gives credence to 10.3 cubic feet per seconds as
the accurate bankfull discharge.
4.6.3 Vegetation
The UT to Ironhill Branch is surrounded by a mature (50 years or older) vegetated floodplain.
The vegetated floodplain extends a minimum of 100 feet from both the left and right banks
throughout the study area. Dominant vegetation within the floodplain includes giant cane, red
maple, sweet gum, red bay, sweet bay, Chinese privet, yellow poplar, greenbrier, Amerian holly,
and doghobble.
4.7 Channel Morphology
Channel cross-sections and stream profiles were measured for each of the three reference
reaches. The Tables of Morphological Stream Characteristics (Appendix B) include a summary
of dimension, profile, and pattern data for each reference reach to assist with the establishment of
reconstruction parameters.
KU cl'C A~SSCIGIATES, P.C. Page 13
Coruultin~{ Errkirr~ers
t

t'
cEt~tr~:ct'~c~. if:~-1.~{}f.~(}_iK
i3t~o~~~~~ ~larsl~ ~~~ra~~a restoration ~itc, c>1?csc}~~ C'c~~~~~ty, ~.ortl~ (arc3li~~a
Data collected at the reference reaches indicate awidth-to-depth ratio of 10.8 and bank-height
ratio of 1.0. In addition, the width of the floodprone area is greater than 100 feet through the
reach, giving the channel an entrenchment ratio well over 10, which is typical of stable E-type
channels.
In-field measurements of the reference reaches have yielded an average sinuosity ranging from
1.15 to 1.33 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). Accompanying this sinuosity are several
channel attributes including pool-to-pool spacing ratio (Lp_p/Wbkf) of 1.0 to 6.3, meander
wavelength ratio (Lm/Wbkf) of 2.7 to 7.0, and radius of curvature .ratio (Rc~bkf) of 0.9 to 2.6.
Meander geometry values for the reference reaches are acceptable. These variables were
measured within stable reaches, which did not exhibit any indications of pattern instability such
as shoot cutoffs, abandoned channels, or oxbows.
The channels are characterized b a channel substrate dominated b sand-sized articles.
Y Y p
4.8 Channel Stability Assessment
A visual assessment accompanied by a morphological assessment using data collected during a
Rosgen Level II survey was used to determine channel stability. These data, which can be found
in Appendix B (Morphological Tables) and in Appendix E and F (Reference Site Photographs
and Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms), confirmed that the channel fell
within acceptable ranges for a stable reference channel.
Major components for stability include determining if the channel is conve in its dischar a and
Y g g
sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Evidence that a channel does not fit this criteria
includes, bank degradation, channel incision, channel widening, channel aggradation, massive ,
amounts of sediment loading within and/or outside of the channel banks, channel armoring, and
generally speaking no vegetation on the channel's banks.
1
t

t
I~'C~ chi AS,SQCIA_1'ES, .A. C' Page 14
{.:vnsultint Gngin~ers

{:`«ntr~~ct '~ c?. 16-I~Of~t)_i S
1~~°o~~~n L~larsh Si~=~~til~ 1Zestoration Site, l~c~bcsi}n C;oc~nty, North C a~-olii~a
5.0 SITE WETLANDS
5.1 Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual,
the presence of three clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology) are required for a wetland jurisdictional determination.
Hydric soil limits were mapped in the field during November 2006. Based on field surveys and
groundwater models discussed below, jurisdictional wetlands do not currently occur within
the Site. Areas within the Site which may have historically contained jurisdictional wetlands
have been significantly disturbed by floodplain ditching of agriculture fields; relocation,
dredging, straightening, and rerouting of onsite streams; removal of vegetation; and annual
plowing. Due to those activities, any historical wetlands are currently effectively drained below
jurisdictional wetland hydrology thresholds.
Historically, onsite wetlands may have supported communities similar to a Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp and a Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) communities typically occur on alluvial
floodplains of small blackwater streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally
flooded. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are typically located on poorly drained interstream
flats not associated with a stream. Despite the landscape position difference between the riverine
and nonriverine areas of the Site, vegetative communities are similar and historically may have
been dominated by species contained within the reference forest (Figures 7, 8, 9, Appendix A).
These species include water tupelo (Nyssa biflora), sweetgum, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), tulip poplar, red maple, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweetbay, ash (Fraxinus
sp.), water oak (Quercus nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), and American holly with an
understory of red bay, Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana), red mulberry (Morus rubs),
southern arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), possumhaw (Viburnum nudum), Virginia willow
(Itea virginica), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), coastal doghobble (Leucothoe
axillaris), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), yellow jessamime (Gelsemium sempervirens),
greenbriers (Smilax rotundifolia, Smilax glauca, and Smilax laurifolia), and several fern species.
In the vicinity of these plots were several species that may have historically occurred within the
Site such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), cottonwood (Populus sp.), box elder (Ater
negundo), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and American beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana). Onsite impacts may have reduced hydrologic functions, biogeochemical functions,
and plant and animal habitat interactions of these communities.

t
1
KC? c~C A~S'SOCIATES, P. C Page 15
C'+~ruz~Ttiri~ Isrrxir~e~rs
t

C'o€~tr~~~;t °~c,. 1G-I~Ot~O38
Llt•oti~n ~'lar~li Srva~~3j I?estc~ratic~n Site, IZol~est}t~ C'tx-nt~°, ~t~rti~ C"a~•olii~~
CtI:`sTC~I~_~'T'IC)I~ 1'I:..:_1iti
5.2 Hydrological Characterization
5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling
Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize water table elevations under historic
(reference), existing, and post-restoration conditions. Specifically, the study compared the
output of two models (the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD) to estimate the lateral effect
of agricultural drainage ditches and downcutting stream channels within the Site on the depth to
the groundwater table.
5.2.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions
Boussinesq Equation
The Boussinesq Equation represents atwo-dimensional general flow equation for unconfined
aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the decline in elevation of the
water table near a pumping well as time progresses. The equation is based primarily on
hydraulic conductivity, drainable porosity, and the saturated thickness of the aquifer. One form
of the equation is as follows:
X = (K ho t/f)~~~/ F(D,H)
where K =hydraulic conductivity (in/hr); h0 =depth to aquiclude (in); t =duration (hours); f =
drainable porosity (dimensionless ratio); F(D,H) =profiles (graphs) relating ditch depth, water
table depth, and depth to the aquiclude(h0); and X =wetland impact distance (in).
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was originally developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and
water table control systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD predicts
water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two drains of equal elevation.
The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table depth, surface runoff,
subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long periods referenced to
measured climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range
of soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs, 1982),
Ohio (Skaggs et al. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et al. 1985; Fouss et al. 1987), Florida (Rogers
1985), Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et al. 1987) indicate that the
model can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates. DRAINMOD
has also been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et al. (1993). Methods for
evaluating water balance equations and equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs
(1980).
DRAINMOD was modified for application in wetland studies by adding a counter that
accumulates the number of events wherein the water table rises above a specified depth and
remains above that threshold depth for a given duration during the growing season. Important
inputs into the DRAINMOD model include rainfall data, soil and surface storage parameters,
evapotranspiration rates, ditch depth and spacing, and hydraulic conductivity values.
t
1
t
1
1
t
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
t
KO & ASSOCI.~TES, P.C. Page 16
C'c~nsulti~aA Gn~ir~~ers ~,
1

1
t
1

t

r~
i~

1

t

1

('o~~tr~~ct `vc3. l fi-I:)t}tit}38
I3~•oL~~t~ ~,~larsl~ ~;ura~~al-~ 1Ze~to~•ation `~itc, lif>bc;sc~~~ Co~~nty, ~tic~rtl~ Carolina
1Z1,`~"l~(_)R,•11 I.C)N PI~Ai`J
5.2.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications
Boussinesq Equation
In this study, the Boussinesq Equation was applied to agricultural field ditches and entrenched
stream channels to predict where the linear distance of a drawdown in the groundwater exceeds 1
foot for 12.5 percent of the growing season. This percentage was selected based upon reference
wetland groundwater modeling described below and guidance from the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for the
wetland impact distance with data for the following variables 1) equivalent hydraulic
conductivity, 2) drainable porosity, 3) an estimated depth to the impermeable layer or aquiclude,
4) the time duration of the drawdown, 5) target water table depth (one foot below the soil
surface), and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) values were estimated using published conductivity data in the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Skaggs et al. 2002) and the Robeson County soil survey (USDA
1978). The soil layer depths were obtained from descriptions in the Robeson County soil survey
and were verified in the field. Drainable porosity was determined using published data (Skaggs
et al. 1986) and records maintained by the USDA-NRCS National STATSGO database (Map
Unit User File [MUUF] computer program). The depth to aquiclude was obtained from
published values for the Trebloc (Coxville) series (Skaggs et al. 1986).
The time variable, t, is based on 12.5 percent of the Robeson County growing season or 31 days.
For the purpose of this study, the growing season is defined as the period between March 14 and
November 14 (USDA 1978). Values for the function F(D,H), defined as a function of ditch
depth, water table depth, and depth to the aquiclude, were taken from plotted numerical solutions
to the Boussinesq Equation (Figure 2j, Skaggs 1976), where D = d/h0 and H = h/h0. The
variable d is defined as the ditch elevation above the aquiclude. The variable h0 is the distance
from the surface to the aquiclude. The variable h is equal to the height after drawdown for the
water above the aquiclude at distance X from the ditch. For the purposes of this analysis, h was
defined as the distance between the aquiclude and a point 1 foot below the surface. Minimum
ditch depths were determined during cross-sectional analysis of agricultural field ditches.
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was used to model the zone of wetland loss resulting from the addition of the
agricultural field ditches and channel incision. This zone was estimated by determining the
threshold drain spacing of parallel ditches that would result in the area adjacent to the ditches
meeting the wetland hydrology criterion in just over one-half of the years simulated. Ditches
spaced any closer than this threshold distance would result in the entire area between the ditches
experiencing a loss of wetland hydrology. If ditches were spaced further apart than the threshold
distance, there would be a strip between the ditches which would still meet wetland hydrology
criteria. One-half of this threshold spacing provides an estimate of the drainage effect on each
side of a single agricultural field ditch. This application of the model recognizes that the water
table midway between two ditches spaced at the threshold spacing will be lower (i.e., the soil at
that point will be drier) than would be the case at the same distance from a single ditch (i.e., at a
IUD c~ ASSCICI~7"ExS, P. C. Page 17
C`o»sultitrcr ~ngincers
t

t.'c~c~trG~ct No. l -I~t}fit}
6 38
13~•c?i~°r~ :~~larsh ~~~~an~l~ I~estoratic~n Site, [~ok~esc~n Cc~c~r~ty, tortll Caroli~~a
I~EST(:)IZArI~IC)N PLAN
distance of one-half the threshold spacing from a single ditch). This results in a conservative
estimate of drainage impacts for a single ditch to the adjacent groundwater table. A second ditch
parallel to the first ditch at the threshold distance would cut off seepage from the zone beyond
the threshold distance and permit greater groundwater table drawdown at the midpoint than
would occur if this second ditch were not present. Therefore, the width of the strip of land that
would experience hydrologic conversion from wetland to upland hydraulic conditions would be
less than a distance equal to one-half the threshold spacings.
Wetland hydrology is defined for DRAINMOD as groundwater within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 31 consecutive days during the growing season in Robeson County (USDA 1978).
Wetland hydrology is achieved m the model if target hydropenods are met for one-half of the
years modeled (i.e. 31 out of 62 years).
Additional in uts for soil arameters and relationshi s derived from soil water characteristic data
p p p
such as the groundwater table depth/volume drained/upflux relationship, Green-ampt parameters,
and the water content/matric suction relationship were obtained from published values (Skaggs et
al. 1986). Hydraulic conductivities and ditch depths were calculated as described above.
Surface depressional storage was estimated from published ranges (Skaggs et al. 1994 and
Skaggs 1980) after visiting the Site. Drainage coefficients for the ditches were calculated based
on formulas provided with DRAINMOD.
Weather data fora 62-year period was obtained for Plymouth, North Carolina in Washington
County. Potential evapotranspiration rates were calculated based on Thornthwaite's method and
adjusted using monthly factors derived from more reliable average values for crop
evapotranspiration for the Coastal Plain known from Washington County. The DRAINMOD
simulation was conducted for the time period from 1933 through 1994.
5.2.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results
Reference Wetland Model
For development of reference wetland standards, modeling was performed to predict historic
wetland hydroperiods (as a percentage of the growing season) in various undrained conditions.
The reference model was developed by effectively eliminating the influence of ditching and
forecasting the average hydroperiod over the number of years modeled. Two iterations were
performed to evaluate changes in wetland hydroperiod between 1) old field (post-farmland)
stages of wetland development and 2) forested stages of wetland development.
Old field stages of wetland development were simulated by modifying soil drainage
characteristics such as rooting functions in proximity to the B (clay) horizon, A horizon (plow
layer) hydraulic conductivity, and water storage capacity within the plow layer. The old field
model provides a hypothetical approximation of the potential hydroperiod exhibited immediately
after channel restoration is conducted and drainage networks are removed.

Kt7 cfc ASSUCIATE.S, P. C. Page 18
C'
l
G
t
anstr
ting
rr~inzers
In
u

Ll
J
1
ii
it

it

t
r
('al~tr~lct '~c7. 1 fi-I)t)fit)38
13ro14'll ~~l~lrsh SvV~aml~ Restoration Site, :[Z~>P~~;son C'a~~llT~-. ~c~rtl~ C"aroiixla
Forested stages were modeled to predict wetland hydroperiods that may occur within reference
(relatively undisturbed) wetlands in the region. The reference forest model is expected to
provide a projection of wetland hydroperiods and associated functions that may be achieved over
the long term (10 or more years) as a result of wetland restoration activities and steady state
forest conditions. The steady state model application assumes increases in rooting functions,
organic matter content, and water storage capacity relative to post-farmland periods.
The reference model predicts that, in Trebloc soils, old field stages of wetland development
exhibit an average wetland hydroperiod encompassing 17 percent of the growing season,
respectively, over the years modeled (Table 6). This average hydroperiod translates to free water
within 1 foot of the soil surface fora 42 day period. During the 62-year modeling period,
reference wetland hydroperiods exhibited a range extending from less than 6 percent (61 out of
62 years) to more than 30 percent (1 out of 62 years) of the growing season, dependent upon
rainfall patterns (Table 6).
Table 6. DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod
Duration of the Growing Number of Years Wetland H drolo Achieved 62- ear eriod
Season Wetland Hydrology Trebloc
Achieved Old Field Sta e* Forested Sta a**
2 % 5 da s 62 62
4 % 10 da s 62 62
6% 15da s 61 62
8 % 20 da s 58 62
10 % 25 da s 53 62
12 % 29 da s 52 62
14 % 34 da s 45 62
16 % 39 da s 36 59
18 % 44 da s 27 50
20 % 49 da s 14 48
22 % 54 da s 9 46
24 % 59 da s 4 42
26 % 64 da s 3 37
28 % 69 da s 3 32
30 % 74 days 1 27
* Old Field Stage -immediately after backfilling and plugging ditches; relatively low surface water storage
** Forested Stage - 10 or more years after restoration; relatively high surface water storage
As surface topography, rooting, roughness, and storage variables increase during successional
phases, the model predicts that hydroperiods will increase to steady state forest conditions with
an average wetland hydroperiod of 28 percent in Trebloc soils over the 62 years modeled (Table
6). The average hydroperiod translates to free water within 1 foot of the soil surface fora 69-day
period in Trebloc soils. The hydroperiod ranges from 14 percent to more than 30 percent during
the 62 year period dependent upon rainfall patterns. Therefore, the reference model suggests that
groundwater fluctuations must be tracked within a reference wetland site to accurately assess a
target hydroperiod for any given year.
K{7 c~ A.S'.SOCIrI fiE.~, P. C. Page 19
C t~nsttCtin~r Gnsrinc:+~rs

(`oz~tz-~~~°t ~<~. li-1_~{iti{}~i2~
I3~-o~~-:~ ?L~larsh ~.c~atn~ R~°:tor~ition Site, I~f>l~~;sc~~~ C`o~sat~%, `c~rtl~ C:'arc~lina
As described above, the average wetland hydroperiod in Trebloc soils is forecast to exhibit a
gradual increase from approximately 14 percent of the growing season immediately after Site
implementation to as much as 28 percent under steady state forest conditions. A gradual increase
in hydroperiods may suggest that water storage capacity (rooting functions, organic
materials/debris accumulation, microtopography, etc.) exhibits a significant effect on
maintenance of wetland hydrology in on-Site wetlands. In old field stages of succession,
accelerated runoff may occur within the compacted soil surfaces. For purposes of this
preliminary model, runoff is assumed to occur at accelerated rates which reduce the influence of
evapotranspiration on wetland hydrodynamics. This accelerated drainage .would be expected to
decrease as successional vegetation colonizes the Site.
Because wetland hydroperiods during old field stages of wetland development are projected to
extend for approximately 14 percent of the growing season, wetland monitoring plans that extend
for afive-year period after restoration should utilize a minimum 12.5 percent wetland hydrology
criteria to substantiate restoration success. Alternatively, hydroperiods within the restored
wetland area may be compared to the reference wetland, with success criteria stipulating that
restored wetland hydroperiods must exceed 75 percent of the wetland hydroperiod exhibited by
reference.
Methods ma be em to ed to increase coin lexi in the soil surface A-horizon low la er
Y p Y P tY ( p Y)
during restoration activities. These modifications, including woody debris deposition and soil
scarification, may increase water storage capacity across the surface of relatively impermeable
layers (B-horizon surface). If water storage is not adequately established during early stages of
wetland development, marginal or non-wetland conditions may occur in elevated areas of the
Site. Invariably, rooting influences on water storage capacity will require an extended period of
forest development to establish (assumed to be greater than 10 years).
Existing Site Conditions
Groundwater models were utilized to forecast the maximum zone of ditch and incised stream
influence on jurisdictional wetland hydroperiods. The maximum zone of influence may be used
to predict the area of wetland hydrological restoration that may result due to Site
implementation. In addition, the model provides an estimate of the area that may continue to be
degraded in perpetuity by remaining ditches used to drain adjacent agricultural fields. Ditch
depths and spacing were varied in the model until wetland hydroperiods were reduced relative to
the reference groundwater model predictions.
Both the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD have an ability to support different ditch
morphology and features, suggesting that use of these methods in evaluation of drainage impacts
from agricultural field ditches and stream channel incision is applicable with proper data inputs.
Performing a comparison of output from both models is recommended due to output predictions
typically within the lower limits (Boussinesq Equation) and upper limits (DRAINMOD) of the
range of drainage influence likely to occur in real world conditions. Groundwater model results
are presented in Table 7.
K(? cft ASSC1ClATES, P. C. Page 20
C'crnsrdting ~ra~iri~czr;r ~,
1

1

A

e

1
t
1
v

t"t~t~trt~~t'4c~, 1Ei-1~()(~(l38
I3t•c~~~~l~ l;I~~rsl~ `~~~r~n~p l~e:~oratic~r~ ~itc, 3i~>l~esi>n C:'~3t~~~t~, Norti~ C'arc~lit~a
1~:1?`~"l-(}It~~rl"it)~I F'1_:.~N
Table 7_ Resnltc fnr the 7,nne of Tnfluence and Wetland i,oss for Trebloc Soils
Zone of Influence fee t

Ditch Depth (feet)
Boussines E nation DRAINMOD
Model* Drainage Impact Used
for this Stud
2 52 159 105
3 83 193- 138
5 86 238 162
*Zone of influence equal to half of the modeled ditch spacing.
The Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD model predict a range of influence on the
jurisdictional wetland hydroperiod (12.5 percent of growing season) of 83 to 193 feet of lateral
zone of influence fora 3-foot ditch (Table 5). The Boussinesq Equation value is expected to be
at the low end of the drainage impact and the DRAINMOD model value is expected to be at the
high end of the drainage impact. Therefore, an average value for drainage impact was calculated
from the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD results. As the Site succeeds towards steady
state forest conditions, the zone of potential wetland loss is expected to be reduced due to
projected, lower infiltration and runoff rates.
Groundwater model simulations for existing conditions indicate that approximately 5.0 acres of
hydric Trebloc soils within the Site are below jurisdictional wetland hydrology criteria and are
considered effectively drained due to the groundwater drawdown from relocation, dredging,
straightening, and rerouting of onsite streams; ditching of fields; annual plowing; and removal of
vegetation (Table 7 and Figure 11, Appendix A). Of these effectively drained areas,
groundwater model simulations indicate that jurisdictional wetland hydrology will be restored as
the result of Site restoration activities to approximately 5.0 acres of existing agricultural fields
within the Site (Figure 12, Appendix A). Figure 12 depicts the area of nonriverine wetland
restoration and the location of a relocated ditch, which will be required to be relocated.
Jurisdictional hydrology will be restored through groundwater. Surface water from the adjacent
stream restoration on the Northern UT is not expected to influence hydrology with the wetland
restoration aspect of the Site. Evidence of this can be found from analyzing bankfull and 100-
year discharge elevations from the restored Northern UT to existing elevations within the
wetland restoration area. Bankfull elevations of the Northern UT directly adjacent to the wetland
restoration are between 135.4 and 136.4 feet above mean sea level (msl). 100-year flood
elevations of the Northern UT in the same location are between 138.7 and 139.1 feet above msl.
Elevations within the proposed non-riverine wetland restoration range from 138 to 139 feet
above msl. So, as shown by these data, surface water flows from the Northern UT will only
reach the proposed wetland restoration area when flood levels approach a 100-year storm.
It should be noted that construction activities will restore ground water hydrology to a minimum
of 8.0 acres of existing agricultural fields. These lands, along with additional acreage of
agricultural fields, will be preserved under a separate conservation easement and are not
considered part of the conservation easement for this Site.
K(J & A.S~SOCIATE.S, P. C. Page 21
Cortnrltirtg{~rrgitners
t

~'t~ntr~~et ~c,.:l6-I.~t)f~(}3
t3ro~~~~~ ~L~larsl~ S~~°ar~~la Restoration `~itc. Iic~t~esc~n C ~~t~~~ty, ~c~rti~ t:"aroli~~a
1~1 `~'I~(~1Z1'1~141C?N ['LAi`~'
5.3 Soil Characterization
Onsite verification and ground-truthing of county soil survey map units were conducted in
November 2006 by Grant Lewis, a licensed soil scientist, to refine soil map units and to locate
inclusions. Verification of hydric soil limits within the Site can be found in Figures 11 and/or 12
(Appendix A). Systematic transects were established and sampled to ensure proper coverage.
Soils were sampled for color, texture, consistency, and depth at each documented horizon.
5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
Detailed soil mapping indicates that hydric soils of the Trebloc series encompass approximately
5.0 acres within the Site. Soils of the Trebloc series are characterized by light gray to dark gray
with mottles consisting of silty loam textured surface soils underlain by loamy clay, clay loam,
or sandy clay loam textured soils. In general, areas of hydric soils of the Trebloc series have ,
been disturbed by ditching within agricultural fields, deforestation; and soil compaction due to
annual plowing. Based on preliminary studies, onsite soils of the Trebloc series appear to have
historically supported jurisdictional wetlands with groundwater hydrology driven primarily by
lateral migration of groundwater and surface flows.
5.3.2 Profile Description
A typical soil profile from onsite verification and ground-truthing conducted by a licensed soil
scientist for Trebloc soils within the Site proposed for nonriverine wetland restoration and
enhancement is as follows.
- 0-5 inches 2.SY 4/1 silt loam
- 5-11 inches 2.SY 4/1 loamy clay
- 11-24 inches 2.SY 6/1 sandy loam with mottles of 2.SY 4/1
- 24+ inches 2.SY 6/1 clay with mottles of 2.SY 6/6
5.4 Plant Community Characterization
Existing vegetation within proposed nonriverine wetland restoration areas is composed entirely
of agricultural row crops that contain no natural vegetation due to constant tillage and planting of
harvestable crops.
J
t

Kt? cl'C ASSOCIATES, A. C'. Page 22
Corxsrrlting Engineers
t

i~
u
1

1
I!
[~

1

1
i
1
C:`ot~tract '~ o. l Ei-1)Ofit}3
t31•oc~-tt Marsh ~~-vat~~l~ l~esior~ttior~ ~it:~, IZc:>t~esc~rt (.`c~ttttty, North t:am1i11a
6.0 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference
Forest Ecosystem (RFE) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on
which to model restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs
should be ecologically stable climax communities and should be a representative model of the
Site forested ecosystem as it probably existed prior to human disturbances. Quantitative data
describing plant community composition and structure should be collected at the RFEs and
subsequently applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a natural climax community.
Table 8. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Number of Relative
Frequency Relative
Basal Area Relative
Importance
Tree Species Individuals De ~oity * (%) Freq~ency * (ft~/acre) Basal Value
* (°) (°) Area (%)
Red maple 9 17.6 67 10.6 27.7 16.8 0.15
(Ater rubrum)
Ironwood 6 11.8 67 10.6 2.4 1.4 0.08
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Ash 7 13.7 33 5.2 16.2 9.9 0.10
(Fraxinus sp.)
American holly 1 2.0 33 5.2 0.5 0.3 0.02
(Ilex opaca)
Sweetgum 2 3.9 67 10.6 4.2 2.6 0.06
(Liquidambar styraciflua)
Tulip poplar 6 11.8 33 5.2 38.1 23.2 0.13
(Liriodendron tulipifera)
Water tupelo 11 21.6 100 15.8 37.6 22.8 0.20
(Nyssa biflora)
Laurel oak 1 2.0 33 5.2 2.3 1.4 0.03
(Quercus laurifolia)
Swamp chestnut oak 2 3.9 67 10.6 18.5 11.2 0.09
(Quercus nigra)
Water oak 1 2.0 33 5.2 5.8 3.5 0.04
(Quercus nigra)
American elm 2 3.9 33 5.2 7.9 4.8 0.05
(Ulmus americana)
TOTALS 51 100 633 100 165 100 1.00
* Sum of three 0.1-acre plots
One RFE plot for this Site is located in the western end of the Site; two additional RFE plots
were sampled along Ashpole Swamp near NC 130 approximately two miles southeast of the Site
(Figure 8, Appendix A). The RFEs support plant community and landform characteristics that
restoration efforts will attempt to emulate. The three circular plots described above were 0.1-
acre in size and were randomly established within the two reference areas. Data collected within
KO c~C AS,SlJC1A~E.S, P. C. Page 23
C'orts~rltiri~; Gar~ir~cers
1

(`c~t~trt~ct '~ c3. 1 Ei-I~(}F~() ~ 8
13~-~~z~-~~ Marsh 5~~=a~~313 l~estcjratic~n `site, l~c~l~~;st}~~ C`~'~~nty, ~ortl~ Carolina
IZl~ `'s 1`{ 7RA~11C)"eT I'Lt~~.I
each plot include 1) tree species composition; 2) number of stems for each tree species; 3)
diameter at breast height (DBH) for each tree species; and 4) a list of understory species. Data
for the three 0.1-acre plots were combined for the above table, which indicates importance values
of dominant tree species calculated based on relative density, dominance, and frequency of tree
species composition (Smith 1980). Hydrology, surface topography, and habitat features were
also evaluated. Forest vegetation is dominated by water tupelo, red maple, and tulip poplar.
Understory species within the RFE include canopy species as well as red bay, Amencan holly,
Carolina laurel cherry, red mulberry, southern arrow-wood, possumhaw, Virginia willow,
highbush blueberry, coastal doghobble, poison ivy, yellow jessamime, greenbriers, and several
fern species. Several species in the vicinity of the reference plots, which may have histoncally
occurred within the Site, include bald cypress, cottonwood, box elder, sweet pepperbush, and
American beautyberry.

I
r

r
~~
_,
`r~
I

It'C1 & ASS~C'IATES, fP. C Page 24
r
C`orzsultin~~n~ineers :

Caz~tr~~ct?~t~. !fi-1:3(}fi{)_iK
13~•owr~i ~Ylarsh Sl~=an~p 1estoration Site, Ctoh~,son C;u~~nty, Norte t_arolina
RF `~ 1 C31~ th`T`lC)~~ 1'I~AN
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of this restoration plan include I) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions within, upstream and downstream of the Site
3) creation of a natural vegetated buffer along restored stream channels; 4) restoration of
~usnsdictional nonriverine wetlands in the Site; 5) improvement of aquatic habitat and species
diversity by enhancing stream bed variability; and 6) restoration of wildlife functions associated
with a riparian corridor/stable stream.
The proposed restoration plan is expected to restore 5,004 linear feet of stream using two UTs to
Contrary Swamp (Northern UT and Southern UT), and restore 5.0 acres of nonriverine wetland.
Components of this plan may be modified based on construction or access constraints.
Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1) stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration, 3)
soil scarification, and 4) plant community restoration.

I~
l~

r

7.1.1 Stream Restoration
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new location
that approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to
reference conditions. Geomorphic attributes for the existing channels, proposed channels, and
reference channels are listed in the Morphologic Tables (Appendix B). Proposed conditions for
the Northern and Southern UT's (plan view and profile) are depicted on Figures 13 through 20
(Appendix A}.
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan are expected to be developed during
the next phase of this project. Erosion control will be performed locally throughout the Site and
will be incorporated into construction sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Site are
unconsolidated, alluvial sediments, which do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance; therefore,
seeding with appropriate grasses and immediate planting with disturbance-adapted shrubs will be
employed following the earth-moving process. In addition, onsite root mats (seed banks) and
vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed after disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed
to minimize land disturbance to the maximum extent feasible. The number of transportation
access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long distances through
the Site's interior.
~'(1 cox ASSt~CI~ITE~S. F.G' Page 25
C'onsulydr~~ ~n~rtreers

C'c~ntr~~ct No. lEi-DOfi{.)~~
Ero~~:~Yi Marsh Soy°a3~~1~ Restoration Site,lL~~beson C`o~u~ty, North Carolina
1tLSTC~Rr~`I'I£)i"~~ l'I.~At4i
7.1.1.1 Channel Structures
Stream restoration using natural channel design techniques typically involves the use of in-
stream structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat enhancement. Two primary
instream structures (rootwads and log sills) will be used for grade control and habitat
enhancement.
Rootwads will be used to enhance aquatic cover and introduce woody material mto the stream
channel. Rootwads are also used on low energy systems to provide a natural,. temporary means
of bank protection.
Log sills will be used for grade control in both the Northern and Southern UT's. Log sills will
provide a means of dropping stream channel inverts by 0.5 foot increments through the Site so
that required bankfull slopes can be maintained. Log sills provide a secondary function of
introducing woody material into the stream channel, while also providing minimal shading
opportunities.
7.1.1.2 Culverted Channel Crossing
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of one Culverted crossing across the
Northern UT to allow access to portions of the property isolated by the conservation easement.
The approximate location of the proposed crossing is depicted on Figure 15 (Appendix A).
7.1.2 Wetland Restoration/Enhancement
Alternatives for wetland restoration/enhancement are designed to restore a fully functioning
nonriverine wetland system, which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal
of imported elements and compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife
habitat. Restoration activities are expected to restore 5.0 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine
wetlands (Figure 12, Appendix A).
Portions of the Site proposed for restoration are underlain by hydric soils and have been
impacted by vegetative clearing, ditching of agricultural fields, and annual plowing of surficial
soils. Wetland restoration options will focus on 1) the reestablishment of historic water table
elevations, 2) excavation and grading of elevated spoil, and 3) reestablishment of hydrophytic
vegetation.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
Hydric soils within the interstream flat proposed for restoration/enhancement have been drained
due to lowering of the groundwater tables and a lateral drainage effect from existing agricultural
ditches. Filling of these agricultural ditches is expected to rehydrate and restore jurisdictional
hydrology to 5.0 acres of nonriverine wetlands within the Site.
KO cl'C ASSOCIATES, f'. C. Page 26
C`vnsirlti:~~ Gnxirreers ~,
r

t

A

1

1
t

('c~utract'tio. l ti-130f~{}~K
I3ror~~r~ 'Marsh ~1-~~a~j~i-r I~es~oratic~n `~itc:, l~obeso~i Cou~~t_y~, North t=arolina
RF?ST(3RArl`(OTai [~I_:r1N
Excavation and Grading of Elevated Spoil
Any areas of elevated spoil will be removed from wetland restoration/enhancement areas.
Hydrophytic Ve etg ation
Onsite wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as land
clearing, annual plowing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will be
revegetated with native forest species typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis
will focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage.
7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
7.2.1 Methodology
Both the Northern and Southern UTs are characterized by sand bed substrates mixed with
detritus. A stream power analysis was used as the primary tool, rather than a shear stress
analysis, to study the capacity of both stream channels to transport their respective sediment
loads. To determine if the restoration design stream power will adequately convey sediment
loads, analyses of existing stream powers, existing conditions that influence stream power,
reference stream powers, and proposed conditions stream powers were completed.
7.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
Both the Northern and Southern UTs are classified as Rosgen GS-type streams. Typically, GS-
type stream channels display both channel and bank scour due to increased shear stress and
stream power (channel degradation). However, neither the Northern nor Southern UT exhibit
natural channel degradation. As previously stated the channel is regularly maintained for
agricultural practices, which seems to be the cause for most of the existing channel degradation.
A major concern for this project was to determine why the channel substrate contained detritus,
which may indicate that the existing channel is aggrading, rather than degrading. It was found
that detritus within the substrate is due to consistent blockages from beaver dams and massive
amounts of debris, such as straw bails, within the channel. Both the beaver dams and other
blockages are temporary, but cause backwater effects within the channel, even during low flows.
This, in turn, decreases stream power even more so than under normal flowing conditions, which
leads to the deposition of sticks and leaf litter.
Stream power values obtained from onsite may not provide accurate data to determine a stable
stream power, due to channel obstructions. However, for documentation purposes, cross-
sections from both the Northern and Southern UT's were completed and existing stream power
determined. Existing channel cross-sections were taken in areas of the channel that seemed to
exhibit the least amount of influence from downstream channel obstructions. However, both are
influenced from backwater effects; therefore, calculated stream powers may not depict accurate
existing conditions because of the effect of backwater during bankfull and higher flows. The
existing unit stream power for the Northern UT is 0.10 pounds per foot-second and for the
Southern is UT 0.01 pounds per foot-second.
K(? & ASSC)CIAT~S, P. C. Page 27
C`o»srrlting~ngnCers

i
l3ro~~-n :L1~tr~:l3 ~~:~~a~ni~ Re~toratit~r~ `site, I~~?:?e~»~ C`c~t~nt~', ~c>rt13 C ~trolina
The reference unit stream power was obtained from the UT to Ironhill Branch. The UT to
Ironhill Branch, which has a slope similar to the design slope for both the Northern and Southern
UTs, displays a unit stream power of 0.08 pounds per foot-second. The proposed unit stream
power for the Northern UT is 0.10 pounds per foot-second and for the Southern UT is 0.12
pounds per foot-second. Both proposed unit stream powers are similar to the reference unit
stream power obtained from the UT to Ironhill Branch. From this, it is discerned that the
proposed unit stream power for both the Northern and Southern UT's will adequately convey
sediment loads during bankfull and higher events.
7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
Given that the project involves modifications to a stream channel, it is important to analyze the
effect of these changes on flood elevations. Floodwater elevations were analyzed using HEC- ,
RAS. HEC-1ZAS is a software package designed to perform one-dimensional, steady flow,
analysis of water surface profiles for a network of natural and constructed channels.
HEC-RAS uses two equations, energy and/or momentum, depending upon the water surface
profile. The model is based on the energy equation. The energy losses are evaluated by friction
(Manning's equation) and contraction expansion (coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity
head). The momentum equation is used in situations where the water surface profile rapidly
varies, such as hydraulic jumps and stream junctions.
Backwater analysis was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for both bankfull
and 100-year discharges. In addition to steady flow data, geometric data is also required to run
HEC-RAS. Geometric data consists of establishing the connectivity of the river system, which
includes cross-section data, reach lengths, energy loss coefficients (friction losses, contraction,
and expansion losses), and stream junction information.
7.3.1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Discharge rates for the design have been evaluated with data obtained from onsite conditions and
compared with Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain
Streams [regional curve] (Doll et al. 2006). The bankfull discharge for the Northern UT is 18.1
cubic feet per second and for the Southern UT is 4.9 cubic feet per second. The existing and
proposed geometries were evaluated at the bankfull discharge rates using HEC-RAS (USAGE
2004). The analysis supports the field identification of the existing bankfull area within a close
approximation and confirms the proposed channel will adequately carry the discharge at bankfull
stage.
7.3.2 No-Rise
Analyses were performed for the existing and proposed conditions for the bankfull and 100-year
discharges. Geometric data and steady flow data are both required to run HEC-RAS. The 100-
year discharges were determined using the USGS Coastal Plain Rural Regression Equations
(USGS et al. 1996). The bankfull discharge was determined using onsite indicators and
KC) clt AS.SDCIAT`ES, P.C. Page 28
`~ Cururrltir~z ~ar~ix~eers ~,
t

(:`c~trt~ct Vic?. 1~-I)(}(~(.}3S
13t•o~~~~~~ ~L-larch ~ti~~an~~ l~es~oration Site, Rol~~c5on C`t~ttntti, :~irtl~ { arolina
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams [regional
curve] (Doll et al. 2006).
Geometric data consists of establishing the connectivity of the river system. Such data includes:
cross-sectional data, reach lengths, energy loss coefficients (friction losses, contraction and
expansion losses), and stream junction information.
The analysis indicates that the proposed channel geometry would not increase the 100-year flood
elevations outside of the project area (Appendix G).
7.3.3 Hydrologic Trespass
Hydrologic trespass is a term that describes hydrological consequences to properties outside the
boundaries of the Site. Such issues as increased surface flooding frequency, or deprivation of
surface or groundwater within adjacent parcels due to hydrological design modifications at the
Site can take place if the design fails to address hydrological trespass. After studying the
potential for hydrologic tress pass it has been determined that onsite modifications associated
with this project will not affect off site hydrology.
7.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices
A BMP in the form of a Stormwater wetland will be placed in a large agricultural drainage ditch
at its convergence with the Northern UT. The drainage ditch has a watershed area of
approximately 50 acres, almost all of which is in agricultural (row crops) land. The Stormwater
wetland will help to enhance water quality by reducing the amount of nutrients, including
phosphorous, nitrogen, and heavy metals from Stormwater flows. Construction of the
Stormwater wetland is a voluntary effort on the part of Restoration Systems to improve water
quality and habitat for waters within, and downstream of, the Site. No mitigation credits are
expected to be received from this effort.
7.5 Soil Restoration
7.5.1 Topsoil Stockpiling
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoils may be stockpiled during
construction activities and will be spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade has been
established. The replaced topsoil will serve as a viable growing medium for community
restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of planted species.
7.5.2 Floodplain 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. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface
microtopography will be implemented; in areas where soil surfaces have been compacted,
_ ripping or scarification will be performed. After construction, the soil surface is expected to
/t'~ cl'C AS.SCJCIATES, P. C Page 29
Corurd#ir1~,~,Grr,~irr~crs
L__J

13rc~~~~~ ~larsl-i ~~~-as~~t~ 12~,~tor.~tion ~itc, Rc~l~iso~~ £',~~~~~t~~•, ~c~rtl~ Carolina
exhibit complex microtopography ranging to one foot in vertical asymmetry. Subsequently,
plant community restoration will be initiated.
7.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of the interstream flat (nonriverine wetland restoration), floodplain, side slopes and
stream-side habitat allows for development and expansion of characteristic species across the ,
landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide
secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds,
amphibians, and other wildlife.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were ,
used to develop primary plant community associations that will be promoted during community
restoration activities. Community descriptions of the RFE closely resemble a Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest community (Schafale and Weakley 1990), which most closely resembles
nonriverine areas within the Site. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are typically located on
poorly drained interstream flats not associated with a stream that are seasonally saturated or
flooded by high water tables, poor drainage, or sheet flow from adjacent areas.
Ve etative s ecies resent within the RFE also comes and with s ecies of a Coastal Plain Small
g p p p P
Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) community, which occurs on alluvial floodplains of small
blackwater streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded such as riverine
areas within the Site.
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests of the interstream flat grade to Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamps at the head of drainages within the Site. Despite the landscape position difference
between riverine and nonriverine areas of the Site, vegetative communities are similar and will
be combined when developing the primary plant community associations. Community
associations that will be utilized to develop primary plant community associations include 1)
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest and 2) stream-side
assemblage (Sheet 21, Appendix A). Planting elements are listed below.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamn/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
3. Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
4. American elm (Ulmus americana)
5. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
6. Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
7. Silky dogwood (Corms amomum)

I~Q cfz ASSCICIATES, jP.C Page 30
{:onszrltirz~ ~ns~necrs
r

ii
t
1

t

fi

t
r
t

{'t~t~tr~tct'4c~. 1 fi-I~)Ofi{}a8
Lii°c?~~~1~ ~-1ar51~ `~e~=a~~~l~ IZc,Stc~ratic~n ~itc, I~f~l~esclat C'ottrtt~~.~c~rtlt C4a~•~alit~a
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Silky dogwood (Corms amomum)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
4. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Stream-side assemblage trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment
stabilization, rapid growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with
bankfull flow and overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted from the
toe of slope of the restored channel to the top of slope of the restored channel. Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest is targeted for the majority of the Site
including the floodplain, floodplain slopes, terrace, and nonriverine wetland restoration area.
7.6.1 Planting Plan
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Bare-
root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side
assemblage will be planted at a density of 2,720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 9
depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association.
Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Approximately 12,900 bare-root
seedlings and 2,850 shrub species will be planted during restoration.
Table 9. Planting Plan

Vegetation
Association Small Stream
Swamp/Nonriverine Wet
Hardwoods

Stream-side Assembla a

TOTAL
Area acres 19.00 1.05 20.05

S ecies Number
lanted*
% of total Number
lanted**
% of total
Number lanted
Swamp chestnut oak 2,580 20 -- -- 2,580
Laurel oak 2,580 20 -- -- 2,580
Cherrybark oak 2,580 20 -- -- 2,580
American elm 2,580 20 -- -- 2,580
Green ash 903 7 -- -- 903
Sweetbay 903 7 -- -- 903
Silky dogwood 774 6 855 30 1,629
Black willow -- -- 855 30 855
Buttonbush -- -- 570 20 570
Elderberry -- -- 570 20 570
TOTAL 12,900 100 2,850 100 15,750
'~ Planted at a density of 62SU stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2,720 stems/acre.
h'C) cl'c ASSCICL~? TES, P. G' Page 31
Cvns~trltitr~ Grr~inetrs

} _ ~
t ontrat :~c . 1 b .I)(N~()_ 8
L~rc?E~.r~ 'Marsh S~~~a~~1-~ lZestc~a~ation Site, Robeson t otinty. Norti~ t"aroli~~a
Rt ST~t3[~r~Tlt)~ 1'I~f1N
7.6.2 Invasive Species Management
Noxious species will be identified and controlled so that none become dominant or alter the
desired community structure of the Site. If noxious plants are identified as a problem within the
Site, the Restoration Systems Team will develop aspecies-specific control plan for approval by
EEP prior to implementation.
Through coordination with EEP during the five-year monitoring period, the Restoration Systems '
Team, where necessary, will remove, treat, or otherwise manage undesirable plant or animal
species, including physical removal, use of herbicides, live trapping, confining wires, or nets.
All vegetation removal from the Site shall be done by mechanical means only unless EEP has
first authorized the use of herbicides or algaecides for the control of plants in or immediately ,
adjacent to the Site.

KC? c~C ASSOGIATE.~, P. C. Page 32
`
~
'~ C`~ansultirt~ C'a,~ineers
1

e

1

r

t
1
t

C'ontr~~ct '~ o. l Es-1.06{)3 8
L3~°o«~n Marsh Swamp Restoration Site, Rol~e;son C`olanty, forth Carolina
I~:ESTOR.'1T1t3N f'l:_:s~N
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, wetland hydrology, and vegetation. In general,
the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USAGE et al. 2003).
8.1 Streams
The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity. Annual fall
monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools and a water
surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to
be presented will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4)
maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface
slope, and 9) sinuosity. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry
and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and
reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring year. A photographic record that will
include preconstruction and postconstruction pictures has been initiated with current Site
photographs (Appendix C).
8.1.1 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream
system.
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in
channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in
restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the width-to-depth ratio should characterize an
E-type or borderline E-/C-type channel, bank-height ratios indicative of a stable or moderately
unstable channel, and minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width, and/or bank
erosion along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must
not occur and sinuosity values must remain relatively constant. The field indicator of bankfull
will be described in each monitoring year and indicated on a representative channel cross-section
figure. If the stream channel is down-cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank
erosion, additional bank or slope stabilization methods will be employed.
Stream substrate is not expected to coarsen over time; therefore, pebble counts are not proposed
as part of the stream success criteria.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred.
Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure,
abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
Ii'C? c~ ASSt~C1A7'ES, P. C. Page 33
Carutrltin~+En~;irrcers
1

Contr~~ct'~o. 1Ei- )()fi03S
I3rol~~n ~•larsh S~~ra1~~P Restoration Site, l~c~besc~n C:'o~~nty, ~torth Carolina.
8.1.2 Stream Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair
and/or installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank
stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that
are not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream
success, include 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank
erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired, maintained,
or replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent
stream banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact,
but exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer will be repaired by excavating a
trench on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings.
Structures which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of header/footer, will
be removed and replaced with a structure suitable for Site flows.
Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through measurements
[i.e. bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing
damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded
through the installation of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or log cross-vane
weir) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel
repairs to stream geometry may include channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the
material with erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs within the Site, resulting in elevated width-to-depth
ratios, contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be
implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may include the installation of log-vane weirs
and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or
channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable
values.
8.2 Wetlands
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within the Site and on a reference site to
monitor groundwater hydrology. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing
season at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit
(USEPA 1990).
h'O c~ ASSOCIff DES, P. C. Page 34
ConsulttnA~ Engr~ieers

it

a

1

I3rc?`a.n'L~1a~51s S~~a~i~i~ Restoration `site, IZola~,sf~~~ Cc>~~nty, Itiortlt Carolina
lit `~"i'(_~Itt1`1°lC.>ti I'I,A
8.2.1 Wetland Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent
' within Trebloc soils (nonriverine wetlands) of the growing season, during average climatic
conditions. This value is based on DRAINMOD simulations for 62 years of rainfall data in an
old field stage. These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland
parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional
determination will be performed in these areas.
8.2.2 Wetland Contingency
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including
construction of ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in
support of jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
8.3 Vegetation
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant survival and species
diversity. After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will
be performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and
density. Supplemental planting and additional modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between June 1 and September 30, after
each growing season, until the vegetation success criteria are achieved.

r
I
1
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to 41 sample plots (10
meters by 10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site; however, best professional
judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of
construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include
species composition and species density.
8.3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the
density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent
upon density and growth of "Character Tree Species." Character Tree Species include planted
species along with species identified through visual inventory of an approved reference
(relatively undisturbed) forest community used to orient the Site design. All canopy tree species
planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to define "Character Tree Species"
as termed in the success criteria.
IL'C~ c~ A.S'.S~1CIATic:S, PC. Page 35
C'orz~~rrltnh Ln,~n~era
1

Cc~~tr~~i:t Nc~. 16-I.~06{)38
I3rc~i~~n ~~Iarsh St~,raijll~ Restoration tiite, IZcTl~eso~~ C'ol~nty, North t'aroli~~a
lZ:l~ S"TOI~,~rl°IC)~1 PLAN
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be surviving in the first
three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Character Tree Species per acre must be surviving in
year 4 and 260 Character Tree Species per acre in year 5.
8.3.2 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with
tree species approved _ by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as ,
needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria.
8.4 Scheduling and Reporting
A tentative phasing schedule for the proposed project is presented below; certain tasks may be
dependant on seasonal conditions.

1

1
t
K{a ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. page 36
`! Cansultin,~Crr~;inrcrx ~,

(:'oz~tract '~ c?. l (:i-1~Ofi{.} j 8
I=~~•o~~-ri 'Marsh 41~~a~l~l? IZestoratian Site, I~ot~vsc~~~ C;oi~lity, North Carolina
RI:;S"I'C)RA~I`IC)N P1_:.1N
9.0 REFERENCES
Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for Zeigenfuss soil and
Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml 49085.
Doll, B.A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton, and D.A. Bidelspach. 2006. Hydraulic
Geometery Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengston, and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating Subsurface Drainage in the
Lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30(6). (1979-
1688).
Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs, and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a Water Management Model for
a Louisiana Sugar Cane Field. Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists, 4:18-28.
^ Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S.
Geological Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Lumber River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004. Draft North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report). Public Review (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/2004IRCategories4-7.PDF [November 21,
2006]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006a. North Carolina Waterbody
Reports (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-07-SS.pdf [November 21,
2006]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

KO c~ AS.St~C'I,4TE.S, t'.C" Page 37
~'cnsi,Xtlns; Ln~;inrvrr

Cc~ntr~~~t '`vc~. 1.6-I3t}6(}38
Bro«n ~L~larsh Su~aY3~~}~ Restoration Site, [Zobe~on County, North Carolina
IZ F `~`l: (;)RATIO~aI PI:.:Aiv'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006b. Draft North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d)
Report). Public Review (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr. state.ne.us/tmdl/documents/2006303 dListPublicReviewDraft.pdf
[November 21, 2006]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 2003. Lumber River Basin
Watershed Restoration Plan (online). Available:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/Lumber_2003.pdf [November 21, 2006]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
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. 1183 pp.
Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water Management Model Evaluation for Shallow Sandy Soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28(3): 785-790.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Skaggs, R. W. 1976. Determination of the hydraulic conductivity-drainable porosity ratio from
water table measurements. Transactions of the ASAE 19(1): 73-80.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. Drainmod Reference Report. Methods for Design and Evaluation of
Drainage Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. South National Technical Center. Fort Worth, Texas.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.
Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions of
the ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.
Skaggs, R. W., and A. Tabrizi. 1986. Design Drainage Rates for Estimating Drain Spacings in
North Carolina. ASAE Paper Number: 84-2055.

KO cfCC ASSOCIATES, FC.. page 38
C'u~rsultirrf; Gakine4rs
~j

C'ontract'tio. E~-L~06O38
B~•o«~n ~,~Iar~h 5~-~,ran~l-~ I~es~toration Site, R~3beson County, I~TOrtl3 Carolina
I~ESTC)R:'1rI'I~)~i 1'1:AN
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Skaggs, R.W., D. Amatya, R.O Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1994. Characterizations and evaluation
of proposed hydrologic criteria for wetlands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49
(5): 501 - 510.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 2002. Methods to Determine Lateral Effects of a Drainage Ditch on
Wetland Hydrology. ASAE Annual International Meeting / CIGR XVth World
Congress. Paper Number: 020602
Smith, R. L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology, Third Edition. Harper and Row, New York.
835 pp.
Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx, and G. Wyseure. 1987. The Use of Simulation Models to
Evaluate the Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems. Proceedings of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University, pp. A67-A76.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North
Carolina. United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type
Classification (MIST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and
Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North
Carolina.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1996. USGS Coastal Plain Rural Regional Regression
Equation. United States Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.
1

KC1 c~'c A.S'SOCIATE.S, P.G. Page 39
C(J77.Sftklt7~+, IwR,Y,t/l~'G'l ;S

I3~~o~~°t1 L~1~rsh tie-~,~a~~~}~ iZestc~ratic~r~ Site, IZc>l~~;sc}~~ C'c~~~1~t~r, i\c~rti~ t arc~iii~a
I~:~ `~T(~R~'~TIC)~ F'~L<~~r

t

II

t
1
i
APPENDIX A
FIGURES AND DESIGN SHEETS
K{~ c~ ASSCICIATE.S, JP.C.
tonsarlritr~C~~,inerrs

Robeson Count3
North Carolina
PROJE(
0 2000 4000 /~~~
I I I I
FEET
301
501
1137
D
2460
2504
~~~\ 2518
v
2495
501
1139
130
2516
2435
2464
2494 2462
2492
PROJECT
AREA
~ 2465
``~ ~ 2465
~ O~
~0~~ ;~~
~\~~~
C'~ ~`o
oj~~
2492
~~
/ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
(011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
(0/0) 85/-6066
2491 130
2462
2490
Vicinity Map
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: LU8~U7 Figure: 1
2463

1

1

r

r

1

~..
~- ~
--,
~ PJ
V
~
_
-_ r/ r_.
,x)..• 2492 s

~
,'S ;ij,r
'" / /
~ ~
3 ~ ~ ... ~
~
_
249
`
~
.,A 3.01
~

~ - '

.,
I a. ~ _
- -
_
-
__
`
_
~. __ _.~_m_~_.____
~ `
`~ 2465
Lchn

~~~ id3 ~ ~ 1-- ~~ I
,-
~:.
• -
- ~ „
~~~as,
. ~,.
`~
--- ~ ~~t - -
~~ ~ ~
~
~
~
,~ ~~\7 ,' -~ _ -
1

- - ~ ~, Z \
"+` ~` /
1 ~ ~~
\
~' r ~ - ~.- j r
~
- ' ~ ~; .,\ ~ ``~ ~ { ~~. ~~_ __
~
24
~
92
~
#
~
\ y `
Y
~
O
~~ ~
, n
,.
~ .~a ,
~ ~,

i
~~~ "a ~• ' ail ~\ • ~ ~4[O ~~
~`
~- "~
2491

LEGEND / Robeson Coun
ty
Northern UT Watershed North Carolina
(725 Ac.)
Southern UT Watershed
(ll7 Ac.)
Project Area ~~
~ 1000 2000
FEET
Watershed
Map
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. Robeson County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers
Date: l!U$~07 Figure: 2
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
(9/9) 851-6066

LEGEND
0 1000 2000 Sy_mbo_1 Name
~ I ~ I Na - Nahunta
FEET
ExA - Exum
Tr - Trebloc
- Project Area
Soil Survey Map
~ ~ ~ Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulttng Engineers
/0/1 SCHAUB DR., SU[TE #202 RALE/GH, N. C. 27606 DateC 12/06 Figure: 3
[phone]

2465
2492
NORTHERN UT
so \
~~
~T
2491
0 500 1000
FEET
Hydrological Map
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES P.C.
a Consulting Engineers Date: 120506
IOII SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
[phone]
Figure: 4

EXISTING C'~NDITInNS
C
m
w
i
a
N
N
m
f
m
i
a
d
KKw 4~a197
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P,C. FRO1ECf REFERENCE N0.
Coneuldng En$ineera BMS
roll e(xw Da, aurtR rot RUFfGR ncnws PRO1ECf ENGINEER

Moore County
North Carolina
0 2000 4000 REFERENCE
- ~ ~ ~ SITE
FEET
SOUTHERN i
PINES
2026 /_~ G
~~
~'~ I
i / 1
~~
~~
~~ ` ~ r,
2033 ~~~
~~ ~i
~ ~~
L i~
- ~/
I 2042 ~~ ~--- _;i_ ~~,
_~_ - -r ~ _ _~.'-_`_----~ __ 2033
i I i
i ~~ %~ , ~ F
~ ~
~~
,~ - i
.-
2074 ~' '~ ~~
2074 ~'
o: ~
r- G°. ono
;,
~~: `G
~,
2075 '~ ~~- ~ .
.~
i'
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
(9/9) 85/-6066
Reference Site
Vicinity Map
Mill Creek
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: 12U&U6 Figure: 6.1A

1
1

i

t

t
t

1

~
~
~1
\
r'1• ~
~ ~~~
~f
t
`
`'~'
~
`~
•j ~
~1~3 ~}~ ,
11
ri
' V ~ra
~~
~.rj
1~:~1 ~lIN~i.J
•~
i
.. ~
~ r ~_~ ~ ~ 5~ i ' ~

~
1
~ a
,
~ 1 ~~ \ 1 v
J~
~
~
„-
.r
t
')
. 1
)
-
.~ ~ 4 .~ ~,~ ,• ~ ~ )
mss} ~~ ~ ~4
ff
.?
~:~" 9 erg l~
~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~
F ~
~ ti ~
V ~
t : ~ ,
~..% ~ , \ ii ~~~
_ i
'`
~
//,
• y
Q ,
i
~ .'~ {~ ~ i~
~~r. )
~
/
_
~ti•~~) ~ ~`~ `~r~' -i`_''' _ ~-='b-• ~ ,2033 ~~ (_ ' ~°`
' ,~_ -
+~
t ~
/
,/ ~ _ r
'"
' ti' /~
rk ~
`
`
r ~
i
!
~ . - ~~ ~ a, < ~' a
-~', ,!
I
~= ~ }
~
``~ 41
~
, ~
~ Ij ~/~ ' i
i %,•,i

1~~ sy •` ~ .~ ~~
`
r ~~ M1 ~ ~ } ,
t
w `_~ v'~
l.~G ~~~~~ ~1 ~ ,1~ `S 1 _ 207, ~'
~
..rte
i~ ;
Jr ~ ~~
~ ~ Afi ~ I\
~ ~~ ; 1
// }
,.~ 1 1( 1 f~ ~r/~ J-1@' t ~ ~l~I~ 1
~
~
~
1
\
`,.i}~ i ~. of ~
k ( t l.~- ,
` I
`
~
i ~,,~~
~ ~~..o~ '~v~, )~f ~, \''~ J~ (i/..
1r j1 ~ '~ \
~
11 ~~~
l

~ ~,~ ~-- :.207
''f °`''%' 1
/
~..~
~ . i ~ ~~
.r; `~~:.- _ l / ~ r - /' j

=~ ~
0 2000 4000
I~I~I~I~I ~
FEET
Reference Site
LEGEND Moore County
Watershed North Carolina
Project Area
Reference Site
Watershed Map
Mill Creek
~~ ~
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, D
1 .C. Robeson County, North Carolina

a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
~ate7 ~~7
Figure: 6.]B
[phone]

RESTORATION
SYSTEMS, LK
0
QAC
Ag
Pr
j,

Robeson Count
North Carolina
0 2000 4000
I I I ~ I
FGGT
.~
~~
-- ~
1955
~'
1975
REFER
SITE
I~i
1969
1970 ~~~
1963
~', ;%Jl
/j"~
~;:
lj
~/ V
~~~
~~;
1
~°' ~ ~ ~ - -
~\
- - 1963
i
1971
1004
1972
1968
1974
/ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
/01/ SCHAUB DR., SUIZE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
[phone]
Reference Site
Vicinity Map
UT to Wildcat Branch
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: 12i05~06 Figure: 6.2A

1

1

1

t

i!
1

1
t
t
t

~ .~ ~ _ REF NCE
• ~ t
--,~ ~' SIT .

_

_,,,. __
__ .~
m
-- ~---
~~ ~ - ~

~~~~ ~'
~»~~
~ "~ -~
~, l
~. ~ ~` f ~~ 19~i3~~ ,

~

,.---.~ -.,.- ~
f,
; r

.5~ ~, _.~
r
~~

r
.fi-
_

., . ,~~.,
._
,_
~~ ! a ~`
~1~7
~ ~~
Reference Site
/ Robeson County
-- ~~
o soo iooo ~
~
~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' North Carolina ~ ~~~~
FEET
LEGEND
Watershed
Project Area
Reference Site
Watershed Map
UT to Wildcat Branch
' I'
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
/ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C. Robeson county, North Carolina
a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
Date: LU$'~7
Figure: 6.2B
[phone]

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
REFERENCE
SITE
~ 1000 2000
i ~ i
FEET
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
7011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
[phone]
LEGEND
Symbol Name
BB - Bibb
- Project Area
Reference Site
Soil Survey Map
UT to Wildcat Branch
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: 12r05~U6 Figure: 6.2C

Robeson County
North Carolina
0 2000 4000 REFERENCE
SITE
FEET
~_
_~~
"~ ~~~ 2208
,1 ~•~
130 ;
~'
~. ~'~
~~
~ --
~'
2298 '
,~
i
~~ ,
~` ,-
~~_~, ,
2225
->
~~ iii ,-~
~~
~ -
,~"
- ~z
~:
~~
-__~--
\ -_
2255
/ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
[phone]
2234
2232
,~
.~
-~
~_ 1
~' ~ ~ ~ ~
130
i~ ~~~'-
~~~ ~~
2265 ' '~
°~, r'~
2266
2276
Reference Site
Vicinity Map
UT to Hog Swamp
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: 12D5~U6 Figure: 6.3A

i
t
1

t
t
t
t
i~

1

~
I~EFERE~T~~~ ,,_
5
~. 2Z08
'L
SI'T {~ ,
..
}
A ~ }
~. ~4 ~
~t
_.
~,..
t
+t ~t °v.,.w. i A'.~
. y x ~.
~~~a ~ ~ ~ .
.
' u. y. ~` ~ ~tl~
~
~ ~
5 ~~
3
..
~~~~ a ~ n :. e ~ F ~ -~~ .~~ .

_ y~
,. ~ a
. ~ .~ ~ _
' ' ~
~
"' 5iy~ .
~
'~IAli.iy V
"
"
{ .~ ,F 7
al "4rt ~"ze.~
+
~
,~
t
`
~~'6 ' ~y-~ ,~~.w.R'? fry r' VV ' ~ ~~ ~.
' j~ ~ F '
~LL
~ F ~
e~
~~ ~ ~ I
_
I Reference Site
0 250 50o Robeson County
~~T ' ' ' North Carolina
LEGEND
Watershed
Project Area ~~ r'

Reference Site
Watershed Map
UT to Hog Swamp
(~ ~ Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp

~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES P.C. Robeson County, North Carolina
a Consulting Engineers
/01! SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
[phone]
Date: ~$~7
Figure: 6.3B

REFERENCE
SITE
LEGEND
~ 1000 2000
I I I
FEET
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
(0l0) 851-6066
Symbol Name
BB - Bibb
- Project Area
Reference Site
Soil Survey Map
UT to Hog Swamp
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: 12i05~06 Figure: 6.3C

Columbus County
North Carolina
0 2000 4000
FEET
~~
1006 ~
Ne'w Life
~~ ,
1128 ~ ~, 1130
~-
REFERENCE
SITE
1189
1006
1131
' ~- ~ _
soa 131 ~ ~"~/
1005
~'
1127 1129 ~ 1134
1132 ~
1132
~--
,
--~ ~ f
1131 i"--
1195 ~ ~
.` ~~~~ ~'
~,~
`~ 1134
~ 1133
` 1197
~~~ ,~ 1005
so oi~~ , , 1126
o~~~ °~~ ~ 1119 904
Ut to Ironhill Branch
Vicinity Map
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606 Date: 04/30-U7 Figure: 6.4A
[phone]

r ". • ', i.. ~ ry ~'~ ,~ v Ii '~1 f~a .Y,' i ~~R~~CL
_ ..~;~
i` i ' +~ ~ i 4"~'.4ti., r ~~ -~: ~ .mot °' - v_~~ x
~'- t~ ~~ T Y ' ~ '1~'. °I:.-. L L:~ I ' ~ ~i ; S `, ~- ~4;~,.~ ~•~ „~ - -) j ` ~,:,:,:.
r r-- err=~ ., ~- ~~ -
~:
- - .- - ''1')~ s..
T"" ~+_
_ _ ,_ __
.l ~ ..
~~ ~, j r ,; ~... f
l 4'
I f ~ . 1 ,
~ i '~ l i
1 l f ~~TT
,,.1C', ~..~~
,m _. 711 f~'~-• .~.~~'_ •'~~~
1 F
} _ ~' _
y J _ _ - ~
-
a: ~"'•-. t`- ~ ]1J' ~~ 1, l'r `I / f ~
-._- _ _ f
_'w r 1 ~ .~ ,I~ I ,
n '~

_ , .~ -
. -
~`
~ (~ fr i!<~Y J
yi~ S4 ~.._ 4. ~ ~~ J_
' ~_
tl •~
~
J
~
~
~
~,
' ~
r
.

.
' 6 a+^
~

v •F
~
_ti ~ is /
r
~ } ~
d
i s y ~
~ -, '~~. I.r
-t
''--~
9 ~ - ..~
J I . ~
~~
r, ti
___-._ \
~' 'ti. t
i
" ~
',
~ '4
~
~a
F'
- `- ~

0 1250 2500
I~I~I~I~I
FEET
LEGEND Reference Site
Watershed Columbus County
Project Area North Carolina
~ KO ~' ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
1071 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606
(919) 85]-6066
Reference Site
Watershed Map
UT to Ironhill Branch
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
Date: 0430-U7 Figure: 6.4B

0 500 1000
i ~ i
FEET
LEGEND
Symbol Name
Mk - Muckalee
- Project Area
Reference Site
Soil Survey Map
UT to Ironhill Branch
Restoration Plan
Brown Marsh Swamp
Robeson County, North Carolina
~ KO ~ ASSOCIATES, P,C.
a Consulting Engineers Date: 043007 Fi ure: 6.4C
1011 SCHAUB DR., SUITE #202 RALEIGH, N. C. 27606 g
[phone]

,; Site Location ,, '-
,,•~ ~
,,I
.',~y~'-~ `'-'- Reference Plot 2 & 3 -
„ .. - _.
. .
~' ,, ` ~ i Location ~•~,
..,, t ,;~..:
~ • ` " Reference Plot 1 - .4 ~ `,~ ~'' '~
Location . =~ - ii ~ .°~t.
---~-_ A;
f~--
rrr J~ui., ~,rd , ~ ~,
,~ r ~,
qq
1:76,032 ~a,
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 81. '' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r'r r -..
\ y.N
Legend
JT -Johnston Soil Series
BB -Bibb Soil Series
Tr - Trebloc Soil Series
1:T:e~
~°
2, 26 Rowland Pond Dr WETLAND REFERENCE LOCATION AND SOIL MAP ckdbyY WGL FIGURE
:~ Wllow Spring, NC 27592 WGL
cs,9~ 2,s-,s93 BROWN MARSH SWAMP RESTORATION SITE Date: 7
~ ~s,s~ 34,-3s39fax Robeson County, North Carolina sec Zoos /
--
-,__ Projsct:
06-020

-~-~~;,8`+ _ `'~ ~ ~ ~~~,~e arm ~`~ E-1
~. _ l,~rm',.~
r ~il ~ ~
_ , ~„ ~ t! ~
~ -- t +''r ~"-~ ;
v '` ,~
~ ~+~ - ~ i
£~ ^~ I
~,~ 1
.J
~ ~~ ..
_ ,I -
>aa ~ ~ i
® O
' ."f
~Jf ~
,~~,
~ -
~t~
i
!,
~d
~._.
.~ti
t ~~
;~~4 ~'~~
.f
f~~ pt c4<..;.
~ -_
a
r
j'
If _ _ ~.
t ti
'
I ~t~
~~ t~ s

.,*kS~ Reference Forest ., ~
•~...,, Location _ "~
i~ t w
ti ~'; ~ ~ ~~ ti ..
'' r
~ -~~ f7~tiasfflysvtMi{~ a ~.
~L~ Y • ~afd6 ~"jttliC~ t ~~ ~~ r .
t~ ,,~~ ,~a: ,'
r'
~~ ~r. I ~t
~ -~ f .~ ,
-~:-ti ~~ .~ _..
`'~ .~ ~
~ ~..}~
-! +~r ..
., 1.
~ t ` h~
1
_ ,
__ r ''
~ ~ ,
0 1 mi. 2 mi. ~ ~/ ~~
1:76,032 ~ ~~ --U ~ ~vr'
Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, pp. 81. ~="~r~
Dwn. by.
WGL
2126 Rowland Pond Dr REFERENCE SITE LOCATION ckd by FIGURE
s,~9) 2isissa ~ 27592 BROWN MARSH SWAMP RESTORATION SITE WGL
[phone] fax Date:
Robeson County, North Carolina oe~ zoos
Project:
~.,,~.~~F,,._,,,,~ ~„~ 06-020
Site Location
J `+. 9
ti, s~
•~ ,~
_ . r, -1'.O -- -
,~
_ ~+~ t,:
Lam" ~~,~' ~ 'e+,
Reference Forest ~ ~ ~ti`~_ ~_
Location ~~_ +~ ~ ~'
_~` '

VEGETATIVE Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
ZONE
Ash
American Elm
DIAGNOSTIC Laurel oak
Swamp Chestnut Oak
VEGETATION Tulip Poplar
Water Tupelo
Water Oak
Red Maple
Sweetgum
Sweetbay
Ironwood
American Holly
~~~1~
9~
M
a
V~
MM r^vr'.I
d -. k 4 _ ~.J
Buffer Zone
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Ash Water Oak
American Elm Red Maple
Laurel0ak Sweetgum
Swamp Chestnut Oak Sweetbay
Tulip Poplar Ironwood
Water Tupelo American Holly
Bald Cypress
Box Elder
Cottonwood
Sweet Pepperbush

PHYSIOGRAPHIC Active Flood lain
LANDSCAPE UNIT Secondary Floodplain p Riparian Zone Active Floodplain
SOILS Trebloc/Bibb Johnston/Bibb/Trebloc Soils
Poorly Drained Poorly to Very Poorly Drained
~~ Figure: 9
-,,~-~ 2126 Rowland Pond Dr REFERENCE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP
~ Willow Spring, NC 27592
r \, tsfstzf5-f693 Project: 06-020
~/ ~ [phone] fax BROWN MARSH SWAMP RESTORATION SITE
~;om~:~~,~,~~~~ ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Date: DEC 2006
Stre~_
Shrub Assemblage
Green Ash
American Elm
Black Willow
Ironwood
Possum-Haw
Virginia Willow
Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp
See species list to left.
X11, ~t<h.gq~~,~
.`~ "
.~ ~ y~ p+~
/h~g•° ~~. M ~qP
~ ~'
g , a d-.
e RA
r~
~,
f
i

KO & ASSOCIATES, P,C, PROIECf REFERENCE N0, SHEET N0.
F
10
m
_ a
, Coneultin$ Engineers
1%1 8(1L1tIB UA.~BIRIE ~Ot RUHGN. N.G ]ifiM
(9191 ~>~ ~
puro
PROJECT ENGINEER
FIGURE LOCATION MAP
NoT To s~A~E

n.
P o
^
` \1~
~~
X11
0
1
1
0

m ® 0
nl

~ 15
\\) II
0

-- --- - ~ I
~ ~~

~',
~4
~
,
~ ~
'' /
~
I~;'
~
o y
~ ~~~ ~
~~; __---
~ 1; ---
l
~
Q ~
~ ~

o ~
% ;~

~ i!
_ __ j
~ ~~
I
AA ~ ~i
1` ~
r ~
~ I'
ii
/ r~

r-- -~ _ _
l JI
~ ~ ~ ~' 18
~ ~
u
~,,~
~~
11~
_ __ _

a~
v __
® e ~
N
a
a
N
"~

~ounoN:
'
m 9~,
;% RESTORATION PLAN
q
,
b ;,%' BROWN MARSH SWAMP
N ry ;;
m
`~~
C00N"'
ROBESON
~
E

~a /`O %%,/ DESIGNED RY:

RVS
°~
N~ ~~ CHECKED RY: RKW DATE: ~~'V/

t

i

i~
i~

t

1

P
P
W
WOODS

STREAM PROPOSED CONDITIONS
1.

E------~~~- E
EASEMENT II~F
E~~
PROPOSED THALWEG
E
a
0
`a
m

~'
EXISTING CHANNEL
~L
E-
~ AGRICULTURAL FIELDS

~/-E
NORTHERN UT
~ ;;
;'
SLOPE STAKE LINE
I
E
EXISTING CHANNEL
E
LEGEND
PROPOSED CHANNEL
TREE LINE
FILL
ROOTWAD

P0.0JECf REFERENCE N0.
BNS
PROJECT ENGINEER
E

SHEET N0.
Figure 13
LocAnoH:
RESTORATION PLAN
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
Courrn: ROBESON
DFSIC9NED BY: RVS
CHECKED BY: R~ DATE: ~~~
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P,C,
Consulting Engineers
wv eauw oR,wma ron vxnav.n.c nme
(9191 d91fi0b6
25 0 50
SCALE
E

STREAM PROPOSED CONDITIONS
E E-
III DDl~DACCII TLIA111/[/`
m
w
a
a
a
a
E
m
w
M
~"v~
u' ' u'- 'u'. '~-TREE LINE
Flu
ROOTWAD
E
E
E
AGRICUTURAL FIELDS
-E---._...-
E;wlvlvjllvly rLAN
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
C0°""~ ROBESON
DESIGNED SY: RVS
CHECKED BY: RKW DATE: ~~~~
E---~
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P,C, PROJECT REFERENCE NG. SHEET N0.
aNS HR~re u
Consulting Engineers PRO1ECi ENGINEER
pll B(81UR UL8111'IB 'S%MIA ~&N.G ]IGk
ry19~ SSIfiRfb
25 0 50
SCALE

Pr
m
PI
STREAM PROPOSED CONDITIONS
AGRICULTURAL FIELDS

F
~r~h(oyF
5tgr~0N
3S
i '` ~0
~F
m
rn
\F ~~:_
\._
NORTHERN UT
E E-
F\
E EXISTING CHANNEL
~\~
EASEMENT LINE
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P,C. PAO1ELi REFERENCE N0. SNEET N0.
gµT Figure 16
Consulting Engineers pRO1ELT ENGINEER
IOE 8(H411 OL Bllf18 'IDi BNPJGR,NG116p6
191418Nfi966
25 0 50
INCOMPLETE PLANS
SCALE DD NQf V5E POR R/W ACON9ITION
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT USE POR CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED THALWEG
-------__._ E ---_____ E
E
E
~,
'~ I'~
~,
1
,• 1
'I
'~,
it
~~, I
.__ ,,~ ~~
Ems" E
AGRICULTURAI FIELDS
E
a
a
a
a
vi
m
w
N
~m~
LEGEND
PROPOSED CHANNEL
~ -TREE LINE
FILL
ROOTWAD
E
LOCATION:
RESTORATION PLAN
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
caurm: ROBESON
oES~IEO gr: RVS
CHECIf® BY: RKW GATE: ~~~
cE nee cT~ ve Ewe

P PROJECT Aff9tENCE N0. SHEET N0.
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ E;a~,,,,
m , ~C'w 0~0~h~ F'll~e~tGp~ PROIECf ENGINEER
STREAM PROPOSED CONDITIONS "'"'~°"
25 0 50
SCALE
--
__--_
_ ---- LEGEND
-- , EXISr~~,~ SoIC ROq~ ---_ - ----- -
---'-- - -----__-- ~ PROP05ED CHANNEL
------------------------- TREE LINE
FILL
~r~yi~NF
AGRICULTURAL FIELDS SlAl/ON '4 ~ LoG sILL
SOUTHERN UT *oo
E
E
E
E PROPOSED THALWEG
E ,I
PROPOSED THALWEG
- ------~ NORTHERN UT
\~'~. SLOPE STAKE LINE rn
'~.
- ------ i
'~~
'~ EXISTING CHANNEL
i~ ~ ~~, -- I~.
1~ ~-_= I
o
h
a ; ------- ~ ~ -~ WOODS
? - ~.~ j ~ ~`., ~.. _ ~
o I
/~
y ~ /
2 - / \ i
,, ,,
_ __ >~
E E EASEMENT LINE ~
-~ EXISTING
i tr CHANNEL
d SLOPE STAKE LINE
0
a
~; LounoN:
RESTORATION PLAN
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
v C00N"' ROBESON
~ AGRICULTURAL FIELDS DESIGNED BY:
RVS
E
~~
°oN CHECI~D 8Y: pyTAT DATE: ~~7
~r/`~ RI~YI /
~~

1
1

ii

1

ASSOCIATES
C
' PROIER REFERENCE N0. aMEET N0.
, P.
.
~
KO &
~ w ~T U~ w ~ R~ Fi~ Conaultin$ Engineers
a R ENGME ER
.ou~~~~.~~~~,~
%tOJE
~ RT fR UT
STA 0+00 00 ,,
ELEV = 1 331
9 _ .
.
,
_o
Q a_'.
.

__
_
S ,~
I
_ N
> JI
~
PROPO fD BA KFULL GRADE INE
PROP SED T ALWEG INVER

----- -

NOR HERN T ~La E B EEN D OPS = 0.102

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
a
a
0
a
E
m
4
N

r

t

r,
~!

1

~
SOCIATES P0.01ELT REFERENCE N0. SHEEI N0.
N
~ : , P.C.
KO & AS ~ ti~so
. - ._ LQ T ~ ~ ~R ~I E i ~
e
C
C
tE
~ ~.7 V L L eu~')o]
B41na14 c
naan
eauoa o0.
~on PRO JECT ENGINHR
ryID185L606E

N QR H RN U

,_ c a
,a
o
v°J
M

~ XISTIN GRO ND ONG MALWE_ a II
~ PROP SED NKFUL GRAD INE > ~
PROP SED T ALWE INVE

--- -

-- `j.
' ..f
-,

-.~.

ORTHE N UT SLOPE'. ETWEE DRO 0 102%

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
N RT E UT
- S U H R
_ T
,.
~EGI SO TH~R UT I END SOU HERD UT
STA 15 + 3 .44
2
STA 54+ 34
5 ELEV = 1 2.
3
. ~L~V = 1 6
263
_ ELE 33.53 .
;_ i
~
'

°

b

I

I
~

^
_

~
----
-

', -
__ _

II

O

C

~

~

,

~+S O 1'~
M:
D ~

C

r

N

M
o ~
" EXISTI G GR - UND LONG THAL EG ° v ° v ° P
~ ' 40 ~ ° I
r ^ ~ ~
_
a ~ ROPO S D BA KFULL RADELl E ~ ~ ~ ~ I' I I >
~ -, - -
W - -~- s ._ .-~ - -_ _--- __-~ + . ROPOS D $AN K FULL RADEL E ~~__
I l - ROPOS D THA WEG I VERT

~
I
: ~ ~ ~
c

'
I

~

_

--
~ -1-- ----
-r-- - --- -
---- __
-
---r '

r ___-- --

~

,~
---
I
--___ ~
~-
___-~-
__- -

~
,: ~ ~
~-
~_ ,-,
a

a
~,

m ~ f I

PROPO

SED TF

~ALWEG

INVEIt
w

w
N

L
N
__.
__

.

:

. I-

I

_ _::
0

NO
THERN
',UT SL
PE ~ --
EEN
RODS
0.10
% __
S
UTHER
UT S_
OPE 8~
EEN
DROPS
= O.Z
6°fo
_a
~~
~ I
~
v 49 50 51 52 53 54 10 11 12 13 14 1 5

a KO & ASSOCIATES, P,~, PAO1EGf REFERENCE N0. SNEn N0.
BMS Figum Zl
iouCsauia olt:ung Engineersn~ PROIER ENGINEER
19191 911fiW6
PLANTING PLAN ,oo o goo
SCALE
~~
:.
., ~ ~
,~
~~~~
~/
`i
i
~~ ~
k
~;
~~, ~ ,;
'~; ~ h
~.
LEGEND
EounaN:
~ ~ STREAM-SIDE ASSEMBLAGE ~ RESTORATION PLAN
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
SMALL STREAM SWAMP/ COUNrr: ROBESON
- NONRIVERINE WET
- HARDWOODS
DESIGNED BY: RVS
-u
o~
CHECKED BY: RKW DATE: 12U` b
.YU

I:~~°o~~ r~ '~1ari~ ~~--~r~~F~i~ IZest.~rz3ti:3 bite, I~t~(~~,~c~~l ~t`c~a~t1-~ft>y,J~f7~rt£l *C'aFr7c~i~7~~~I

~~~

w

1
1

APPENDIX B
MORPHOLOGIC TABLES
' era ~ assoc~~T~s, Pc~
Cuttstdtirt~ Ltt~;inerr
1

U ~

N c~
ii a
~t
N
(n
~
of
~
~j
O~
of
d~
V=
~
O
O
O
O
LL 4~ O w- w.. ~ ~«O" U ~ w N M r- r r N ~ w O O ~ v"'- T N
N
C ~ i to
w , N M
O O ~.1') O
- ui f~
H O O ,
~ '
ti ,
O ,
M '
00 ,
t~ ~
~- I~
N ~
N '
O '
O tf)
P- Imo-
r M
O 00
O ,
O ,
n
N ~ U
Q O .-- p 00 ~ O ~ O
M t,n
~- N N O ~ M r ~- O O O O ~- a0 ~-- et ~--

W _ `•O O
~ ,._~
,~ r
N
~ ~
v-
U ~ ~ "_ ~ pOp ~.-
~ w' ~ N Q ~ N d- ~ O r; ct ~
~ ~ O O ~ d'
i~ .- ~ ~ ~ w- U ~ ~ tom- (O N N N N ~" .~ O M ~ ~ Cfl ~
N
~
~~~. In
W , M
s- to
~ r
p O
r- ~
.- CO
O 00
~ O
O lf>
O '
ti ,
M '
h ,
O '
r ,
M 00
`- r
O Cfl ,
O ,
O N
r I'~
~ lf')
~ 1.f)
~ ,.
~ '.

~, Q
~--
r
N
M
N
O
N
~
M
p
0
~
~-
r
0 O
0
®
O
M
r-
T
~ .
r
r
~ M O O ~ r

O
N
N
T

'
~
N ~
;:il r
CO
~
to
~sN- O
CV
O 00
Cj
O O
CA
~
~
~ O
O
O

"' O
~
~'`~
C ~ r ~ ~ v ~" U ~ ~ ti r N N tP) ~ ~ ~ O tf~ w v
- tD (L?
~
~ U
~ _
r:° ~
w , M tp
O UO o0 r
- M a0
H O N ,
O '
r ,
ti '
M ,
O ,
O M
M f~
~-- M
r '
In ,
N O
l(7 c0
- O
`- I~
~ '
O r
~
~ O a+
iw U
Q O
T O O
T O ~ O
r T O
Cn CO
N N d' M ~- O N r' O O O r r ~ (D ~" O M

~ ~

O

~ O

~ N t1' r M
O
O O

~ r' ~
Z ~ ~ }__
~ o

f/1 ~ . (v~
O
V 0 r
~+
N ~
O
L r
+~+ ~
C
~
CS
(n

w

~

~
t3 Q'
~ :D ~-
~ M
~-
O
Q
O O
~j
T O
O tf)
~
O O
Oj
O
~
~
~ M
O
~-
(Q C O c r ~:- r= •i- . U .i- r ~- M M (O (O ~ w ~ v= ~ ~ (O
,~ U `-

U N
~
~
w
U
•-
~
I~
~
~
p
~
O
M
~
O
O
O
O
O
M _
O _
0
0
O
O
M
N
~
`-
r
O
~
~ ~
- O O
Z Q r r r r r `O
~ M ~ N N N nj r 0
O 0
O 0
O ~ N N
a
V
. Q
~ ~
~ ~
~
d M
~
~
0 ~
~
L
/~
/
ii ^ ~ C
G
O Q. U c ~ CS w
~2 ~ Z g c ~ o
ca
N ~- ~
~
~'
~
~
~
~
~
~ o
~ ti
N

C
~ 3
O
U
~
O
Z
~
r
,
~
O
w
~
CA
~
f~
O
U
~
CO
.~
O
O
V
O
CO
O
~
0
0
0
0
O
r
V
(~
~ _
' _
'
i V CA C~ U ~ ~ ~ 0 0 00 p M N O CO O M O ~ ~ O O O O p ~ O O ~ ~
f6
C C
-
!
C
~ Q .- r r N f~ O
l(7 M
r ~
r r O
CO ~ O O O N O
r O ~ ~
O n ~ O N r O O O
3 d
O > Y W x
w M
~
~
m ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C

W

W O

H
a" O Cn N ~ J (~
°- U ~ U
~ --
`s ~ ~ Y Z
~
co ~~ _
"_ .-. Q a ~ _
~ W W Z U
in
'
~
~ ~
~
v -n
~ Q ~
~
v ~
-a a
~ ~
W
,~ _
"~
O
O
O
"- W
Q

~

~ ~

Q

W

~
_

~ _
~
W
~
2
~

Z J
~
~ ~ O = ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
W =
~ O
Q p O ~ ~ Q W U ~ 2
~ Q a
~ _ .~
~ J W
~
~ ~ O

Q _

~
Z
Q
Q
~
U
W
Z
2
(
)
D
X
c
O
~
Z
H
C7

O
~
~

O
2
~
~
W
~
~
J
~
~
~
J

J
Cn
J _
~
J

w W
~
~
W
=
vi Q
w „
cn
Q L
w
w
z
W
~
~
~
~=
o

Y W

d
O ~

i
O
w d
O w ~
O
0 ~
0
~ Q ~ ~ ~ x ~ o ~ -a ~

_
J ~

J U

~ U

~
=
~
O J

~ u

~ O

a
o
0 0
~
=
O
a
0
0~
~
Z ~ W
U J
J J
J W J
J J
J J
J J
J ~
U ~.
L.L
O
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ J
(n
W
O
W J
Q J
~ J D
L.L ~ J
LL. J
O ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z o O ~ O _ ~ _
Cq } O ~ O O O ~ ~ O O
~ O ~
H
Q Q
W Z LL
Y LL
Y = LL
Y LL
Y LL
Y LL
Y = W
~
Z
O
~
O >
Z
~
J Q
~
J W
O d
~ LL
O
Y
J =
O
J LL
O Y
~
~ U Q' Q Z Z ~
p Z Z Z Z ~
p I- Q
w _
F- 0 _
~ ~
J Q
W ~
z J W O _
H Q X
Q _
F- Z O _
~
F- p O _
H Z
u_-
r
~ ~ <C Q - Q Q ~ 2 -
~ ~ Q ~
' Q ~ Q > O Q J
~
~ Q Q
~ O Q-
~ ~ O Q Q
2
E U) L~ (Yl rC1 - cY~ [L1 C~1 CY] W LY" L? C~ ~ ~ cn ~ Q ~ (n m ~ W m
m
(6
c
(6
N
O.
O
T
N
(0
CO
L
U
7
(6
(6
N
O
(0
O
cD
U
O
O
d
N
L
.~
N
c
c
(0
L
U
N
N
N
O
c
N
C
c
N
L
U
.O
N
a
N
N
~_
C
c
.3 c
cB
U U
(0
N ~
(6 ~
U ~
'Q N
_~
(II ~
0
c ~
0 0_
~ o
U O
N CA
o ~
U O
a~ ~
ca _
~ ~
(0 +O-'
-6 U
~ ~
C ~
O w
U
c
O ~
U ~
~ o
c c
~ 7,
(B
w E
N N
Q
O _O
Z ~

ri ~.
r-
CJ'
~
~
~
~
~
~

C ~~
'~" ~
W 1 ~ ~
W ~
~ ~
~ M
- M
V N
~` O
O ~ 1
O 1
N I
d' I
N 1
ti 1
tf) ~
N ~
O ~
O ' 1
O O
r M
N O
oU r
O 1
O 1
d'
~
N U
a M
O 1 ~ t
O G
O CO
N
N
M
~
r
~
r
r
0
0 p
0
O
r
M
r
p)
N

~
~_...
00
r
r
O
O O
O
d'

~
U )
~et ~~/~/~
V J
~~..
4~
~~1 ~
O
4
N
~ {~~ ~ N U v~ OOj' tf) ~ O ~ mil' ~ ~ O O
' ~ O
`* O ~' v- v''- 4- U ~' ~' N M r r r N ~ ~ O O w .~ r N
`,~,' ~ 1 N ~ O ~ O
~ l[1 ~ O O? ~ ~ O M 00 t~ r- N N O O ti ~ O a O r
O Q 00 ~ O ~ 00 ~ M ~ N N O ~ M ~-- e' O O O p r r QO r ~ r

r ~
N .., O
O r (V r r O O O
O r
L _.,_S
~ ~ N
iI
L (Q
L
O
cc
G
r
.l
~ d N
O Cn v"'- ~ ~ ~
Q~ ~ ~ a0 O O lf) O ~, O
C O ~ O w. ~ .~ w. U w- ~ r N M d' CO ti-. ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ CO
N ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ r 1 1 I 1 1 I O r (~ O ~ ~ ~ O O 1 1
(,~ +-'
~ -p
O -C
~ uJ
U
ti I`
O
~
O
~ CO
0
M
to
O
O
O
O
O N ~
0 N
0 r
0
O 07
~
N l!')
~ O
0
V
~.+
N~ ~ O a O r 0 N M ~ N l[) N r O O O r 00 N

.~
p
~
N M
N N r r O O O r
C
U ~
a
~
r
~
L r
~
~ d
L +-'
U ~
r
~
aV
cC ~ Z ~
o ~
c ~
~
V co
3 r
. ~-
~
~ ap
r
~
~
~
w
~
~ r
~
r
i
p N = o ~ o ~ .~ w °- U w ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~ a
-~ ~
i V U O
~ ~
w , O r
O r O CO O ~
N ~ M 0 0 0 ~
- O O O M M O O 'Cr
07 O
~ CO
O O
00 ' '
~
t6 O
C
~ U
Q ~
O O M ~

r r
N O
O M
V ~
CO ~
r O
O 00
r 0
O 0
O 0
O O
O
V
O ti
~ ~
~
~
Q.
L ~ O ~ ~ ci~ O O O
Q in N
o > Y
~ w w
~
m ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C O
~ O a~ N ~ U' Cw_7 ~ ~
o U .~ v
~ ~ a a ~ Z
~ ~ L
U ~
~ ~
a ~
a
a
o
cn
~,
~
~ ~
~ a
Y a
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
a
~ ~
w
~
~ Q
O Q
O m
O
~ W
~
~ >a
a _ _ `.
O
O ~ ~ ~ ~ J
Cn ~ H > O w = co ~ ~ w = = Z O
U ~ w o O W ~ ~ a a -- ~ ~ ~ a
~
.~ ~,
., o
J ~ w
W o Q w
O
W ~ ~ W U ~ Z C.7 O ~ O F- d ~ J ~ J~ J J J H
w o a
w = cn a
w cn X
a ~ w Z ~ ~ ~ '~ o ~ O O w O w ~ O 0 0~
w a ~ ~ ~ X ~ o ~ -a g ~ ~ U U = ~ Y ~ J u.i 0 0 0 0 = O 0 0~

Z
F- W J J
w J J J J
~
U
~
L1
O
LL ~
~
~ }
~ J
(n
W
O
LL J J
LL J
~
LL d J
LL J
~ ~ O J
~ J
~ ~ J
> J
> J
~ J
~ w z w
o .
0
cn O
~ w
p
cn
~ C~ J
c~ O 0
O 0~ _
~ O 0
~ 0~
~
a a
W Z w
Y u..
Y = w
Y w
Y w
Y w
Y ~ w
~ z O ~ O z O ~ ~ J O~ w O Y J O J O Y
U j a z z ~-
p z z z z p ~ a _
~ _
o H ~
J a ~ J w O ~ O X _
~ z O _
~ p O ~ z
w o ~- ~ a a a a a a z W a a a
' w w
~ ? a > o aJ a
~ as o a>-
' o aQ
~
- J (n ~ m m > m m m m > W ~ ~ ~ 2 m Cn > a W ~ Cn ~ m d ~
> W m
L
U
(B
(B
N
O
(B
U
O
O
d
w
.3
N
C
C
L
U
N
L
.~
~ ~
.rL. C
O ~
C ~
U
C O
C C
N N
L
U N
N >`
=a o
~ ~
O O
L--. ~
c a~
~~
m
-~
a~
~ ~
U ~
N ~
N C
U (6
.Q O
~ U
C Q-
O N
~ ~
N O
U C
N ),
co
o ~
`° o
~ ~
-~ a~
~ m
C ~
O N
c6
C -p
O C
U ~
a~
o
~ ~
~x ~,
w ~,
N O
0
Z m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~

1

~l

~r~c;~~~rr '~~14~rsh `~~~ ~ ~ ;~ IZ~;stc~raiic~r~ ~itc, ~~~l~~sorr t'c~c~rr~-, ~r~rtlr t'~~~•c~lirr<r
APPENDIX C
PROJECT SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS
KD c~C A.~SUC IAT~~S, 1' C.
CWnsid~ing lin~~i~re~rx

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN

Northern UT looking downstream from crossing. Notice stream has been channelized and
regularly maintained.
KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Carsrrl~ir;~ L•'n,~inrrrs
Northern UT looking downstream at recently mowed banks.

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN

~` ±
a7`=::`` ~_`~
~~s-f?"'.~,y
M~.'.T ~~~Ipls
Y
A
~~ ~.~;'~
Northern UT looking downstream at maintained banks, algal blooms, and agricultural practices
adjacent to stream banks
a KO cY~ ASSOCIATES. P. C.
Cun.~rd7in~ ~:nk iqt rrs
View of algal blooms growing in Northern UT from nutrient loading.

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
..
.. ~
~~f ~
.,,
~~~,..
~,
s
..
~ ~ x' ,
~ ~~
# ~ s
} } r~y F
~ x.~ 1. ~ a" ~' ,,w
!q'i ~Sy*~'J°,~~~`~!d ~~~ ~ ~SZ q{`, ~X ~Tz Y~'~i i' x:e ~.
^
~s
a .,
i~-: . ,,..., ..,...

...,,....,.~.,, s _ .fi"x" ,~~.a.,_..9
. ~y
F
' .' 2 ~ „~mr„„~„ ~9
;]
?
_. ~
1= c 8
d ~~~
_ ~e,l
\
-
,x.l
~ ,,_~ ~ , ~
m
~ i ~ .~ ~ • .y
t ~{
.,..`! _ R ~' it n
+~ ... ~i , r~¢` a. .~.. _ Via: t Y
~,t ~'~¢ ,;..
.. r ~ ~~.'~ ~{Yti ~r~:Fa2. -•~:r ±,~. ~..-;a:!'
Southern UT looking upstream. Notice stream has been channelized and regularly maintained.
a KO & .a SSOC/AYES, P. C.
C'onsrdf6;s; En};ineers
Southern UT looking downstream at recently mowed banks.

i,

1

1

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
Southern UT looking downstream towards convergence with Northern UT. Notice agricultural
practices adjacent to steam banks.
Southern UT looking upstream. Notice algal blooms and vegetation choking channel flow.
1
a KO & ASSOCIATES. P. C'.
C'unsullrr;L En,tinrrr.c

i~

1

APPENDIX D
PROJECT SITE
' NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS

1

1
t
KO ~ ~a?i7~t...1l2T~Ji (.i..~.
' ~..(1iISllllfi7~ ~:.iFf,?l7lf.'{'i"ti
~rc?~~~z lati~r:~~~ .: ... ,~ i-~c;~t:z~r<z?:dc~n *~it~, ?~:~l~e;~€~~z t;c~z~r~t:~~e ~I~~rt~ (`a~°~.;]i~ztz
1

~iorth Caralirl~ division rrf Water C,~uality - stream Identification Farm; Version 3,1
r
t?a#e: ~-'"~ ~ Projecf: ~ ~' ,. ~ ~Latifude:
~ .,,~ ~r
.._. ___
~vaf~sator: ~+ ~ ~~ Sife: ~,,~., i `,.}~.. Ltrngttucle
t~, ~l V 1
Total Points: ~, Other ~`"
veam is a# teas! tntam~ittent County ~} e. Quad Namea
if > f 9 or per€r~niaF if ~3tJ ~' ~
A. Geomt~rpha~lac~y ~Subtflfal ~ ~ Absent Wean Moderate Strong
1~'. Con#inuflus bed and bang o 1 z { 3
Sinuosity -._~_.._._._._~._. ~.
__..~
~~
~ ~
..

__ ~

.

__.~ ~ ~ m
.M
3, in-ch;~nnel strucfure: raffle-pool sequence ....._.._
_._ m.,
.,...._.
g ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~Sflil textcrre or stream substrate sorting ~ ~ 1 ~~~~~3'
~
5. Activelrelic fi~dplain ! Q _ _._ ___~.n____ _,_~.~ _ a ~ _----
.~.___
~. C)e~t35iI fln~# b~r5 or laenches ~ {~ ' ~
~ _ ~
_.~
~
.. ~ ~
E 7. Braided channel
,~
~
2
~ 3
d. Recent alluvial dept55its ~ tt
f ~
. Z ~ 3
_
ee~ ~ ~.~_. ~, ....~_..__ ~ _
~ 9i ~ i~atu~ral levees _~ . ~
,°~ _.~ ~ i . , _
~ ~_._._ __..
._.m
1 i
~
~ _~
1 fd. Needi.uts "` _ 1 2 3
11. Grade cflntrols (l.5 1 1 1.5
12, htatural valley or drainageway ' __ (} tT;~ 1.5
13. Seoond or greater order channel on existincl
USES or NRGS map or ether documented
o = CI
Yes = 3 :'
evidence. !
Man-made tiitC.ttes are not rated, see discussions in rnanuai
B. Hydroto~ (5 u btatat

~. Biology (Subtotal = __~~? _l

` 1~4 Grotmdwate~ fiowidlseharJe
' _ 0 °~ 1
(
~ 3
__
1~. Water in rhanne( end > ~~ hrs since rain, or °.__ ~.e ~ ~ ~~_ ~
,.
_.~_..~~., ~.~.. _.~ ___
Wafer in channel -- d or rotivin season
1,.._ 6.Leaf+itter~~~~ 1.~ 1 Ca.
~ t)
1?. Sediment on plants or debris a 1
~ 1.5
18.Organic debris fines or pites {Wrack lines} g 0.5 1
.... .
_. _. ,~ ._
Yes
18. Hydrae ~±ts (redaxtmerphic features} present? 1 No - D I
20b. Fibrous roo#s in channel 3 ~. 2.r "f 0
_
__
.
_
21, Rooted pfartts In ch;~nnel ~. _.~° _________~ .~ ,~_ m
_~ 1 .
-~---
_
22. Cray#ish `0.% U.5 ~ 1 1.5
~3. Blv~alves
.~~ ( ~

t`~ `_ 1 ; 2 ~
24, Fish
2~ Amphibians I (~}1(J„''~`
( ~ 0.5
tD.S ~~ 1
1 1.5
1.6
2~ Macrobenfhos {notediversity and ~rDundanc~s} [ 0.5 1 1.5
~7, Filamentous algae; peaipttyton
...~
28. iron oxidizing bacteria#fungus. i ._~ 1 i
..o.~..w~ _
A.5
~ 2
..~._
1 3
_.....~m~.
1,5
29 #. Wattand plants in strearnbed FAG ~ t}.5 FAGW = 4.75, Oi;l
- 1~.5~'' ~ SAV ~ 2.f#; tither = Q
~' Items 20 and. 21 focus an the presence raf upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic a~ wetland plants..
Sketch:
' fdotas {use taaek side of thpis form fczr additional r~otes_)
.~ ~ f [ ~s
j `~ ~.,. <~., {,. It ' l r"' ~ ` ~ J~ ' ; ; ff -f` _ _L% ~t~ cy :3 Lm~+~+`
4 ."~ ~-
t, ~ y li~
.~ tt#~t~ rs1 ~~+k"1~
,.....,.e., ......~ .. A _.. .....~._~
r

1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~:"t7t~tr~~ct Rio. ((i-.1:%()fi(? iii
s~t~~~s~~z~ ~~arsl~ `~~~~t~g~~~, £~~;;tc~ratic~~s ~Sit~, l~~>las:sc>~~ C"€~L~t~tY, ~~t?rt!~ ~°r~~~c?]az~~~
APPENDIX E
.REFERENCE SITE
PHOTOGRAPHS
A V [X ~ila7 t/1.,~A L ~+~y 1. ir.
C ~1rrsullirr~ GnAinee~x

t~untract Nu. 16-UU6U;
F3rr~~~~n ~~larsh S~~aimh IZc~tl~~~ati~~n Pr~~ject, IZc~bes~,n County, North Carolina
IZI~,STORATION PLAN
II
i~

t

Mill Creek looking upstream. Notice mature vegetated riparian buffer and gently meandering
pattern.
Mill Creek looking upstream. Notice roots along the banks which help to stabilize soils.
a KO ~ ASSOC/AYES. P. C.
COll.C fllllli,( ~:11,~171C1'1'.1'

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
UT to Wildcat Branch looking upstream. Notice mature vegetated riparian buffer.
^
°.,?~: ~
a KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Currsrrllurs; L7rginrrrs

1

t

t

t
1
t

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Resroration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
UT to Hog Swamp looking downstream. Notice vegetation on banks which help to stabilize
soils.
UT to Hog Swamp looking upstream at stable channel with consistent riffle-pool sequence.
t

KO & ASSOCIATES, P. C'.
Co~rsullii;~ En,~inre~s

[l
1
1
~]

t

t
1
1

t

Contract No. 16-D06038
Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Project, Robeson County, North Carolina
RESTORATION PLAN
a KO & ASSOC/ATES, P. C.
C'oirsuhiirt Enginerrs
UT to Ironhill Branch looking downstream.
UT to Ironhill Branch looking upstream.

w
i
i
t
.~~•c;t~-~~ ~~1~~r71~ `soy°a~~~~~ ~~.stc~r~~ticr~~ `~ii~, I~~}h~;~~~~z C'c~t~tft~r, `~c~rtf~ C'a~•c;lit~<t
APPENDIX F
REFERENCE SITE
NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
K() c~C A.S.SOCIATES, P. C
C;crnsrr)#irrg ~rr~r.rreer-s

1
t
1
1
1

1
1

f]

1
t
1
ii
1
t

i~
i!
t

i
t
t
t

1
t
1
1
C]
t
NCDWO Stream ClassiTication Form 5500
Project Name: Mill Creek River Basin: Cape Fear County: Moore Evaluators: R. Smith
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Mill Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: 2/23/04 USGS QUAD: Niagra Longitude:
Location/Directions: Southern Pines, NC
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in
the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I Geomorpholoav Absent Weak Moderate Stroni?
') Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequences 0 I 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
51 Is There An Active (Or Relicl
(*NOTE~ IfBed & Bank Caused By Ditchine And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Fieldl Present? Yes° 3 No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 2 3
Ii. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Stronz?
]) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Presents 0 1 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way ~ 0 .5 I
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present Tn Streambed? 15
1
5
0
_
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debrisl Present? 0 .5 ~ 1.5
Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 l 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE• IfDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This .5
Step And #5 Below*) 1 I .S
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0
Conditions Or In Growing Seasonl? .5 1 ]
61 Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcutl? Yes= I:5 No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4
8) Are Wetland Plants Tn Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*I
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primar~+ Secondary= 48:5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
t
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong

NCDWO Stream Classification Form S500
Project Name: UT to Wildcat Branch River Basin: Lumber County: Robeson Evaluators: R. Smith
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Wildcat Branch Latitude: 34°42'36.63"N Signature:
Date: 8/2/04 USGS QUAD: Northeast Lumberton Longitude: 78°52'55.14"W
Location/Directions
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in
the best professional judgment of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should noJ be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. GeomornholoQV Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Seouence? 0 1 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surroundine Terrain? 0
1 2
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 1 2 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodnlain Present? 0
1 2
6) Is The Channel Braided? I 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvia] Deposits Present? 0 I 2 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 I 2
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosit 1 2
y Then Score=0*)
0) IS A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yer- ~
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS. ? l
II. Hydrolo¢v Absent
No=O

Weak Moderate

trong
]) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0
] 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
III. Biolotrv Absent
Weak Moderate
Strone

1
1
1

1
t
t
2) Are Rooted Plants Fresent In Streambed? I{_ 2 1 0
3 Is Periphyton Present? U 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? n 1 2 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomornholoav Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? .5 1 15
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Wav? 0 5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. HydroloQV Absent Weak Moderate Strop
l) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? I_.,~ 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 I I .~
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 1 LS
4) Is Water in Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I l .5

Last Known Rain? (*NOTE- ItDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This
Step And #S Below*) ,
5)1s There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 ] ].~
Conditions Or In Growin Season ?
61 Are Hvdric Soils Present Tn Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)~ Yes= :' No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
III. Bioloay Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Are Fish Present? 0 I 15
cl Are Amnmotans rresenr! U 5 1.5
3) Are AauaticTurtles Present? 0 5 1 l .S
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 5 1 1_

5) Are Macrobenthos Present?
0
.5
1 _
1 5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 S 1 I.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 _
5 I 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence OfAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: t
TOTAL POINTS (P
+ S
i
d
; ,
r
mary
ary= fir
econ (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Poi nts The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
1

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Hog Swamp River Basin: Lumber County: Robeson
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Hog Swamp
Date: 3/9/04 USGS QUAD: Farimont
1
1
t
Location/Directions: UT to Hog Swamp located west of SR 2225
5500
Evaluators: R. Smith
N. Daly, K. McKeithan
Latitude: 34°28'19.39"N Signature:
Longitude: 79°04'40.54 W
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in
the best professional judgement ojthe evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
i Geomorpholoey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
I, Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequences 0 1 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed _
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 3
5)1s There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present? 0
1
2 '~_
61 Is The Channel Braided? ~f 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2
9)1s A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0
(*NOTE I~Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosit 1
y Then Score=0*) 2
] 0) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Fieldl Presents Yes=3
No=
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~_
II. Hvdroloev Absent
Weak
Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present`? 0
1
3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
III. Bioloev Absent
Weak
Moderate Strone
Il Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? ~ 2 1 0

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorpholoev Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 4~ .5 l I.5
2)1s There A Grade Control Point In Channeh 0 I I.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 Vii-
SECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? ].5
1
t5
n
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debrisl Present? 0 .5 I_ l . s
31 Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 I 15
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: f Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Chatmel During Dry 0 .5 1.5
Conditions Or in Growing Seasonl?
61 Are H~dric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1,= No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
III. Bioloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
]1 Are Fish Present? 0 5 I I.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0
31 Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .~
> ~
] 1.5
1,5
41 Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 I.5
51 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 ] 1.
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 5 1 1.5
71 Is Filamentous Ahae Present? 0 5 I ] .5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FAC W Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed Z 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*)
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= _4!l, ~ (If Greater T han Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
1

NCDWO Stream Classification__Form S500
Project Name: Ironhill Branch River Basin: Lumber County: Columbus Evaluators: R. Smith
N. Daly, K. McKeithan
DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: Ironhill Branch Latitude: 34°07'33.18" Signature:
Date: 2/20/03 USGS QUAD: Tabor City East Longitude: 78°48'55.13"W
Location/Directions: UT to Ironhill Branch located West of SR 1131
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in
the best projessiona! judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system
should not be used*
Primarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomoroholoev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
I) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
(*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*I
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No=~
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
IL Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
]) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0 1 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:

1
1
i~
i
1
~7
1
t

`r~
I
U
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channeh 0 5 1 5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Wav? 0 5 1 t
.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR PO/NTS: 2:.5 _
II. Hvdroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
I) Is This Yeaz's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
Present In Streambed? 15 5 n
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 5 1 l.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1.J
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE.• If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channell0r In Headcut)? Yes=1~ No=O
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 7^

1
t
t
1
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 S 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 5 1 ].5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: IjTotal Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Steo UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 5
TOTAL POINTS (Primarv + Secondary= d±.5(If Greater Than Or Equal To I9 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
t
t
1
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)

~3~•c~~~~n "~~1s~~~h ~i~~~~~~~~} ~~;:~t~rz~ti~~~ ;~it~e 13t~t?~~,ctt~ C:~~uttt~-, ~c~r~t t a~°c~iirza
[1

1

t APPENDIX G
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
1

n
C~
L
t
1
1
K~1 c4z ASSUCIATES, t? G:
~.G~'ditsulifrr~ G~x~i~Femx
1

w
i
i
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
NORTHERN UT
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event

3657.97 Bankfull
3657.97 Q 100

3566.67 Bankfull
3566.67 0100

3495.11 Bankfull
3495.11 0100

3390.77 Bankfull
3390.77 0100

3271.52 Bankfull
3271.52 0100

3196.1 Bankfull
3196.1 0100

3084.74 Bankfull
3084.74 0100

2971.38 Bankfull
2971.38 0100

2880.47 Bankfull
2880.47 0100

2785.45 Bankfull
2785.45 0100

2734.88 Bankfull
2734.88 0100
2640.76 0100

2570.79 Bankfull
2570.79 0100

2520.16 Bankfull
2520.16 0100

2413.55 Bankfull
2413.55 0100
Discharge Existing
~cfs WSEL ft
U stream End of Pi
18.1 137.84
160 141.70
18.1 137.79
160 141.62
18.1 137.76
160 141.55
18.1 137.69
160 141.43
18.1 137.61
160 141.29
18.1 137.54
160 141.18
18.1 137.43
160 141.04
18.1 137.34
160 140.89
18.1 137.28
160 140.75
18.1 137.21
160 140.65
18.1 137.17
160 140.59
18.1 137.04
160 140.47
18.1 136.92
160 140.32
18.1 136.62
160 140.19
18.1 136.53
160 140.05
Proposed
WSEL ft Backwater
ft
t
139.24 1.40
141.36 -0.34

139.18 1.39
141.10 -0.52

139.01 1.25
141.09 -0.46

138.59 0.90
141.03 -0.40

138.34 0.73
140.99 -0.30

138.24 0.70
140.96 -0.22

137.82 0.39
140.87 -0.17

137.32 -0.02
140.58 -0.31

137.25 -0.03
140.52 -0.23

137.14 -0.07
140.44 -0.21

137.09 -0.08
140.42 -0.17

136.93 -0.11
140.35 -0.12

136.89 -0.03
~ 2344.4 ~ 0100 ~ 160 ~ 139.98
136.70 0.08
139.76 -0.43

136.55 0.02
139.61 -0.44

136.44 -0.04
139.52 -0.46
PAGE 1 OF 2

1
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
NORTHERN UT
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
cfs Existing
WSEL ft Proposed
WSEL ft Backwater
ft

2239.26 Bankfull 18.1 136.32 136.30 -0.02
2239.26 0100 160 139.77 139.38 -0.39

2066.76 Bankfull 18.1 135.89 136.07 0.18
2066.76 0100 160 139.36 139.12 -0.24

2001.89 Bankfull 18.1 135.77 136.00 0.23
2001.89 0100 160 139.29 139.05 -0.24

1919.01 Bankfull 18.1 135.65 135.83 0.18
1919.01 0100 160 139.19 138.90 -0.29

1850.35 Bankfull 18.1 135.55 135.71 0.16
1850.35 0100 160 139.12 138.84 -0.28

1799.08 Bankfull 18.1 135.46 135.64 0.18
1799.08 0100 160 139.08 138.83 -0.25

1694.92 Bankfull 18.1 135.25 135.48 0.23
1694.92 0100 160 139.02 138.77 -0.25

1654.19 Bankfull 18.1 135.17 135.36 0.19
1654.19 0100 160 139.00 138.73 -0.27

1568.92 Bankfull 18.1 134.92 135.23 0.31
1568.92 0100 160 138.95 138.66 -0.29

1489.2 Bankfull 18.1 134.68 135.17 0.49
1489.2 0100 160 138.84 138.59 -0.25

1391.82 Bankfull 18.1 134.51 135.09 0.58
1391.82 0100 160 138.74 138.53 -0.21

1316.85 Bankfull 18.1 134.33 134.94 0.61
1316.85 0100 160 138.62 138.43 -0.19

1194 Bankfull 18.1 133.99 134.46 0.47
1194 Q100 160 138.42 138.29 -0.13

1089.37 Bankfull 18.1 133.79 133.70 -0.09
1089.37 0100 160 138.28 138.19 -0.09

1021.67 Bankfull 18.1 133.70 133.70 0.00
1021.67 0100 160 138.20 138.20 0.00
Downstream End of Pro~ect
PAGE 2 OF 2
1
1
1
t
1

t

~~
~J

1
1
1
t
t

1

II
~~
1

1

t

1

t
1
1
it
t
BROWN MARSH SWAMP
SOUTHERN UT
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
River
Station Storm
Event Discharge
cfs Existing
WSEL ft Proposed
WSEL ft Backwater
ft
Upstream End of Tr ibuta Restoration
1494.75 Bankfull 4.9 136.30 136.25 -0.05
1494.75 Q100 90 139.26 138.53 -0.73

1439.76 Bankfull 4.9 136.15 136.11 -0.04
1439.76 Q 100 90 139.11 138.40 -0.71

1400.05 Bankfull 4.9 136.05 135.90 -0.15
1400.05 Q100 90 139.01 138.25 -0.76

1351.56 Bankfull 4.9 135.92 135.71 -0.21
1351.56 0100 90 138.82 138.02 -0.80

1297.47 Bankfull 4.9 135.67 135.43 -0.24
1297.47 Q100 90 138.62 137.72 -0.90

1240.59 Bankfull 4.9 135.08 135.27 0.19
1240.59 Q 100 90 138.18 137.48 -0.70

1178.51 Bankfull 4.9 134.30 135.03 0.73
1178.51 Q100 90 137.67 137.16 -0.51

1136.11 Bankfull 4.9 133.82 134.83 1.01
1136.11 Q100 90 137.48 136.88 -0.60

1112.41 Bankfull 4.9 133.63 134.67 1.04
1112.41 0100 90 137.42 136.68 -0.74

1098.94 Bankfull 4.9 133.51 134.45 0.94
1098.94 Q100 90 137.37 136.37 -1.00

1047.51 Bankfull 4.9 132.81 133.30 0.49
1047.51 Q100 90 137.19 135.75 -1.44

1027.43 Bankfull 4.9 132.71 133.01 0.30
1027.43 Q100 90 137.14 135.73 -1.41
Confl uence with the Northern UT
PAGE 1 OF 1

i1

1

~!
I
1

t
1
1
I!
t
1
1

I3~~t=«-n 'Marsh Sl~a~~~}~ IZestt~ratit~n Site, Igc11s~:~;c}1~ C`t~t~i~t~-, l~c~rtl~ t'a~~otilla
APPENDIX H
AGENCY COORDINATION
KU c~'c A.SSUC;IATES, P.C:
t ~ CvrurAlting Engineers
t

~--
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
i
Appendix A
e" ,j ,
f!lVl!'lalSiSi?`?ti9G C~~;~-lai:eE~ll[.
t3rc~~~+n RtarSh ~

!itrram and N.'eilsnd Nestaratian ~itt'
rrv~CC.~ ~.vr~aaa:~ Rm~~C. 1 a41i !'~l.tt
Project Contact Address:_ al ~~r, E_l~~ti Slit _~~,~,;_ ~~.~_,_Kal~i« _, N~ ? ~t}r~______ ___ ___-_
Project Contact E-mail: ~,,,~;i ~uresti~r~rituns~stems.c~~tn _ _~___ __~_
'i'he tir<a~n Marsh S~~a~r;p bite is I~~rit~d ;i4~~~rG>>i~3~atci~' h~t~ naiies t°~st ~~t'I-`>~ ti7 Rsrh~;,>i~ Lti~~irt[~
~~ iihi~~; I•[~i' 1ar~etec~ L~ai'al ~b'atersl~~il tl3{l-~(1~~1~{1 ~~t;1O. ~~p}~a-~>xim<li4i~r th~L ni~!~a to ihi .~~;~il~c;,~t ~~
Rc~~~~laird. I~hc, pr<~icct will r~st~zrc ai~~ r~.tii~tr3tt:lti ~ t~ti0 linear ('eet c~i~har~n~~ %~~ ~a3 nam~tii !.•ii~i~t a icy
t~~ the I3ru~~u \1~tr::h SNrun~~ anii a}~p~~~xi~i~:ri~ll Ii~~ ~tc~~cs ~~I~fs,i7ii~~ ueil~,i:i',_ .~-I,e ~~t~ i~ ~uri-enl~ ;;~
rnw-ens as~ricuhural ?rt~d~iainn.
• •
Reviewed By'
~~tr,
date
r,.ecK t+~~s r~~rt • t'ze'e are c,,,,t3.,~},.:ti :,~.t
"~:- ~- ,_
cF;VS~
Fna~ 4pc{<~..a: 3~
date ~c~ M < s;_ - p;;trr ~~st~atc..
FFIYW:-.
~f A'C .;j' i ~~ 31 :~~

1
t
1
w
t
1
1
i~
t
t

t
r

1

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

L~
t
1
1
1
1
t

t

~~

t
A
~~

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

u
Ir~J
l_ J

J
t

f

1
[i
V

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

t

1
t

Envrcrnrnenta~ Tl-oc~mentaton
fc~r
Brown M~r~h S~~vamp V4'rtlnnd ~testorat~on Site
LI~;P Contract ?dumber i~460~8-A
Categorical Exclusion l4orrn Items
~CZl4~iA
Not applicable, as the project is not located in a CAI~IA county.
CERCA
fee the atiachcd Executive Surtlmary ofthe linxited Phase 1 Site Assessment.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106
See the attached letter from the State Historic Preservation t?ffice.
Uniform Act
See the attached letter that was sera to the landowner.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located. in a county claimed by the Eastern Band ofClrerokee
Indians.
Antiquities Act
Not applicable, as the project is not located on Federal lands,
Archaet~lc~~;ical Resources Prr~tection llct
Not applicable, as the project i~ n~>t located rin Federal. or Indian lands..
Endan Bred Species Act
Seethe. attached internal memo wih the Biological Conclusion of No Effect.. There is no
suitable habitat on tide site for the two `Federally Endangered species known to occur in Robeson
Cow~ty
,
Executi~~c t~rder 1.300?
Nat applicable, as the project is not located in a county claimed by the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians.
t Farmland Protection Policy Act
See the attached USnA Form AD-1006
~' Fish and Wildlife Ctaordination Act
See the attached letter from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, who had na comment on
the project.
The USFWS did not provide comments.
i]

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,
Migratory Bird Treat~Act
Neither the iJSFWS nor the NCWRC provided comments.
Wilderness Act
Not applicable. '1`he project is not located in a V1~ilderness area.
~1tb~er IL~iscellaneous Items
Public Notice
See the attached Affidavit of Publication of a Public Notice in the Robesonian the local paper.
V+le received no comments or questions about the project.

E[l~~ Envircar~mental
Qata Resources Inc
with eoCheck
Brown. Marsh Swamp Restoration Site
Ruheson Gounty~
Ro~~~l~a€i, l'C' 28383
Inquiry Number: t~17'18882,1~r
3uly 20, 2006
T~'t~ f~tr~dar~ I11
Environmental Res
Mana~elnt Informati~an
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
I Na#ionwide Cus#omer service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
:~~~

I

t

1

1

1
TA,BI.E CAF CtJNTENTS
~~C~r~oc'~
~~~~
xecutiv~eutnmary____________,._______.,~_______________________~___m____. E~1
t~reruiewMap________..___-_______..__ _ ________ ~ ~.. _._....__R_M__.______-__ 2
t~etailMap______ __t _~. _._______x__________~._~__~__s_,__~..______________ 3
M~pFia~d~ngs~urrtmary__---,_____________________________.:___._,._____~fi__.__. 4
Map~inrling~~_.,____~__r_~________w_A_____~__..w__~_______. ~ __a________ 6
Orphan ~urnmarg ~d____,.N..~._wm___m______________________________________ T
Government Records SearchedlC~ata Currency Tracking_ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GR-'t
GEC}CH~Ci{ ADi~ENDUIN
Physical Setting ~atrurce Ad+r#endum.______________________~________..___.___~__ {~-'1
Physi+calettin~ Source ~ummary______r______-____________n____.~._.._w~~d_____ A-2
PhysicalSe'~n~ Source Ma~________.._______~_M_________-___~_____~~~______ . A-7
Phy~~celettirs~ ~~urce ~?te~~~n~linrgs ~______________________________________ A-8
Physical Se#i^Ing ~ouroe Reo~rd earchecL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ e _ _ m _ _ _. _ _ _ w _ A-19
Thank you for your business.
Pease contact EDR at 1-80Q-352-(~5t3
with any questions or ct~mments.
pisclaimer-Capyrlght end Trad~marte No#iee
This Report Contains certain information obtained from ~ variety of public and other sources reaspnably auailaWe tit Enviranmental Data.
Resources, Inc. Mt cannot be cOnciuded from this Reporx that covesqq~~ information for the targqBeh~and Surrounding p~iperires does not exisE trrsm
other sources. NO wARFtANTY EXPRESSED OFt 1MF1.iED, tS MADE WHATSOEVQR IN CONNECT14N W1'rHTHiSREPK3Rfi. ENVIRONMENTAL
tTATA RE9DURDEit, INC. 8FEClf1CALLY DISCLAIM5 THE MAKtNG OF ANY SUCIf 1NA32RANT1E5, IN,GLUpING WiTNOUT LIMITATION,
IriERtattANTA13tL1TX OR Ft7NESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPdSE. ALL Rt£tK tSASSUM£D t3YTNE USER. )N NO E1/ENT SNAIL
ENVIRONMENTAL pATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE. WHETHER ARI54NG OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSICiNS. NEGLIGfMNCE,
ACCIDENT OR AtiY OTHER CAUSE, fOR ANY LOSS OF DA-rIAsGE, INCi.llptN+:i, 'i`NOUT LO+I1TATlON, SPEC(Ai., INCIDENTAL,
CONSEt~i,lEhti#At,171T EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY i.1A811(TY ON THE PART L1F ENMIi~ONM£NTAL DATA RESOURC£$,1MC, t3 SSi~tCTLX
LIMrrEf! TO A REFUNp OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR TNIS REPORT. F`urchaser accepts this Report 'AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
env~ronmentai risk levels or risk codes provided in ibis Report are provided for Alustratlve purposes onty, and are not intended to provkie, nor
shrxtki they t>e interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or pred4otiCtn or ftsrecast of, any ~nvt:onmental risk for iffy property. An1y a Phase i
Environmenta!I Sits Assessment ~isrforl~Fxl by an envirormentat professional ran pmvide irforrrcafian ra~axding the envrronmen~i risk for any
property t~ddi~ionalty, the infarrration prav[df:d in this Report is npt to #ae Construed as tei advice. ?
~tspyrsght2iJt16 try EnVironmr!nt~l Data Resrsurces, tno. Ad rights reseroe€f. Repraductian in any medfa or format, in whore
or to part, ofany report or map of Environmentat beta ResOUrces, Inc., or its affil;ate;i Ps prohibited +rout prk~r writ3en perrrissron, ~
EpR and iES k?gbS including Sanborn acrd Sanborn fvta?}are traderrtatles ref Env~rol'mirr?tai gate ~tesources, inc. ordts a'tiliatas_ ,4if o'ttter 9
trademarks used here;n are the property of their respective owners.. _ __- -- --____-
TCD1718882~'lt3r Page t
t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Rescurces< Inc {£DR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking #a meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for Ail Appropriate lnquirles {40 CFR Part 3t2j, the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments {E 1527-05} or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
tARt.,kE7 PROPERTY INFURMATt4N
ADDRESS
Rt}BESON CC3t7NTY
ROVVLANl3, NC 28383
CC7ORDTNd~TES
Latitude {North}:
Longitude {West),
Universal Tranven
tiTM X {Meters);
UTM Y {Meters):
Elevation;
34.4933 - 34° 29' 35,J"
79.274100 - 79" 16' 28.8'`
>e Mercator: Zone 17
658468,2
381$010.2
136 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPMC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TAR~aIwT PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 34079-D3 I~ILLON EAST„ SC
Most Recent Revision: 1982
North Maps 34079-E3 ROWLAND, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1882
TARGET PRC3PERTY SEARCH RE5ULTs
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EIIR_
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SRES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable "} govertamenf
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:.
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL..-_d_____________________ National Priority List
Propuased N Pt. _ _ _ _ _ _ _~. _ _ P __ Proposed National Priority List Sites
Dat~ted Npt. ____ ___ _ _ __ _ ___ _ National Priority list Deletions
NPt. RECt3YERY _, Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS_____~______________. CorrtprehensiveEnvironrnental Responses rompensaticxn, and Liability Irvformatipn
System
CERC-NFRAP.._.__.__,____. CERCLISNoFurttoerRemedialActionPtanned

J

u
i

C~

t

TCp718882.tOr €X€Ct~7IVE 3UMAAARY 1

1

i~

r

1

GA~VV~Y~ w7~/"'1~7
CC}RRACTS_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ v _ _ . _ . Correotiue Action Report
RCRA•78DF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Conservation and Recovery Aot information
RGRA-i.QC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Resource Cortserva'ian and Recouery Act Inforra~ation
RCRA-SQG.___~------------- R~sourcensarvat'anandReccsueryActinfarmatic~n
£RS________________________ Emergency ResponseNonfcationSystem
HMiR~___~___-_..__ ____MA. Nazaraousta9aterialslnicrmatirxtsRe~rting~System.
t~5 ENG C#~iVTR+DLB.,__-___- Enginesri;~g Co~trcls Sites List
IlS iNST NTROLa _ 4 _ _ _._ _ _. Sites ~~ institutigna i Controls
t~t~Lt_.......a---------------- Deparirrtent of Ctefense 5ites~
FUDS.._w--------------------- Formerty Used t~eiense 8it8s
US BRt7WNFiEt.DS_ _ _- _ _ _ _- - A t.isting of 8rownfields Sites
Ct3tdSEN1'.__ __._- _._a Superfund {CERCLA~ Consent Decrees
ROD_ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ Records Of Decision
UMTRA _r__- _-__- ... __ UraniumMifiTaifingsStes
tFDL__,____.__r______________ Openi3urttpinventory
TR}S_______a_________________ ToxicGhemicaiRefeaselnuentorySyst~m
TSGA _ _ , _ . _ - _ .. , ... _ _ _ _ ..... "Toxic Substances Contra! Act
F'I'TS..... ~ .... . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . FlFF3At TSCA Tracking System - FFRt! ~Federai rose. t.Llde, Fung;ccie, $~
Rodenticide Act)tTSCA (Tox Substances control Act)
SS'PS------------------------ Section? Traclsng Systems
ii;5_ __.__ _ _. ._,_-. integratedGomplancE {rformra}ton System
PANS -.-_ ___. _K,. ~'~'ti Act~uity I'3ata~ase System
Ml.,TS________________________ Materiaik.icen~ingTra~~IngSystem
MiNES_..___.._._.~_9...__... PlinesRAaSt~rindexF4i~
~~~~_.<.._...____,._________. ~~~.#iliy index SyJ:~s?lfF3e[i1tj+ReglStrySy~eiTt
RAATS~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. RCRA Adn"~nistrative Action Tracking System
STATE AtUD L{lCAL R£CflRDS
SHWS __.__ ..__. ..... inactiue Haza~ous Saes inventory
~~. HSDS__._ .._. ____ Hazardous Substance DiSpOSai Sdt~'
iMD________________y___.__.._ incident Managementt7atabase
SYVFlLF______________________ List of Sstiid Waste Facilities
QLG- ___. __-- __-_. flld Landfiii inu~:ntory
t_IIT _ _ .. _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ Regional UST Database
LLfST TRUST.. _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ State Trust Fund Database
tJST_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ Patrofeum Underground Storage lank Database
ASL _. R_ y _ AST tatabase
iNST Ct)NTt~GL, -. i+fo Further Action Sitar Witt Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VGP-_ _ _.. _ ._...__. Responsible Party 5~ofuntary Actacsn Sites
f~9RYCLEANERS-._....___~__ DryafeaningSites
8Rt?WF+iF1ELDS_____________. Browrnelds Proleats inventory
AIPDES______________________. NPDES Facilit}r Lacatiori Listirsg
TRIBAI RECOR[1S
iiriDiAf`~ RES£'RY_._r_F.__-__. Indian Reseruatioms
IF1DtAN kt15T__________ ______ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on inciian Land
iNDtAN t)T- ._. _ _ Underground Starag~. Tanks on Indian Land
£DR PRt?PRlETARY RECORDS
Manefac#unad Gas f'lants_.. ERR Proprietary Manufactared Gas Plants
ERR Nistrsrioaf Auto Statir~nsEDR Propretary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Histaricari Cieaners.a_.. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Gleaners
rcc~~ztasaz.tas ~x~cu'r su~ttr z

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUASCt1NG SITES. SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappabte {orphans sites are no# considered in the f~rregoing analysis.

t

I

t

t
t

1

T#7#$8$2.i0t EKECt.GTTlVE SUk4MARY 3
r

i

C~
1

I I

'~J

u

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-(
Due to pcxfr tsr inadequate address infc~rrnation, the fbliowin~ situ wera not anappec}:
Site Nee Database{s~
SHEt.I. AT SOUTH ~~ THE BORDER GWCI, t_UST, UST
ROWt}lPlt3 TRUCK1fU(:~, tNC. t.UST, IMt3
BORDERLINE AMOCO LUST. iMD
EXXON #4-72~~i LUST TRUST
V`JHITTINCTON AGR-AIR SERV, UST
~ U PATE FARMS UST
DAMS FARh1S UST
G. & L. Fgt~D MART UST
ILTUN SHDOTE?2 SONS FARM INC UST
DiXII~ CARPET SER1tICE UST
BORDER TEXACt~ UST
PURVlS COMMt1NiT`l CENTER UST
t~NION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UST
RUWLAND TRUCKING GO,. INC. UST
RC}WLANI? MOTOR CO.. tNC. UST
KARMA I~tC, UST
S & H GROC. UST
ODOPA GOC, UST
FLC7YDS GROCER'f G1NCt
TGQ17?8882.9€~r EXECUTIi+E SUMMARY 4
1

Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
ar equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
~ Manufactured Gas Plants
~' National Priority list Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
i~
i~
o :'a i2 ~ uikc
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Sutsta~ce
,' County Boundary Disposal Sites
Oil 8 Gas pipelines
100-year flaod zone
S00-year flood zone
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: Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems. LLC
ADDRESS: Robeson County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Rowland NC 28383 INQUIRY u: 017i8882.tOr
LATILONG: 34.4933179.2741 DATE: July 20, 2006
OVERVIEW MAP - 01718882.10r

' Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the Target prooery
~ Uanufactured Gas Plants
Sensitive Recaptors
National Priority List Sites
_andfill Sites
Dept Defense Sites
i~
ii
0 t 96 i B t V Yllec
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Suosta~ce
Oil 8 Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
t00-year flood zone
S00-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interacflve Map Layers Io
itisplay andlor hide map intormaiion. i he
legend includes only those icons for the
default reap view.
SITE NAME: Brown Marsh Swamp Restoration Site CLIENT: Restoration Systems. LLC
ADDRESS: Robeson County CONTACT: Dave Schiller
Rowland NC 28383 INQUIRY e: Ot 718882.10r
.AT/LONG: 34.4933 / 79.2741 DATE: July 20, 2006
DETAIL MAP - 01718882.10r

t

t
I
I
1
1
1

MAP F[N~It+t~S SUMMARY
Search
Target ()!stance Total
i0atabase Properly (Mlles) ~ 4/$ 4t$ - 4t4 414 - 412 412 - 4 ~ 4 P-otied
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL 4.Ot7Ci 0 4 0 tl Nl~ 0
Prrased NPL 3 ~G4 (3 4 4 (? NR 0
[3ellsted hiPL 4,040 0 0 0 t3 Nft 0
NPt~REGOVERY TP NR NR NR NR NR D
CERCLIS 0.504 ~ 0 (} NR NR ~
CERGNFRAf' 0.5fl0 0 0 (1 ~dR NR 0
Cf3RRAt~T5 1.000 ~ 0 D fl NR 0
RCRA T[3 0,5010 D 13 {3 NFt NR 0
RGRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 h1R NR I+~R D
RGRA S. Quan. Gen. {3,250 (~ fl NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP IVR NR NR NR NR 0
hIMIRS TP I~IR NR NR NR NR 0
US ENG Qt3NTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
~S 1NST GC}NTR(3L 0.540 {1 0 0 NR NR 0
010303 1,0{}0 13 4 0 0 NR 0
FUf3S 1.0130 t3 0 Cl 4 NFt Q
I.JS BRQWNFIELCIS 0.5(30 0 0 4 NR NR 0
GCINSERiT 4.000 0 0 0 0 NR tl
RQC3 4.000 0 0 4 0 NR 0
uMTR~ 0.~~30 a o r~ I~1R NR 4
C3QI 4,500 0 0 0 NR NR o
IRIS TF NR NR NR NR NR 4
TSGA TP M1IR NR NR NR NR 0
FITS TP NR NR ~R I+tR NR 0
SSTS TP NF2 NR NR NR I*IR 0
IC1S TF~ NR NFt NR NR NR 0
PAt3S TP NR NR NR IUR NR 4
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES (7.250 p 0 NR NR NR 0
FINQS TP NR NR NR NFt Nf ~}
RAATS TP NR NR NF2 NIA NR 0
STATE AND L{)CAL REt:ORDS
State Haz, Waste 1.000 0 0 4 0 I~1R 0
NC HSDS 1..000 0 ~ 0 0 NR 0
IMt3 t1.5U0 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Stste Landfill 0.500 0 ~? 0 tVR NR 0
011.1 [1.5(}0 4 0 {3 NR NF2 Q
t_usT 0.504 €~ a NR ~tR o
I<UST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR PIR U
UST 0.25(} (3 13 NR NR NR 0
AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR t~R 0
INS'f C~11r1TRtat. O.~oo a 4 o tVR NR o
VQP (3.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
t1RYGLEANERS !3.250 0 4 IvR NR NR €}
BRC3WNF~EL[3S 4.540 o t~ o NR NR
NRC)frS Tl~ NR NR NR NR NR 0
TG04748882.40r Page d

`~ ~AAP FINQINGS SUMMARY
I
Search
~arg@~ DlStance Total
Database Property ~Miles~ < itS t~8 -114 1I4 -112 1 t2 - 1 > 1 Plotted

TRIBAL RECORDS
It+101AN RES~RV t,flfl0 fl fl fl fl NR 0
INDIAN LUST 0.5flfl 0 C3 t? NR PtR fl
INDIAN UST fl,25t} fl 4 NR NR NR fl
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORt,3S
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.Oflfl fl 0 fl fl NR fl
60R Historical Auto Stations TP NR 1~1R NR NFt NR fl
ED#2 Nistora;al Glear3ers TP NR NR NR NR NR d
t3TES:
TP =Target Property
NR =Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed In more than one database
TC~17188$2.10r Pape 5

E

t

t

~Jurtia C'~rrt}lir;<r lViaillit;` lac:+~~.rr~~e~ ~'t)r~altassit~ai
I7i~~isic)t~ ttfi I~~ai~atl I i~I;~rit
FftaaS [t~tie ~~#ict,
~'~T~l~: I~~t~ id t)x, "1'c~c°iiricra! tw;azic3nci° ~tap~t•~•i~~ar
'I'u~;ci~ay, r'1u~tt5t t)1, ``>t)t)~
~[`}~3JL:C',`I~: C'ta~)rtiit;atit}n 1, tfit rJte i`~Jc~t-tla C:'~trtaltaa 1~~Jad[ii~; i';c4t~tt;~cr: C"+?rl;r`n:~~it+it tata
13eh~at t~ftaat; Fi~a~ z~:lcl'tt'iaria~~:C'cac)rclint~t~an,~c:t f~ar~lat:. [3rc~~+r1; ~i:;r-4la ~z~rll71~ Fitt.

C)ta ~}~;it-~~c;' "t`~. '~Ot}~, t[~t. ~t~t~ta t:'art)Itn:~ T`~t~:~~,t~taa la~~a; ~ut~z~.=~' I'r~~~~rat;i tI [ii'~ i~4t,t<d
~l ~+.t'.talt~~i }t~2' I't't~ttt~~~ti~, ~t~r tl't~ ''~}~} t)a '?tf~..ila ~~'±;~°~~~ ~l. l~} ~1+:~~:~, t~f`Rt~'t'r"Jtic' t',t't}:.;ilia
restcaratitat3 ~;~lti ;: ~l~r~~ tat''~cl~;-Ri~~erine ~~~[a<utd resttat~ati~rll ita t':c [,ulllt)i:r ()-I ,
;~t~alta~n~ Utli ()zr;.:~tt's1~. i~.ctt,ratrc?~ y~~te~aa:~, l.,[.~:. ~R~), t~#' [Zst}~i~il. fit' ,~~'~~
awarded ~~ t~t.yr;t,~act ~}f flat: ELI' tc~ i-rrtl~tle 51141' ~1t~i'.5 a~a{I ~ ~~riVll~'s tt~ I?~ }?.~tl: iricd },~>
~~ at tote Brc)wn ~aar*~h 1~~=ana;~ SitG. I~C~ . ~sscaciat~s P.4~" C"t)latiultrt Filz7in~er'~; is
utader ccat~traet to R tc) lar~)vide teelanical en~=ircantnenta ~;t)nsitltin ~ttad design ser~iet"s.
~rtc ~t["the ettt-li~~t t~:;l~~ tcl lac erfc~l'mcci [lv IZ~ ~ et~rn[?i~:.tii,}r~ i?C~1rJ crt~ r<~nttlGrltal
~;r~:nin`~ rtr)t[ }~r~:p~iraiie~raf~;cihraatta} rt~a (`~rtc~;r)ric~ii iytc[u~ica~a {C:l} cie~elnl~~t;t. Pals
tit~cti~l,ent i~ st?tr`~itir~lil~ r~cluiri:cl 1~~~ ti;s: [~edcrai [It,ll~v,;y r~cltnit;istr:ltic~rt t4~H'~1~~1~ tca
entiilrc ~c+pli~ttlc~ °~l itia ~'~u•it,li icilt.rai cn~, iro.a;rcnt~! at~~ ssirat3 rc~ttl~lti~)r~s. '[ [lc FEP
n~ijt clet~at~nstrate tCaat iii [?rc,jt~cts etarl;piJ ~l itl; ferierl;l rl~:iruitttr~; a• 41 prt:t:t;nciiti{>ta tta
~I-~t~'.~. t•~iraaa~ur~etnt;rat c~f`tt>:a;l>e;asat~r•~ r;litit~~ttit}n t`<tis lac>t~.;t~ h~ t[tc'v«t*E~ (~;rcliii}~t
~~1?clrti7lEIat Cat"[?r~ta4i')~l2'iiaiit)Ia tt) t3f~~~'t itti j?,'t~i~',~1:; tr111VC)t{[13[~Jt` 1111}~<1~~~ ti) :~t1'i:~tia?*<r?lci
4~`e:ta~ttads,
[n tarde;r fcar taae }artaje-et tt~ ~altacec~[, R.~; is e~a~[i~±atecl tf~ ucn?rc[inrlfie ~vitil ~3c)a~r c)ftic:e eat~t
bclaa[f4a~tlae ~isla artd "~ildlife Ccac~rciir;att?ra ~°~ct t_I t1~('..). "[:dais lctt~r ~rta~'itle~ vr)z~ ~,~itla
ecrtaita details c~~ the Br~t~'n J4larsh ~~~an7p bite, itac.ltt~irt~ tiac ter ~~ject`s i~)eatitln, ~l
~encral descri~ti~n c~l'iis }~la~~siugra~lly, h~rcar~a~;rapla~+ aaad existing [~trxi use~t a~ ~, eli ~s
ti;c itatended ~aa~~li tied iatas tt~ ~~ s%te ~rc;~t~scd by It `4~ou zrc erl~~~ilra~c;t~ t~ ticter~atirie
i[`tlae aeti~n~ hrvi3tl~td ia~~ R naay be inimical tra an~r r~;~~aur~c~~;~nUr~a~cd b~ thc: F1~'~GA,
anci ~rtavic3e ~.t~trtmctlts tt-1 K based +an yfc~ur evaatratit~ta. It i;~ r~~r~{~rl<la~le t~ aasittn~_ tkaat
y£tau vial c~;il,r:a~.~nt ;t tite actions ~rc~~~seca ~~ Rfi are, in ~c)ur ~~~init)11, lil~ely tc~ rc•~:°~iit to
Isartat tc~ re, c.±~t~ce:~ ~n~t-,ttt;ed ~~r tlae I'W`t,"A .

Pil~Yt ~Ii.i * l tflt Na~rn~5 St., Suite 1(37 • Raleigh, N 2"7tiCS4 • ws~•w.rc.~torati~an,~ ~t~~~.~~..ri?~11 +t'h ~r~t~ {311?.7~5,tt"3t:} * Fax X11)."~S~.J~t~?

I~ttt°itl t•_`ix.r;,''~?C`1'4'I~C•
1'a,~~ `~
`I"uc5ciaa, ,~ r dust C1 i . 2t~~i
I'rcrject L,crc.•rticrct +& llescr°iptcrn
T'he l~rcrwn iYlarsh S~Parxrp Resterraticjn Site is lercrateei apprraxirxrately ?.~? miles east cat 1-
r?S az~ci tl~e l~~trrtlx C'arcrlirr<riScruth Carolina Ircrarder in F~c~hesrxr~ C•'crta~rty within thy: ESC'
1'arti.~t:tt~cl Irrcal Vb'aterslx~;d t)3~?tl'(?~(}3~t)ltl ~1'i~;~r-~: ~.~. "I'h~ ~itc: i~ l~c~ar~l~cf tx}~ Fait
McC°trrmick Rcxrrd (:S,R. ('?~91,) c?t1 its strrsthen~ Irc~urrciar~~ and by C`crttcarx Vallcry l~~>acl
~5.~. 24~~2 crr~ its w~tcrn btrundrrry. The clasest city' is Rcxwland, wl~iclx is Icrcatd
apprcrxinrat~ly ~.~) miles rtcrrthw~~st cif the site. 'T'llc centerlirxc ccrcrrclinat~;~ crf thew its is
apprcrxirx3attly Latitudsr i~#,=t~~3~7f~ and Lrrrr~;it~cl~ -'7ft,27~~7, `i'fxc ~;t is Ic~czrt~~l irx arr
atricrrlterral fiilcl that is apprtrxirt~ately ~~t3 rr~:re;s in ,ire. Thew iclel is rrsccl fc~rr rcxw c;rcrps
t17at are: eultivatct~ t±<rr- ectancrrni~; b~r~~tit. i~urx~~r~u~ clrttnc~~ are Ic~~~t~tl irr ttxe ~i~lc~ ter
facilitate the drrrina~e crt trc~trndwater and surt°acc ~~~ater tlcrw~. laxi~tirx~; ~~cgetaticrn crn-
ste is sparse clue tc~ tlrc rc>~,v crtrppin~; arxd c~rr~sistent rixaitxtenarrcc:,
Pi-~>pa~ed .activities ~le~isrrec~ tt~ r~estc-rre tlxe: strcrrrxx and ~t ctlairt! crrrx~pl~:x incl~rrle
erca~•~~tiar~ cri` a Ir<~irk-roil f~~~r~dplairr bench and srrhseetuerit restc~rirti~rn cx1 stream rllanrx~:ls, ~~
~~~tlaircis, rnd ~c~,~~t,3',iv~. ce3rnrnrrnities within the Site; hc>urxd~aries.
ttcstcrratia~r Yle«~ns uc t~~c~hocls
"~`he }3rrrnary ~;t~als nf~tlris stream anc~ nc>n r~i~~critxe wctlarxd rest~~raticrrx prcr~je;et f~etrs vn
improvrn~ Mater quality, e~hanein~, flarrci rrttenriati©n, and resturin~ agcratic anal
ripur•ran wildlife habitat. 'Theme ~crals will 1>e accwrrmplished by:
* li~:stcrrin~; the existir~t dctradcd char~ncls cxritl~ a natural twl°rrtrtncl atrlc ter trarxsperrt
its sedirl~rent arrcl flew ~vithrrut 4t~~~radint; er des~radin~;
~- trrharxcin.; tl~e capacity eth~: Site trr miti~-;iic tlc~~~cl tlcr~~•s by r-ecc~r3nee:tirx~ tl~c:
strcanx tax its l~istc?ric t7acrdplarn.
R.c~clucirx~ nntx-mint serurce seclin~entatitrrx anti nritricr~t »rputs tirrcru~l~ tlx~;
elirr~in~ticrrt cri°ce~nstant channel maintenarrec, the rcestal~lishmcnt €~fa native
riparian huffc;r ~;rcatcr than 5{}', artd tlxc: restcrraterr~t e~f z ii~tiriaa~ wc;tlantts irz the
agricultural fiel~iy;
• L;rxhancint; in-~'.t`earn l~at~itat kr}~ resterrin~ a rift`le-pcrcrl complex ter tiro clranrx~l and
Ixy trlacin sts-t~cturc> in the channel that provide sl~aclirr~; and la~tbitat t:~r tlrc
dcv€~lcrprr~errt erf hculthv hcn#hc ccrmrnunities,
l~nl~ancirx~; the entire ec<rsystcm by reestablishin;~ twee Ixalxitat_c;errr-idr~rs thxcrulh
crpetl agricultural ti~;lds.
Specific actieans prcrpc~sed ter aehie~rc tlxese restarativn ~raal:r will. he f~rrthcr refined
during rc:stor-ati~~n plannirx~ arxcl design phases erthe prcrjcct hrrscd trpcrn findings
devclc~ped clrtrin~ detaile:cl site assessr•nents, data dcrivcs from rric~renc,e rcach~s and
rCfcrerrced t~•etlancls, perrxrittinT; rerluirements, and input frc,ri~ tiro iwEP.

I~<~~ici ~`~~~, ~I~'~~'~~t
C'ae
~ur3~n~ar~' cif ;lntei~tecl Cirf~t
~3'~~u ~~~~~; t~t~t~ ~~i f~c;t ~tf r}7i~ ~rc~~~s~t (~t,~~t cc~n4Yruct:c~nj r~~ill r~~uit its art ~~t era}1
~4t~it~,tu~t~,~t~t tc~ tl~e it~te~rit~, t~:`t}~e. n~~n~.c~iat~ ~;c{,~~.`icm~ and r~,izlt in l~~t~ t~rt~~
t~~n~iici~tt Lf'+,'~~t~ tci ~i~h car l~ i~ti~i~'. This ~;it~ ~~°~t ~'c~ ~ ~rtlic<~t~•c3 i-~ }~~:r~t«':tuity ~~~it1t a
Sttc~ui€~ ~~c~u ~~~a~xc ~~t~~~ c~t~~st~~r~~ cx~ it'any~ a~lc'jti~i~al i~~f~}r~~~~~tic~~Y i4 tt~cicc~ tc~ cvi~tpl{t~.
}t~ttr r~_t.~'~~~~'~ ~?Ic~ESC•Itcl fct~~; tc7 c_e}tttact n~~ <Gt (~l{)} ~j-~~~~)(~ ~~~) car (E~l~) ~Ci'~~~32
~~c~kail~. ~`~ttr `r ~tlual~I tir~~t~ at~~~ ~ ~,t}x,i'.{,,1 a>~~ ~~~u4P~ a~?~r~;~~~t~~l.
in~;~ry~'v,
I'~~rki;r, ~'t-r~jc~tvt ~~ar~~~~er
:1tta~:~~t~~~t~ts
~~: l~~Ir. Da~~e SclYilter, t~:~~tc~rat~}tt S3r~te~n~, LL~C

~ _

ti
`;'
~~',
f \ '
1
:i'~
i
Overview Map
Directions to Brown Marsh Swamp (from Lumberton:
Take I-95 South to Exit 2 At top of exit ramp, Turn left and continue
' for approx. '/~ mile to Cotton Valley Road (S R 2942). Turn left onto Cotton
Valley Road and follow for approx. 2-miles. Turn left onto McCrimmon Road
(S R.2491) and follow approx Yz mile and turn left onto a dirt access road
and follow approx 600 feet to site.
Restoration Systems. LLC Figure 1: grown Marsh Swam Stream 8~
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 p
Raleigh. NC 27604 Protect Wetland Restoration Project
„ ~' 919.755.9490 Location Robeson County, NC
Lum
124,000 -`'
N
_ .5 OGO
--~ F eet

1

1

i

1

s t ~ f -
. =at~~'ti,~. ~ ~t~;ltic_~t.itk:rlt
l~. . I~~~tat'ttaac,tat ~?~' 11?e; Interitar
I i~}a an~-J ~'~iltilif`~; :~~r vii:-~:
~` ~~ L?~!#~ ~itriter
<i'I`µtI~~: J~al~; ttit~;r, t~i~la ttrtti ~~~ilt3lit'c E3c?Ica~;i~t
Ttte.~~#at=, a'~tr~;ttt;t t}1. ?()ilh
~L:tE~J~~T: ~cacareiirttttiata 4t'ith tiac~ t}.~. ~`i;Ja c.nc' b~`iicili~~~ 1~r~~i.t' c?r~ I3t1?;If«t't 1 } f~islt
ttt~ef 1~jiltilifiw ~`tat~tcJira~ttieart ;~eit ttratl ~~3 11i;~ralt~~r}; I~it°tl ~`t~~~.!t:. ~Lt fir tl.t~ i~r',~~~r~ ~t~rla
`~ l~ tt~tl,~,

~~la ~)titi>~?t'r ~~?, `'{~t.~. , 'ilt' `~,~.tit?i: {. ll'C)11r1~;1 ~`~ ~ ,~'~ti:'::1 ~ ?t?i~11?~:l'dTTC;tIt ~t'11f,~T1'iTll I f.~'f7~M 1'i:itlCt~
ii ~.Se'.{1ttCSt tCar [~~i}lk~~:i~ t,~('tlr.' 'a{)t~{)' d~l~`~i!'.i'1 t`~~1J ~, .-. J~a:t~rt:~;tt~~J~t~"~'r111 S~s`t~it13~~
f'e.'Stell"ittttata axle' :~ ;S~I'~'j c)1 ~1.~'`°~11t'erlllr: t~ llfct3,C1 r'i:~ti)!';itte)rj Jta ~tl~ t.utaEaer t,)~, (~Ytttale+rrt
l?ttit 0304t}?t~~. R~;~te„~ttit;!? '~ti=~texraa~4 Ls..C: ;}Z~). c,1 I:,!?t~i~l~. JC ~<i~ tt~rcitci :~ ccas-rtr#ttt
h~. tJae: ~F,.P tc~ prc~: ict: j(}t?t}' ~1=~C1'~ Xttaci ~ ~t"~t~ '~ t~~ !,t C~rc>, iel~~ lav RS at t}t~ I3;'c~u~~
;tr~la S~vttttaa its. ~~ ~~ ,1staei~ste:~, P.~" C. ~~r:~ti+,n<~ i-;;l~~it,ters is tat~tc~lt~r c~t~tjtrurtt tc> RS
tca prcr~~icc~ Ceelaraie.etJ en~ireattrtt~rrtal ~:t~tt~ultitt~; tttsei tl~'it~rt ~c! ~ ic~~.
C)nt tti tl~~; ~,!?'.tit tast<~ }e? h~ 1}rrfi~rtt;e<1 lay IZ`~ ~::l~l~?l~lttit?ta ea#'an en~itittnr;entttl
St:r«siin~~ i~il C,s~{~;sr~3tii?ti ~ul~r3t!itai {>f ~; C"~;i~~~~t}ricai I:t~:lts~itstt ~f.:1~~1 tJ>~'ull~es~t. '['}tis
~t~rurlit<at i~ ~C~Lt:i}ic~tJl~~ ?~cCt?irccl }~y the 1=e:cl~;~t-t1 ~(i~ h~~xt~ :1~Intis~istr~~ti{111 {1=ilt'~`°'1) ter
~a?stat-c ce=!n}~lt;~r~c~~ tx~itlt ~.ari«t;~ 1~°e~~a';aJ ~:ravirt~rts~scstt.tl 1<,w~ ,tstel re~~u}trtitsr~>. "tllt~ E~;L;t~
ta'ui e3~'n?rr.?trzrte that its: l~tc?jt:~;t~ ~~?r?aJal~'~~itEt t~tle;lai ta,?lti3~sC~.~ tl~:r }~rert•;~ntiiti~>rt tt,
~~~'~. ~ tt"SII;J~tt[4~411~rtt Cli i;Ttll~~~tlSittCtr`vI`Tlitt~~°trt!tl ~a~~tS i)e7rfal EJ~ t~lt ~e~rll { 3,t~lllizi
~~~:}'dl ttt:~r?t ;?f [ ~=~19'~Oi31'i~.t1;~11 t<< t)tt`+~l rt; ~rc.?Ceea;~` tt,a;i~,(l2C~tit~~t„ t[I7~'~~I~ia tc Strl~i!11~ aE3t<~

~I

ita carclcr t'err tae ~arcaj~:~:t t€, ~rc?~~c.~ti. R~ i~ c~lzli~at~tcl tc~ c<?c1rt1?tt<rt~ ~.e to ~c~tar afierc: cart
}achrlfcrfthe f;i:~lt ~tacl °t~r"iltlii~ ('c~i~r<?is~,;?i~~t ~t:t f } ti~'~`1) a,~e~ tJ?c :~ti=~rtttt~ry t~irci'[`restty
r~ct t ~1t3'I','~}. ~°Iai~ letter' ta~t?~ icle~ }'eau ~Gtl cc:r;',.i!? cle~tailti ~~1'tl?e f3reat4'n i~lctrsia ti.~utrTaata,
ir~cludir~~, thy; prcajeet's Itacttticart, <? ;~,~~n~r~tl s~lesct`ipti<,rx <,f~ its j,h}'~;i<~~r~ttay, la}err ~~~,r:.sl~Jay
;'at?~J e;~i~tirlt; land u~e~, as ~eatl ~s the intenr_le;el ttacatlilictrtir~n~; tta tae Fitt; tarttpt~t~ircJ la~~ ltS.
'fit?t1 ar4 ert~t?urtr~etl tta ci~tcraarte i~thc: ~ict;ieat~s arc>~t~~t;d ~~ i`t tna~r be inirnicttl tc> tttav
re~e~trr-c:c~ ert~l,rttt; ~~= tlac F~?l~Cr~, ear tJt~; ~1E~T:1 ,;rah prcavicle wtaaraac~tats tea Its laaserrl tttx
~t~ttr c~sltrat;t>n. It is re~te>tr<tE~lc; tc? itssuttte that. fits Sc.r~ ic~t ~~•ll ctataata~erat i# tli~ <tctitata;~
;t';.,p~i~~ci h~, I~:'~ are, ira tl,~ ~~t~ it'd'"~ ~~C~inieara, likely i;, t~tit?lt tt harm tee ret~tauret
~:rt?i,r'i~~acl ~y tlae fi~~'C`r~: czr° t:rc '~1}i"t"~~.
(iii+;t ltiik = i 101 Httyne~; S€., ,Suits 107. 411~i~h, J`+C'' 7~~4}=t • w•°,~ ,~ .!t a,,;.~1, ;,,~~~'!~~~!;~.~:~!,ti • t~tttar~e; ~1~1.?~5.~1~~( • I=~~r~ t.~tel.7~~.~~I'

r~<~l~ ~Suiter ~:~r-~~-s
~~~~
~~~~u~t ~, ~c~~}
I'ro;ject Lt}catt>n I}s~scrintion t
The I3rt~~~ n ~:9a~-;Ea c~=~~~p F~c~t~~•atic~n bite is ln~;~tc;ci afafar~~~.i~xxatel~ ?.(} r~ile~ e~~~t nt i-
~~ toad thtE i'vt~t-th C'as~~lina,~Sc~utla t•'ar~lina lacsaader isa ~tc~l~esen Cc~'unty ~~ithin tlae EEP
'T"ar~c:tcci Ic7c:al 'ater~}~ecf +~~(l~f}'?t}~t}~7t}l{} (~'i~uei; #}. fide :;te is t~rc#Yarded Ixy ~'~a~t
McCtsrfx~ick 1Z~~atl (S.R, {~~91 } sari its sc?utlat;rla bt~ursd{tz°}~ ~nc3 b}~ t~ottc~n ~altc~r IZc~~d
(S.R, 2~z~2 c}n its ~~t;ster~~ bauntlary. The clt~stst city is 12r~ivland, tivhicl~ is ltacatt:cl
apprt~xrnatel~ ~,{} nailt;s n~rtla~3est t~f the site. The centerline c:~.~~~r~linates cif tla Site is
apprt~xi~rtately L~titucle.:~=~.~~3'?7C, and Lan~itude -7C}.7~CtCa7. filte site is l~ac~ted in an '
agricultural field that i3 rapt>rtaxina~atcl}' ~5t) acres in size. "1"he field is used f~~r rta~~ craps
that are cultivatt:cl for ect3~ac~mic~ bens: fit, l~'u~-ncrt3us ditcht`.s art~ Ic>t:ated it7 fhe fzt'ld tt~
fiieilit~~te the drainage t~f" grt?urailwater anal surfaec r~~tater tls~~=s. lxistng vcgetatQn s~ta-
site is sparse dui; tt~ tht= t•c~ ertjpping anal tstn~sistent m~ir~t~;nance, ,
Frcaptascd actisities dcsi~.;-nccl tsa ~r~stc~~'e tlae streasr~ ~lcl rt~c.tlat7ccl c~~trtplex inelt~cle
excavatita~~ nf~~ f}anl.-full (It}t3dpl~aita fat<nela anal sul•~sc~ttutrlt r~~t~~r~atitata cif strearxa channels,
wetlands and ~c~~elat~~~; cs~rnt~~unities r.~ricl~n tla~; cite. t~c~~r~isi~~ri~s.
Resttaratinn l~~eans ~ Ntethocls
The primary goals t~ftis stream and utan-r~rtori~te ~~vetland restc~ratic7n tars}sect t~>c~ts cai~ '
impro~-ti~ag water gnAlity, enhancing; flpt~d attertuatiun, anc! reststrng a~uatir anal
riparian wildlife habitat. T'hc~sc gt~als tivill be acctxmplish~d by:
Restoring. tine u~isting degraded claanncls with a natural claatatael alaie to tran~ptart
its sedit;lent and flc~~~ ~krithaut aggradiag or degrading.;.
• Enhatxting the capaeityr caftlae Site to mitigate flt>t~d tlt~~~s by recraxant;cting~he
strea~r~ tc~ its histcxrit: f~c~odfslaicY,
• 1Zeducirt~; x~c>n-pcxnt sciurce sedi~aaentation and nutrient'inputs through the
eliminaticasa of ccxn~tant chatatxel axaaantena~~tc-e, the reestablishment cif a nati~rt
rit~ariaaa buffer greater thaw St}`, anti the resttaratit~n caf riparian u~etlancis in the '
agricultural fsclds
+ lnha«c;ing in-stream habitat ~bY restcarit~g a sif~lc-lac~nl ctanxple~ ts~ the channel ~sl
b~ t~lac.iitg stnactures in thc~ c xannel that prca~i~ics shaditag and habitat ftar the
devcltipinctZt of healthy laetttlaic ctsrnixrunities.
• T:nlaancint the entire ect}systeiaa by rc~est~Yblishin~; tL~t~ Ixahitat ctarridi~rs tlarc?ufla
opera agricultural fields.
Specific actions propc3~ed to achie~fc these rests~r~ttis.~n ,goals ~~ill be further refined
duxing restoration plannxig anti. dtysign phase;; t}fthc: prtijtrct based upon hndizags
titvelt-apcd during detailed srte assessments, data Jeri}}c:d frt~nr rcferc;nce rcas~la+es at~tt
rc;ferenced wt;tlands, perriattisag rectuirenaezats, anti iplaut f'rum the Elul'.
1
t

' ~t~~ilc. ~uttt Lj ~t. ~t
d :i~4 .J
;~1t~ti4i 1, ?(7f~~z
4ural~an4tr~ czf .~n~ic~aE~d [4.if~cts
`lyh~: l~z~~ t~iin ei~:c:ts czf this prrajr;cf (~~€zst €;r?ri~trcic;tican~ ~~=ilt r~;ult ia~ ="~ c~~,=~r~11
~rzhxtz~t€~rrte~t tr> the iaxt~:~iit~ €>#'t~Z~ iina~-acYciiatc ~c:,ez~vst~zn~: azzti r~sz.~lt tit 1~t~€~ .r«ra~~
l~ronr:.tati~rl ~"ffcc~t t€~ fish rar ~~ilril;~~, 1 leas ;;~t~ u~il! also ~€; ~aa-€~tect~;d its !>~.r~:;ctuity ~~itlz a

' •
4;~C>a1~tii`V~iltt~tt i~:~c'1'r;il~.
L' ~~l,~tl~€ ~`~lI aa2 IiC~G'3.it€;~ ~~r ~`€?lir Cit2l~~~ t'c.sj~raa~5r 1I1€~ rmczr?~~tt"i(1(~it. ~~~<t~;4 tt~~ ~i'€',€', 1<)
~i>3ttFiCt US ~~.Eatih €tal~i €ju~Stlcta~s t1~ai ~'{)Lt 121tl~' ]~av~~. 1t)11C>€',Tilat3~T ~~1~ f;X~Ctt~ ~ Stt~ €~I:kLil~'3~itlrr~.
,iti~t~Caitt~€~ L~*t~~~ t~1ts ~Zi"r)jiw€`t.
~jt~aulc~ ~=caa.i tzaiv~€~ and- €~u~~;tic~zzs rza' if'«tz~~t artr:liti~rt~zt] inf~~rtt~iatirza~ ~~ tzr:.i~~d try €;~~aa~}~I~t€;
;t~taa- rc~°e~z, ~lc~~sta feel €°t'r;~ trz c;rzatfrtct a~~r; z~i {r)1~} 75~-r~~~)() (r~} car ~~~r~} ~~~~-~>=?
~`~r?~i~f:. ~~~LiT ~~~lua~~lr: tiafil(~ i~zl~ ~C1t~~'?~:~`tatir113 arcs it~czc~h a~~'~r~C11jt~~.

~aatr:.r:.rcl~°.

~~t ~ ~'aX "t1. ~tCI~C;C~ 1'T~i?,(it~~.T
t
' t'~~t;a€~~1ITt€;llfs
cc: klz-. L~a~~~. ~.~~~ll~z', ~test€zratirziz y~trrn~s, LLB'
i

1

1

1

1

1
1
1
1
l

84 r»~`~
`
en,,
. ~ s
Directions to Brown Marsh Swamp (from Lumberton):
Take I-95 South to Exit 2. Ai top of exit ramp, Turn left and continue
for approx. '/z mile to Cotton Valley Road (S.R 2942). Turn left onto Cotton
Valley Road and follow for approx. 2-miles. Turn left onto McCrimmon Road
(S R 2491) and follow approx '/~ mile and turn left onto a dirt access road
and follow approx 600 feet to site.
Restoration Systems. LLC Figure 1: grown Marsh Swamp Stream &
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 project Wetland Restoration Project
Raleigh. NC 27604 Location Robeson County, NC
•f:I, 4 919.755.9490
Overview Map

n
1:24.000 -~
tv
0 500 1 u00 "1000 3.000 ,~"~G
f e:

1

1

t

1

r

1
1

1
I~
~I

~'~ ~ L.
~3 Yx____-_____~_________
' ~' ~ ~.~'~~,~~ ~~~.C~.~l~~ .~5{~LI~`C~S {)1;11~1SS1tJ~'1 +X~'~
R;~pl<~rd 13. Il~tl~ilton, ir;xe~cuti~re I~ircctc~r
' }vl1~Mt?RANlaltlvl
Tn: Pau( Parker
Restoration Systems
' l I (1 l Hayes St., Ste... ! Q7
Raleigh, NG 276b4
1~"rr~rn' ,SteV~n ~~}. t>Lf'rhart, Phl7, ~~ y~~ ..••••.
Sr~utheastern Permit C'o«rdi~tate~r
127 f"ardnal t~rvG,
Wilntingtac~, hC~ Z~~I(t5

' Rl: 13rr~wns I~rlarsh Sv~amg Welland Restoration in Rcsbeson County
I3ic~logists with the htorth ~`,~~a3ina ~~,~`i(dlit'L Rrsu>.Irces Cor~unisson ~I*IG1#'RC~ hsi~•e reviewed the subject prajecT for
irttpaets to Sri}tilife and fishery. res~~lrccs. C?ur comments arc. provider} in aec~rdaz~ce wit prnvisioms of The l=ish and
Wildlife ~oc.~rciinarion Act X48 Stat_ ~#(}}r as antcncl~d; ld U.S.t~. 661. ct. seq.), and SecT'sot~s 4fil and 4114 ofthe Glean
Water AcT {as nmend~ed}.
The project is located approximately 6bfl ft north of McGrimmon {ar McCvrrnick) R,cl. (SR 2491 }, approximately
one-halfn~ile east of its inccrseCtion with Cotton Valley Rd. (SR 2492}, in Robeson Gttunty, ~ letter and a vicinity
map were submitTed for xuvview of #csh and wildl(fe issues associaTed with. The projecT.
The applicant proposes to restore natural form stream andassaciaTed wetlands in an agricu}rural field. '1`he stream{s}
is a Tributary ofthe Lumber River. The mitigation sT+rr will satisli needs far The N Iwcosystena EnhancemenT
Program {IrEPj.
"Chore dra not appear to be any threatened car endangered species That would be impacted by the project The lumber
River and il~e streams to be restored are cI~+ssifiul as C-~~~°arnp by The IwIG llivisioTt ofWater QualiTy (NCDWQ}.
The Wildlife Resources +Comission does riot object to this project. as proposed, Thank you for the opporiunTy to
review and comment on this project. Ti'you have any questions or require additional information regarding these
comments, please call me at (91t3) 796-7217,
1
~~
Maitin~ Adilre~st Division of It3(<mti (~ i~l~eries • 1721 Matt Service Center * Raleigh t~iC 27699-! 72l
Telcpleane; ;~r319} 7U7-U220 Fax: (91.9} 7~7-~1}2~

~UL°c"JvCUUC} I UfM I I+ ~C Hi'i k he 1fOt389 o n i a n
~HX iYll. ~!~ (;~:~ b`J~.3 }'. ilk
~~~ ~~
~.~
ial~t ~dthaar, crf I~B'Itl-~+i.
I~Pa' I~s~d in R+ab~e~oat Coun#X, #~„ ~..
+~Y swrom, tl~t a# ~ tip ~ slfaahad
natic~a was pvb#~rthacl M ' Rfl#~~#tA;~U. ~~
rt*YV~AK' tt11~ #~1 Of phi >i1~f~~'S lilu~ e~}~+
StAtuia 1 `-,5' S-y! 'Hi+r~ w~f~ n+MWtpfi-~lt" I~1 ~ g~lNl1`~~
C~1'C1JE~1 ttll (lCtV~1~ ~d sit~1#il~#N"ii r Y~115
fleas tr-slMr in iLnbastsn Cavmy, h3. C~p att~! i~ttri.
fl1~r, ~ ~~ at#aC11Vd nc-~lca YvtlalF pilL?~ ~
'~'Nl+ Rt3t~~"",~. 2IA1+1 ottise a YV+1!A1t #or .,_.M..,,,...t~ott•
sscutiw +?-*~c~ , c-c~ , fol~avrln~ taws etst+rs
~ MM1P"V ~"•/'
~rwi~ilarAssaolats EdElor
S~vortt to itid
ley ~anzmlcsian •x~ra~
~~ L
244
...~..
"'tiOTIOE OF At+t +• '
~r 6~
i+ '
f.1..Li p~opasCiA YA ptN`
silgs~ and u a 2i1 s
acre trst~E at Ind b~ f~o=+
bssatt: ~ougRy, Nptth
~uar~'1na. 'ftte
t~f s uitii~ ih18 ~~,ppr.
~f I~ iC ~JT4it{d~ ({i#~"
t1M ~6t' ~S7f~SCt6 ~1~1
Ai'a8.
that 1
actto~~
A retia!@
f~nb[~t4
~~ ,yet Haynes ~x.,~,
9ulto 1 a7, f3Hla~gh,
~7604,..fie4ua ti}t
be ri}~de by 4-.2~-dd, 1fi
t~didanat lntormntlatls~
raqutrsd, piaasb°• cr~t-
t4ct Pc~ui Parker at 815-
75 x•8480. Tlta ~cQ6+y+t•
tam ~r~ttonaellme~ ~'i~
gram•rssstVetes the
Asa determins ~P-:a Iv
~r~w1i4 k,,,~,h_ ~ ,,; :,;

1

1
1

i t~ 1
~tit(li"~?i }~l'~iltls'c"~:'~
n
~,tr;2lrl~)lir~ ~, ti~",e! ltah[i
~}~:~IlC~ l'~:..7t iv ~3 - ~~}~~
Iterzec~ ~leclhill 1' i:'Ics•
St~ztc I~li:~tc~rie~ 1't~ pct-vati+.ztz {~1`tiee
~~)1 ~ ~!1Cit~ ~~t'1 itl t Cart{:i'
`~ctt~j~;~±: 1.iE'- 33rc:rwt~t ?1'tztsl: ~;tt~it~ip ~itz-c;gtrzt ~' ll'~~t;,iT~~3 Re~tc?ratic~,z 1'rr~jr;:t~t itz ~i,h~~x,r~ C"tzuarfiy.
1Jeatr ;~~~~, C.iletlhiU-1;tt'l~y,
~~ ~tt°yt~tttc~rz S,~~Ltrms, L~,C~` ~ft~} hay 1?~en 1~~" ~r~i~.~t ~I L{)!~tt-~e ~~' the: T ~:r)~ti''t~t z C~,11~<ttzce~t'zt>nt
1'tt~s~YCil~1 ~~~,~'~ (tt tt`I°l~?~~'InC'21t i~ >i?'eiS(ll ~triCl l~~Ct}FlIlC3 I-e';ti)t"ittlt7ii~31t'Q~eca Iil 3Z-t?~CS<72? ~ t){tilt}'. r~tS
1't;l3litt'eti T~y° t3lc ec+lltr~Ct, 1~ t'et3tii"1~',~(7ttr fc<k'1C1t ~?f`t31c (fit'<~{turf attitl ail}' et)Tt7tltettt~ t}t;it ~(lt2 t11c~V
'
lldle 1l'(til 1's,'`+3'iC.`L`t ~~? i.t2-C11~r103t)!`-',ll;<i} ~)l" ~ll~t(7rtt:213 1"t"~i){ll"t t,4 tl~tif)Ci`s1~+~C~ "t~'I~11 tt. ~1i1~' 3G)~;ttfc`~!1 c?~ t11i.'.
rti~jcct is shtl~~'tl {)i` the Qiitae-lutl n~a~.
~~1°Ilc 33r«~c.u .1~ltit ~}l Stir am3~ Sit c~ttl~ :~ntl '~~tl~nc3 itc~tr~rattt+ztz site lz~s hc~etriclc:rztitit~i ltzr tlz~
pur3~r~se. ~?ffarclGtciin~; )il-kiitc3 t~liti~~ati~~it Iilr tina~~)ic3a~~1+.. 5tt~ttti~ charlll~J all.tl ~gvetl~~tzd itZtp~~t<,t~.
~e~crl3 ,ecti~?rte <~i eh;tntl~~} liatc (~ue.~tl i~3elitafie~i tt~ :~it,ilifil~tiit3ti' cle~.;i'<Irie~l. l~~z tlr~:~lzit~ctut'al
structure, i)r It'~heciltl`Ti~~tll ~trtif;I~-t• 1<<.~; F}~lerz ttl~se>.'vec3 cn it«tec3 cltir-iIl`.; 3~t'eliiTZi2?ir~,' ~ut-vcy~ czt'
thc~ +tte ft~2' 1'~~tt)1'I.T1()il 3'ittl'}it?~ti~. 31l I1#:~(~ItIK7t1, tlz~ 1?l~tai?t1t~' i?t 11115 site }i.is fli':fi>t iC':tfi~" ;"JeL'Il
tlisturl~cci t3i:c tc) ~l~licu3tural 3llir3~~.>~~~~ such. tclha~ec;: l~rcreltlc:tic>n.. 'I°!ic 4-~rctw~<3 t3i~tur~~trtc:.c
ttctrvifleti !'tt3llfl'c'i3 tt) ~'t)2113)}et t~ltti 311'()~C4t t~'111 Utll~+ 1t11~1zIGt t11C1st ~lt'l:<i4 tlleIt ha>a 1?r~'4'It)trtsl}'.?L'C:t1
11121}Iit'tecl t~ttt' t~, thi`~+~ tt~~rjttlllLtt'wII 3~r'zi~i1~~:5.
T'h~ prt~ject kl~~~~zl~e~; tale restczratitz.tl czf ~t~lzrc~xi~fi~~~ ~,t)t~ fret tzf~t~vtz uz~tzitirzcc~ t2 il~rutal r4~ ~rzd
t~1 five a~:res tzl'~'~ct3art{is; It zs llzcateci c~tz tl~c: VJ~Ir~ Vann, ltac~itecl nppraxinlar~l~ 2.~1 lni1~ ~ east
~1l~ 1-~~ arz~t the Tic}rf~r Ctzrctlitza;'~~,{it}~ CYzrczlirza 6cz<zrd~r irz tZt~f}tr~<tn Clitlit~,~. '1°}l~ site i~ bt,tlr~i4~3
h~ 1~a5t I~Ic:~cannitrl: Rczaci {~.R. {2-3~1) czn its s~~uthcnz Fz~uniiar~~ ~tnrl ley t't>ttt)n ~rzlle}° ~tczticl
r (~.R. 2~~ tln its t~ e;;rert~ bczunclar}~. 'l'1~e clelsest city tt~ the `site is R<1',S~lanci, w'llielz is l«caecl
zt~prr7xizn~lt~ly ..{J Itziles nrirtlzw~st czl`the. bite. "I'he eetlierlirte cctc~rdirates c?f-tlze: fit is
~I}'1>r'i)~iinat~;ly l..tlti.utl~; ~,49327ta ~1•tcl I~~atzl;ituclc; - r ~~.'74t~G'7.
1
F'i3<zt ~t13 • t 1!Ctt 3 3,1; t?c~ fit., S~tit;~ !{}7 • t2~~~L'i~l,, ~C: ?7tiCt-t • ~~ 1~ w.retic~r~ii~i~~ ~tr:!n~.~:r>m ~ t~h~ane ~3~J.7~ ~)~~(t ~ Fax ~)t~.75S.~

1
1~~'~ ~~c~~~iL~t that yctu ril ?Ct4 this Otte htr~~~cl ctt~ the i-~~fi~rtx°ts~ti~tt t~rot~~,7~ct 4c, dc~tet~nsnc~ iyctu kn~~~u
ctt'a~ty #.~iSt~n~ re~ctut~:c~=, that w~ tte~~i trt kttct~~ ~tl~rnut. ht ac~clitictn, pl~;zt~e ptct~.~icie cis ~~itl~ yctaar
ectitl~il~ittti t•e~~u'tlin~; the t,s`c~Pct~;ecl lts•c~je€-t.
Thanii yctu ift aciuanc:e ~c?r yctut• timely res~tctt~~e and ectctt~eratictn. Pleast fcc:l £'re:t; tta ec~ntttet the
at tl~~: t~C'tic~' {~71~~ 7~5-~~~(3 ctr, ctn. t~ty cell Pl~~tne {~Il~)~ :3fi~)-~:~2~ if yctu h~t~e any cluest~ctn:~.
i'aul Parker, I'rctjei:t 1~1anac:r
~tt~tcl~tnc;nt~: '? Yr~4tp
1

1

1

1

:~
~~ ..
~,;
~, ~,~
Project Area
Overview Map Q,
Lumberton
501 ~
{ 301 ~ "/~
Directions to Brown Marsh Swamp (from Lumberton): ~,
Take I-95 South to Exit 2 At top of exit ramp, Turn left and continue
for approx. Y~ mile to Cotton Valley Road (S. R. 2942) Turn left onto Cotton ,. ~~
Valley Road and follow for approx. 2-miles. Turn left onto McCnmmon Road
(S R 2491) and follow approx Y~ mile and turn left onto a dirt access road 74
and follow approx 600 feet to site.
Restoration Systems. LLC Figure 1: grown Marsh Swamp Stream &
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 Project Wetland Restoration Project 1:24,000 N
~ Raleigh. NC 27604 Location Robeson County, NC
919.755.9490 a sco + o00 ~ uoo s o0o a ooc
F ~~~t

t

t

1
1

1

1
r

1

1
t

t

1

1
~~~
--t~ ,~~ r.:~
T1uuw

1~:~Lltit:" ~~, '?{)(lei
hic~~th Carr}li:na Department of ~tx~tutal Rescrur+c~s
State Hi~tarc Ptescrvation C~ffiec
3°rnrrr !3_ f;aru7C+~:zk, iti}enit5xlr~c6?s
17~r~ I!: ru s! l~esansr~ts
(S~z; ( (ii 1 ~ ~ I~3="
1'alll l'arkcr
I~cst«xatit~n ~}=;stcrx~~, LI.,C:
Pilot a~iilE
11 t)1 f 3ayttcs :trc ct, Suite 1017
1taEci~;h, Nt: 2~t,t-1
tic: E;I;I?, l~erc>~,vz~ t~ax~h Stream & lYJetEa~}d Elc~~~t~r;ttir)n, l~.ol~esc~n (;~>x,nt-~, 1s12. C3Cr_?1?
EC~Ix 711r. l'arEticf":
1`hank ~it;~u f~~r ~=r-aur lcttcz~ c~f~ul~~ 31~ ~?C)(;(~~ cc~nccrrut~ tE~e al>c>vc ~rraje~t.
1~'e h:~ti c c~~ncl~3ccccl a rc~~icw of the prcaposed undert.tk~n€; .end are atix~are of no histoxic resources that would lie
affect<~d by the 1~rciject. 'I~ltexcfrare, e have n« coxnrncnc on the c~tlclcrtakin~ as l~ro~ao~eci.
`I'hc alirac°c e~,t~~na~ttts are made j~urxuanr tri ~ccric~n 1C1~ <>f the aticanal I Ii~taric I'resczva~csn .tact artd the
rldvisc~~ C;tatinc-~1 <}n I1ist!axic I'resc~~~atic>n"~ I~c.~~t~lati4at7~ fc>x C'opliancr ~l ith 4~;=cti~>r3 1{:?G codified at 36 Cl~"tt
fart ~3t)(1.
'i°hank }~~~u fc~r ~ <aur cot~J~eration and coxtsideration.:tf you 17ave +~uesti<?iis coszcert~ing tl~c abo~.=e cr>rnxnei~t,
contact ltcne~ ~Jledl~ill-larley, envirt~ntncntal teview cruaxdtnai~or, at 914/73-~76~, Irt all futua`e
comrnur~icatic~n concerning this pXOject, ~kise cite the abr~ve referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
i Kl , ~~~~~Ir~G~ ~i~"K~
1jClCr saxtdheck ~? 17t ~`~ (~
_-
~

?4~1ai~11'~:IS!`~CA'I'1{1N
T aiinn
` 'tE a t~ i 1 °~t
Jv~aIG ~, Addr. .
{ 1
iti`7 ~
t .
b t
t 7
7 ~!<rF 7 ~ r { xx
--.
~ t +~
:

RTs.~It)R:A't'tCT3~3
Si-~: tSt~„~~> ,.:.
t,t3. ~~it :E..: .
~ ~.. ~
o ~
.,
~fr77At~I,.c,vcit .. l~n:~,t iti _, ~.,q8i r
5~
i ,~~ -.~ vr.~rF
ii `R1 hj'R[PLJISV~NG 61~h'. i.E ..r-„~. ( ~l, ~~1~, '.-. -}I',i7 a.a.':. nx. a.~v- 1, ni. - .. ;i~<.#.~ 1 :,, ~u"E~

Natur,~l Resc~ut~t
I~t,4t«r;tti~n ~ C:.~~nsrt~~atie~t~
February 27, 2t~~?fi
I~Sr: Jahn des Ward
1'C3 Bc~x 343
Myrtle Beach., SC
Dear fir. ward.
.l'1-tc: purpr~se of this IettGr is try notify you that Ke~stcxatie~n systems, LI~C, in
caff~:rin~; tc~ purchase' your praperty in Robcst~n bounty, North Care~lina, cle>es nc~t have the;
pcawe;r tca attire it by eminent domain. A]so, Restoration Systems' ctt~`er tc~ purchase
ytaur prctpct•ty zs based can what we believe to be its fair mat•et.
if you have, ar~y questions, please feel free t~ call me at ~ l I-3b~-~~2
Sits ~ - v,
Paul Parker
Project Manager
i'i!s}t'~1t€t * ? lit€ €€;3~~tc~, tit.. `i~sitc` €{{7 • €2;tlei~+€r, ~t`"'7(`,tl=€ * to~ata ~:~,~t»•,ttiE»z~~vtt~itt~.c~<A~fit • E'€~~}cseZ1€~{.?~fi ~).a~Ht• €'°,ati <}~f) "'S` ,~;~,,

1T~ ~+17.~..
RTC: ~rn~vn Marsh ~rvam~ Strum wctlanc~ 1Zestor~tit~n ~at~
i2r;*l~esc~n ~ounty~,
itrrst~rratifrn Systcnas, ~L.~'
#=r»r~: 1'auI ~'arl;:cr, i'rc;<jc~~t '~1~,».jcr

fit:,1E3J#~t;``I°: Ccrrdit~tatic~€t witi, tl3c 1I.4. i'ih a€~d 'ti~'ilc#life S~:rvicc c~r€~ E3ehal[ €~#•Sc:cticxr~ 7
rrE` tltc I:ncia€}~;ercd peeLS <'~~ i { 1.5:11 t<~r the. ~rti»~~,t Mat~l~ Swarr~r~r ttc:~tcr€~aticatr Site rr
it~,(,~,~~tr ~'cau,rty.

C~

(~€r C~~tcrber ~, ~{#~~, the r~;~~t-tl1 C'~irc~l„~Et C~trs~:~tcrt~ #~t~hat~c~,r,•t1c~,~t #'rr~~ran~ (lrl~i'} issu%d
rr i~er~uc:st fc~r Pr~~~rcrsat~ frrr ~f#t1(}, c}f strca,r~ ~iti'ii..1's), t6 tiers o#"rivc~rine ~~=e.tia€~d
re:~tc~rrrtic>n and 5 acres nft~c~n-[i~'t.ri;1~ u~etla,Yd restcsratian ire thy; #.M€sttnc~r #ti~rer ~3a5i€~ ,
C"ata?+~~~ii14r lJnit O:i~~tl=t. i~e~t~rr~_,ti«,~ S}~stcn~s, LI~" (RS7, ai- Ra#eisir, ~1C' ~v~is
sub~cc~uc,~ti~~ a~x <€rd:i a ear€~t,.rct by the 1~El? tt~ rca~~idc: 5t#tC}' SMU's acrd ~ V4'ivitl's is be
iZrn~id~;cl by RS at fire tt~«n l~larsh Swami Site, K4 ~~: ~1~s~rci~ttes, P.C C'crnsuiti€~};
lrn~irteers is urr~ler cirntract tc~ l~ tea Pr€avid~ teclrnica# cnti~ironmentat ecrrrscrltng and
€~~ crf the eaclic5t tas>tis to he pcr#~rtned b~ RS is completion ofa€t envir~a€~€xacntal
screeni€~ aid i~reparati~rr€lstabt°riittttl of a ~'atc~orical Exclusion ~~`C) docun•€ent. This
dcrcu~:nt i5 s#~c~4ificaliy reciuired by t#~e #=cdt,-a3 Highway Ad€ninistraton {>'HWA} to
insure c~~,~l~ii~rnce with carious fe~it'rai e,r~ irc>n,~~e,itat laws and rer,l<rtions. The 1~EP
must ~1ron~tratL that its projects ei)rni)#~` with federal mandates as a l~rccc~nditia€~ to
i=H~~'A rtialrhursem~nt of cc~rrtpt,rat~,r~~ €r€tx~;aton casts bor€~c b~! t(ic itic~rtl~ ~`arolina
I}eparin~c:nt c~#~7~`r~r,rsj~c~rt~rtion tc~ c,ffct its prc~jct ts' una~=cridahlc irt-tla:rct~ t~~ strca€t~r:~ a€td
wetla,3d~.
5ir~cc #;,~a€~~.:iai Rul~pr„-i of cetlairt >^f~l' ~>~eratir>,t~i hudtcs c#eri~~cs, i€~ part,. rc7,t~ fi4r~ri
acrth~~rir,tis3ns, if is ritcc:,s~~rytrr cr~,rcittct a Scctir`r°€ 7 consultaticxr with tl~ t~.S. dish an~#
'V~i#t#lit~ Serti~ice {Sen~ic;cj_ This loiter #~rt7vici~;s ycau with certa€t cictails air,>ut the I3r~uFt~
IVia€-s!r S~i,,np l~c~ttrr~,tic>n Site, irrclttdint! tl~c prcrjeet's Icrcatic~rrr, a ~;er,cr.rl {1~~~°rilaticr€~ ~#`
its phvsic~~ir~r~l,~•,, lry~lrca~r<,lrhy a€rd existing la,~d uscs, as tvcli as tlti r~tc,ul<~ti
n~cadr#ituticrr~;; fir tlri sitc h,~~r}aost~t# b~ ~;. 1€~ ac#dition, should th€: prcrjec~t he it>~.,t~.d its a
~e<r~.rrrl3hi~; art;rt irr 1G~#~i~~it ~'i~erally=-lisic~~# s~c.cic~;~ rrrn}~i~c presctrt (ba:~c~i r,n ca~:~r~c~nt

LJ
talc Baiter, I.tSFWS
Page 3
July 31, ~U~(>
oceurrcracc;s, as rcfic;ctc,d in Service lstisags), asad il`scientilicaily-sotand practicc.~; have:
been used tea ccanf irm tl~~ }~r~sence QCsuitat3lc hakaitat fear any listed skies ~uriihin the
project. area, the results of appropriate surveys Liar cacla listl species and sclaaratc
bioicagical ccanclusicans fiat Bch will be las•cavidcd t<ar ycaur review and ccanside~raticara. ';'eau
arc askcei te- rcvie~v tlac: is~fcarsnaticata proviJetl atad det'naainc: il' it is suffieicnt ica enalale
you to ceancur with <aur lairskagica! conclusican~;.
Project Location & i)escri#atican
The 13rcawsi Mztrsl; S4~Fantla Rstcaraton St€~ is lcac;ated aplarcaximately 2.0 miles cast ca#` t-
95 and the Atrarth Carealin~t.~Scauth arcalista hcaardcr ir3 ltcalaeson Caunty within the f.=E1'
Targeted local Waterslaeel t13t33{?~t}4fl37~1C1 {!°igure. Xj_ `llac site: is boarded lay last
McConnic;k l~caad tS.R. {?4~?1 ~ can its srauthern bt~undary as3d lyy Gattcsn Valley Rcaa<i
S.R. 24~~ .ran :its westes-sa tacaundary. Tlae cicas4st city is Rowland, which is lcac~atc~d
approxitnatc:ly ~.{} sni3e; ncartlxwcst of the site.. 7'lac centerline caorditaates caf tlae Site: i~
approxinaatcly latitude ~~.~~~27~a grad 1 rtngitudc -?9.?74t}{i7. The site is ltacatod ira asa
agricultural fictd tt~~rt is a~atareaacinaatcly 35t) ac:res in situ. "i'lac field is used fear rraw erca(as
that arc cultivatccl iiar eccancasnic benefit. Nunaereaus ditches are located in the ticlcl tea
facilitate. the drain~a~e cat` ~;rcausad~jatcr atad surlsce ~~°ater 17eaws. Existitag vetc,tatic~n earl.-
situ is sparse. due tea tlae: rca~~ ~rcappira~; asacl ccasasistcnt salanteraatYCe.
i'rd~cased acii~~itics dtsi~,saul tea restcare the; str~:ata~ asad wetlatad enaplex iracludc ,
exca~raticatt ofa bank-fail iloodplan bench and subseyucnt restoration of strcasaa claansaels,
wetlands, and vegctatiue coaz°tsa3unities within the site laoutadaries. ^
Restoration 14~1eans ~C Mc#hods
The primary goats caf this stream and non-riverine wetland rc:staration project foetus can S
mtaro~~irng water quality, enltatacng flood at#enuation, and restgring aquatic ~rnd
riparian ~4rildlife habitat. These gcaals will be accomplished by:
• Restorisag the existinz: deg,~raded channels with a natural channel able tea translaort
its sediment arad tZca~ti~ l+~ithout aggrading or degrading;;
• Enhancing the capacity ol` the Site tea mitigate flood flou+s by reeannecting tlae
stream tea its historic floodplain.
• Reducing ncan-point source sedisaaetatation and nutrient inputs tlarouh tlae
cilisnination caf constant channel maintenance, the reestablishn•-ent ofanative r
riparian buffer grratcr thaw ~~', and the restoration caf riparian wetlands in the ^
agricultural fields,
* Ei~hancirag in-stre}asrs habitat fay re4tcaring a riffle-pocal ccasnptex tea the channel asad
by plac:ira~; structure;:; in the; channel #hat provide shading and habitat fear tlae
develcapnacrat cafhealtlay bcntlaic tronanaunitics.
• 1~nhancing the eratirc: c:c:c~~~~stcsta lay -'c:castablishrtg twca habitat. e;carridors tlamu~;la
caper agriculttar:zl fic::lcls. ,

'1
~J
bale Saaittr #lSFWS
I~a~~ :~
Sealy ~ ~, 2c~
Sf~~a~i tie ati~ins pr~hescd to acl'llie~~c these restnratitan ~;c~als will be further refined
ciurir3z restearation ~tan~lin~ raaz<~ tfe;si~;a~ phases of the. prtaj~~t h~tscxl uptan findita~;s
tit;vclc~ped during, dctailccJ site: ,ttisc:~smc.ntS, data derived f"roan rcfi~rc«~~c reaches and
' a~c:fcr~~ateetl wetlands, l~c:rrrtit#irs~ ,;;tiarcntents, rand nlaut frtja~r the f f!',
Fccicrally [,fisted ~~+ecics
1 d~lta-ee: staccic:s arc lis#c;d by the ~cr~~ce fiat tahcsean Cataunt ~--tht: rta°c:
y y
"]`alalc i . C~dcrall_~ i'r<itertccf Sl~~~c~c:s f«r l~~a~c;~;can C'raunty
_ ~ ._-.
4l'C~~t-Il:ti C~t)'~11titt)ti N.~1Ml~, C:F;t)F,It;1C. `~TAI"tsfi
~..~_. .._ _ _~ --___._ _._.a_. °m~_ _ ._.. _ _
etllh;zrl<~r,rrrtui~r ~ r~r~ ~t~nct7c~n alla<~atcar _f. (:~lA?
~/CUhft'1 htJ) {'(1~1.`~~ retl-Ckadetl Wi`3C7d~1CCl1er ~„.
.....,..~.. ._.._. _,.._.... ._ ...~._....~. _. ._ ,._m..,.... ._.. _.._~..__.._._._ _.__....d.-.---_
3~'I,r~s ~r~ic~Itrrrr_rir" Miehtatak's sann<a~ L
ticatt.. `I` (:S/,~)~' and ~~°x. dct~ratc "I ltreatc ned c3~~r t~~ ~i~atilarity c~f`.~l~hcar.ance and
~.attfaa~~er~etl. `T° (fA) ~p~~~;ic~ are taca# bicar~_~i~all~ cn<f~[atl;ert:tl tar tlaiL~rte~ttd aattl art; n<<t
subject tc~ ~cctiean 7 ~i:~~~~uliati~,r~. l-.nei.ut~~cred ~,;~ec~ie~ are.'"taxa " in tl<in;.~erof~t;~ti~7csi<~at
thrt~ng~lac~ui call ar a >i~~irtr. ai~t }x~rtican t~ftl~cir r~an~c."
L Suninzarr° caf AntCci~atc+~ ~ffect~;
Altl~ataula tlrc; ab~vc rcf`ercnc,l c:nd~:~~~:a-ed s}~ccies arc. listed ftrr Rtabesvtr C'csunty,
I~rc?lao*;ccf ~~!nrk at tlae site ~~ill not itrrlaaet suitable habitat fear either species. F~icld
c~h5crti~~atitans determined ti~at fi~crc~ is nc, auitable habitat t3aat e xist; v~ithin the site fear at~y
to f' t he 4lac~cie~.
Bic~li~s,~ical Cot~c[trsican: ]t is reastattablc tta ctancludc the rt~'ect, tts rta used. ~~xill _ J
p J f? p l~a~ e
Nca Effect on either tafthe listed species laased upeat~ tits absence t}f'suitalale t~al4aitat.
;! We thank y~~u in advattcc f~rr ycaur timely resptancc end ecaeaper<atitYat. Please: feel free tea
crantact us with any queatii~sas that ye`trt tray have etancernir~,~ the extent o site: disturbance
asstrciate~:l ~~ itlt dais prt~jcc~t. (']erase feel free: tea ceantact me at {9l9) 7~5-9490 ar {~l9)
3fi9w432. ~'uur valuakale iiane and ccaflperatican arc anucla appreciated.
1 ~...

C
~)
J

L~

~I

~]

f

t

1
L ~__ _
.,~ s' ''
'~j.
' L` `a~ ~
A ~. - ~ `~
~~ 'xA- ___-.._-.
4iI ; . ' i p ~C
~~~. ~ ~`~ '' ;+ r?S Non Rfv%nne ~ ~ ~`~
w'i~•.~ ,,~~
- 76 ` -- ~` C R_: ~ ' ~
' ilJc•~I~tnti Restoration
~:, ~„r o-.~~ k~- Nrxihenr U1 ~.
. s ~ ~~~ ~ ~~, ti"'~~ ~. ~ >10 LF 5irfarn 1t..~,r
s ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ s
Y
! t +R
!~ 1 '4
. , . ,~,,
~ ~ ~ 3 -
I
+ '
~Sj•
_ •~
~4.
v ~< ~ ~ }
`~" - '='-~ ` Southern UT
. ,
:..;, ,,.. #':.-',~ _ ~ S eam Restoration
!,~,w
• t 7~' ~"r^ ~ ~ I
r. r
.:~ ~.
~,.
f -~+ c
s~ .~'
!-:
•Y
i4 • "xi ••~ ~ ' ~ ~~ .~~~ 't2} ~~_..
~ . ` ;~.
.' +1 r
- _ Eck 4= ~~, i ~='. f
~ ~ ,; r r s 'yam j?' . j ' -^" tr', y~,,,~ f~ ~~ l;!
' ,
':t llAA.rr
~ '
_ ~ ~ i r ~ Figure 2 gown Marsh Swamp Stream 8~
• ' Wetland Restoration Project ' } ~~';`'`
FZabeson County. NC
1 ~ : - - ._._ --~

~~{{~# U.S. department of Agriculture
F~~IYIL~~~ CC}~lVER~If~N ~I~~L 1 ~V

0

~~
1

1
PAt~`l" ! ~~ be c[rna~aFetett by ~'er~erl Ageneyl gate CTI Land ~valuatron Request
tdatne CJ9 Project BfOtivii Marsh Sv~+ert3p Federal Agency tnwtved
federal Highway Admirtist t'
e~rcz{xn~?at r.ar~ use. Strum ~ wetland Restvrsrf~rt
Cax~nty A~xt Slatc Rot~srxt, l~ttstth ~arofina
..~„~r ~~ i ~ u.,~ ~.v„y~r~icu a~yrvret..~> Date F~.~
' r ~ z ~teceived By tdRCS 911tt)6
_...~ _ a _____.. ,.
t?~s ttY~ 5tte cc~ntaut prime tln~pz,e statewide ar kcal t
rnpoftant fux'fratarxi? Yes Ato -Acres Irrigated Auerage l:am, Size __
(if nn, Ihc~ ~f'~A dues nr~t ap~~y -- do trrrl ctrrrr{c additicrrtat patf~ of thrs ft~°rr?J. ~! Pt1 ~ ~t.+
____ _. _..r~.~_~___~
t~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I=armal~ l.arr<i In G~rwt. Jurisdicir'crn
-~taaC;x;~,,,,,- Amocirst CN Farmiaf~9 A> C3ei#rte~d rr, FJ'talt
_- _ ... _ _ ~. ...~ _ 4
`Acr`es. ~# ~ 3 2 ~. ~:? ~ ~ ~ ~ Acres: °Ja '7 ~ 'a
_~~__
Narrre Cat t next E datu.:wn S tem Used ~ - -- - ~ ----.-~',__._ ~ ~ ~ ~ S2_ .
~y 3~ Name t~f Lo:.at ~,te As~sr»ent S__-._______ ~,_.~ ~ , . ~,m. .,~. _~ _ .v_ _ _ ~ ~
t~ tJ ~ ~:. ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ j ~>~ ~ ~ Yater~ tote Larsd E3raiE~IKrn E,tt;~ttted Py fotftCS
-~~,~~
PART III (Tce +~ COITF/)1c''IeG~tljt~F3f~c'F,7t,Ai)rx~~)Gyf __
. _ .~ ~.._ _ ..~ _..__ ~e _.____~ ~ t ~ A
_ -
P 3tii~," ~"~re> Tip iiR ~:on~~e[t~~ Dtr.~t`tt~ ~ _ .~
~. _ i t (7
R 7ta~~1 Atrc~~, To f?r~ C:rrrnertF.cj Gr;~lirectiy -- _____~ _.~_. .._..__~-..
__
t~ ~ l /irrt;t> Ire tie ~ __._ _., __ ._. _.m.
C ~D ~„A.ez,_.
~ PART tV j T, ~`tc' cGmpJCt~d tJ~ lL!~~~~ L,~f1tt I.Vr3lUattUri iii{(j{tt~ri
.......~.,.._._F...~._~....<.....____., ~,T..v~
A 7utat Acres Rrarn~ Ar~1 t.}rt~c# Fartntanri
ni ~[ AC(c,~ St-~iewida Itrtd Leal Ir~i;~prtant 1=arrnlan~
f. Pr r~~ nt~~~c; Q! I arrnl~nrl in ~ _ __ _ __~,._.
~ ~ocrnty Or Lcx.<i( C,r'Yi Unit Tc~ 6e Ccsnverird,__~
~D. ~''n., n~„~~,~ (~{ t a-misnd to L,~b; Jun ;anon 4'+~.t..zcrnr ~r };' .-_. _
ir~r~r
~elat~ vet
F'Ai~~V ~Tri L!~ rarr<~ <_~t<~rJ try,"J.ti~°S? i~;~ x; i-,.~lir~..;fin Ur.ir:•ri~n
RO t~: L•`~tiu* ~t F<~rrtt(;:r3,j j'p ;3e C',~ntiert{~; (~, <f!f> of t3 tr3 iUt3 Points)
PART VE ~7°~ t = rr~,=tf is ~ t~ti r f r ara? Ageri~ti ~
A~axc .,,~~,y ~
~~d r :>;, . r_o r..~, t r ~sa cr 1 ns ~~ tsx.~itt~l;~ r f ~€? fa.~£d~~(at F ~~g~
_- _. _ - y 4
1 Aria 1 N >r;u.t s~; Ur;t
__.
f ~ 3~
~..
F3;rr,~i~ 7c 4 1t: ~< ~,~a;~,~n #I c
_.
..._ ~
'- -- _-__ _ ~_ R Q
~ } <~tc~ rtt ~ ~ Sitc ~ea~g t rrn~c~~ '~-
_._ -- _._ ~ __ --- _..Tra ~ ~
~ Prc~tt_ r t~~r €'r~,~;<i :~i f3p St it Arm ~l t.,~3t ~,<~rnertt j ft ~,j)~~
~..~.
Dt~,;,~r F r;~nt IJtt~art 13uttttrp Rrc x
_ - - ----- _~ _~_ __ .~.., i~
6 €7;~tdt7r F T~~ {Jrt?.~n SiJ~~Jit Se~PYtc es
__~ ~~_
7 ~r e C}` F'rs ~~3r F-~:m Urrf ClSrttl38r~t1 ~tti Avira~
$ Cre'a'i~rq tai tJvni ~•m~L~t~ ~a~Ianci - --_-. _ .~. k i~...m _
____ _
________
S A~~tka apt#y C14 F~fr~ Supt~rC~ervsc:e5
_ - -_ __ _.__._...,_____ w__..__ ~,_ __-__._ . ~ __~_
tt3. C}tt~~.~rrn Inuc=tnt~nt~ _~ . ~°
~. ... _ ..~..x_~ _.,___~ t? .
~~.~.
11. ~ffncts Ot Cor varstt~n Ort Farm Su ..
_..~..,~ ppott St:rv~c~< tt~ ____
1~r'ompaitr?;tity V'~tttt Fxisttno Agawttural t.lSe
-- - _ _ ~ __ _ ...__ ~...._ ___ _.~~__. ~ A_..~m
TO>•AL S17E ASSESSMENT P~it+tT'S ~a6~
s
_--
PART Vii {To t;? ccsmpteteri by;~ectersiAgency)
__~ _.,_~
Relatiu~ v~iuc. ~ l armt (l~rnrrr Part'4~ lt~{7
-.-w ~~ ~ m,._____....~
~r?, tc~t $tl~ 1!.>.,es :ntk nt (F iJP7t Q~ Y13ttt)YE' DT ~9 Jt?G~l
RKC asses ra~nt~ ~~}
Tt}TAL PQlt~tl ~ (T(N:al ct~br~v~; 2 tines) 2t~
SIIenSctected: Cate to Selectlen
.sun F6r Se«~tx-n -._____ _~~.~_._~. _,_
(Sc tnsfruettores orr rev: , ~e sldc r
rltsp K»m xVai .~„~: h.~ ~~(E-... ir3n ~+^rvaC~'~;7"T

f- r~.~3
?t7,~
1G
tD
__ _~~
~ .dr i) ._
„~
~~ (3 _.,..~ (} _..,_ ~
~=-
boas A Lc~i Site Assessr„~t1 u~c?
`~ d too Ct
IForm A[)-1005110-83j