20050676 Ver 2_Restoration Plan_20071105

,~5-0~7G ~a
LITTLE RIVER WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
RESTORATION PLAN
Moore County, North Carolina
SCO Project Number D07062S
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
osstem
PROGRAM
Status of Plan: Final
Submission Date: September 28, 2007
V/ ~ /~
NOI~ Cv`V~V
~F s
osr FRS
~~~ry

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Little River Wetland project is being undertaken to enhance and protect functional aspects of streams
and wetlands within a 1251 acre conservation easement located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of US
Highway 1 along Little River in Moore County, North Carolina. The project is funded by the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Initial project research and design began in 2002 and was
undertaken by BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure, PA (BLWI). Multiple scope changes were made and
the project went from having a major stream restoration component to primarily wetland enhancement
and preservation. The project transitioned from BLWI to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) in
the spring of 2007. Portions of BLWI's initial data collection are presented here.
The project is located on property sometimes referred to as the "Little River J-Bar Ranch," "New J-Bar
Ranch," or simply "J-Bar." Historically, the property was sometimes known as the "McKeithen Tract."
The property is currently owned by J.J. Barnes and his family. The property is actively managed for
wildlife habitat to facilitate hunting on the overall tract.
The overall project site limits are defined by the conservation easement boundary. The project site is
bounded on the west by the tract property boundary, on the south by the Little River primary channel, on
the east by the tract property boundary, and partially on the north by the Little River floodplain edge. The
project site is dominated by a cutover and bedded area. Prior to the initiation of this project, this area was
planted with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Various herbaceous and woody species, in addition to the
loblolly pine, are also found at the project site. A bottomland hardwood forest approximately 200 to 500
• feet in width is located between the timbered area and the Little River primary channel.
Several channels traverse the project site. These channels are natural streams with headwaters forming
within watersheds of the northern slope. Small portions of the channels appear to have been altered in the
past but currently appear stable. No restoration or enhancement of streams will be a part of this project.
The overall goal of the Little River / J-Bar project is to facilitate the development of a natural system
which exhibits desired functions appropriate to the existing geomorphic setting of the site. Specific goals
include: 1) water quality improvement; and 2) natural community enhancement.
The proposed project components include: 1) removal of undesired vegetation using mechanical methods;
2) planting of the project site with specific native species to control erosion and enhance natural habitat;
3) plugging of an approximately 1200 if ditch to restore natural hydrology to the northeast corner of the
easement.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page i
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
Restoration Summary fnr Tittle River
Restoratiaa Segment Restoration
T e Linear :Footage
or Aerea e
Bedded ine lantation Enhancement 45.7 acres
Restoration 2.3 acres
Grass fields Enhancement 7.5 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest Preservation 40 acres
Successional wetland Preservation 9.5 acres
Total Wetland Restoration 2.3 acres
Total Wetland Enhancement 53.2 acres
Total Wetland Preservation 49.5 acres

Total Wetland Acres 105 acres

Stream Reach A Preservation 1726 feet
Stream Reach B Preservation 1867 feet
Stream Reach C Preservation 550 feet
Stream Reach D Preservation 290 feet
Total Stream Len th 4 433 feet
•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page ii
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

• Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................i
1.0 Project Site Location ......................................................................................................................... l
1.1 Directions to Project Site ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 USGS HUC & NCDWQ River Basin Designations ................................................................. l
1.3 Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. l
2.0 Watershed Characterization .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Drainage Area ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Surface Water Classification /Water Quality ........................................................................... 2
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 2
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ......................................................................... 2
2.5 Protected Species ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.6 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3
2.7 Potential Constraints ................................................................................................................. 3
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary .......................................................................................3
2.7.2 Site Access ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.7.3 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................3
2.7.4 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................... 3
3.0 Project Site Streams .......................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Project Site Wetlands ........................................................................................................................5
• 4.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .............................................................................................................5
4.2 Hydrological Characterization .................................................................................................. 6
4.3 Soil Characterization .................................................................................................................6
4.3.1 Taxonomic Classification ..................................................................................................... 6
4.3.2 Profile Description ................................................................................................................ 6
4.4 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................... 7
5.0 Reference Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Hydrological Characterization .................................................................................................. 8
5.2 Soil Characterization ................................................................................................................. 8
5.2.1 Taxonomic Classification ..................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................... 8
5.3.1 Community Description ........................................................................................................ 8
5.3.2 Basal Area ............................................................................................................................. 8
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan .............................................................................................................9
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................9
6.2 Hydrologic Modifications ......................................................................................................... 9
6.3 Soil Restoration .........................................................................................................................9
6.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration ....................................................................................10
6.4.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration .........................................................................10
6.4.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ...............................................................................10
7.0 Performance Criteria .......................................................................................................................10
• 7.1 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................10
7.2 Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................11
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page iii
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

8.0 References .......................................................................................................................................12 •
9.0 Tables ..............................................................................................................................................13
Table 9.1 Restoration Structure and Objectives
Table 9.2 Land Use of Watershed
Table 9.3 Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone
10.0 Figures .............................................................................................................................................17
Figure 10.1. Vicinity Map
Figure 10.2. Watershed Map
Figure 10.3. NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 10.4. Hydrological Features Map with Gauge Locations
Figure 10.5. Vegetative Communities Map
Figure 10.6. Restoration Summary Map
11.0 Designed Sheets .............................................................................................................................. 25
Sheet 11.1. Channel Plug Detail
Sheet 11.2. Plan view of Ditch Plug
Sheet 11.3. Planting Plan
12.0 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................33
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 3. USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms and DWQ Wetland Rating Forms
Appendix 4. Hydrologic Gauge Data Summary, Groundwater and Rainfall Information •
Appendix 5. Soil Test Reports
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page iv
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

•
1.0 Project Site Location
•
•
11 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE
The Little River / J-Bar project site is part of the J-Bar Ranch, which is owned and operated by J. J.
Barnes and his family. The project site is near Vass in Moore County which is located approximately 60
miles south of Raleigh on US Highway 1. From US Highway 1 in Vass, travel approximately 3.5 miles
southeast along Lobelia Road (NC Highway 690) and turn right onto the dirt access road. A key is
necessary to access the gate to drive down the dirt road leading to the site. Follow the dirt road
approximately 0.25 miles and then bear left at the fork in the road. Continue an additional 0.65 miles
along the dirt road to a second fork. The right hand side of the fork leads into the easement while the left
hand fork follows the northern boundary of the easement (Figure 10.1).
1.2 USGS HUC & NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATIONS
The site is located at 35.22° North / 79.24° West on the northwestern portion of the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Lobelia (Figure 10.2). The project site is
located in the Cape Fear River basin, within the USGS 14-digit hydrologic unit 03030004070050.
1.3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP
f -
}
~~_ ~ ,
_ ~ ~ ~ ~;
~"~~ m j ~ ~' Harnett County
- ,~ ~ ~ _ ~<
~~ ~
~ rr
Vass Moore county ~\ ` ~~ 6'
` ~` \
Ode/% Roa ~~
~~ U NC Eg Iwoodlvke ~~
"• ~,
~~~
LiHle Rivet Vicinity Map ~ ~ ~~~~~~R ~z
(see also Figure 10.1)
Local Roads f~ `-~`
/~/ Major Roads f 1"~\
J`~l Railroads r~~1 ~~
County Boundary w f Hoke County
Streams _Jf,~~~
'l
Municipality Sr ~v ~-5~~~~
Site Boundary / i es
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 1
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 DRAINAGE AREA
The Little River project site contains a number of unnamed tributaries to Little River with a watershed of
approximately 335 acres at the confluence with Little River (Figure 10.2). The project is unique in that
the majority of the watershed is within the larger property boundary.
2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION /WATER QUALITY
The unnamed streams are tributaries of Little River which has been designated Stream Index 13-06-14 by
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). This portion of Little River is designated as
High Quality Waters (HQW) from its source to Crane Creek, based on Excellent biological (benthos) data
generated by the NCDWQ.
2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
•
The site and contributing watersheds are located in the Sandhills physiographic region of North Carolina.
This is a distinct region of sandy rolling hills which extends from south central North Carolina, through
the middle of South Carolina and Georgia, into east central Alabama. Elevations in the watershed range
from 220 feet to 310 feet above sea level with the most relief being outside the project area. Soil types •
from the USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey were combined by BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure
(BLWI) with the digitized USDA-NRCS Moore County Soil Survey field sheets to get a more detailed
assessment of the soils in the watershed. The most prevalent soil types are Bibb (33.7%), Kalmia
(21.62%), and Ailey (19.53%). Bibb is a poorly drained sandy soil that forms in alluvial deposits, while
the well-drained sandy Kalmia occurs on stream terraces and Ailey is awell-drained sandy upland soil
(Figure 10.3). However, the soils onsite contain much more clay than those mapped. The watershed
geology is made up Cretaceous material including the Cape Fear Formation which consists of sandstone
and sandy mudstone with yellowish gray to bluish gray, mottled red to yellowish orange, indurated,
graded and laterally continuous bedding and blocky clay. Faint cross-bedding, feldspar and mica are also
common.
2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The watershed is mixture of mixed shrubs/trees (69.1%), hardwood forest (16.0%), southern yellow pine
(11.7%), pasture (1.1 %), roadways/pathways (1.1 %), cultivated (0.8%), and water (0.1 %) (Table 9.2).
The majority of the hardwood forest occurs in the floodplain of the Little River, particularly in the
vegetated buffer directly adjacent to the primary channel.
Expected foreseeable land use /land cover change in the project site watershed is expected to include
general reforestation and expanded habitat management. The new US Highway 1 bypass in the Vass area
is expected to increase land development near the project site as the highway is less than three miles away
and includes an exit ramp onto Lobelia Road. •
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 2
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

2.5 PROTECTED SPECIES
According to the 2007 Natural Heritage Element Occurrence GIS file from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (CGIA), no threatened or endangered species are located in the project area. No
significant natural heritage areas are present in the project area. Further analysis was not undertaken.
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no known cultural resources in the project area.
2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The Little River site is owned by J.J. Barnes. A conservation easement has been placed on approximately
125 acres in the southern portion of the property. The eastern and western easement boundaries coincide
with the property boundary. The southern boundary coincides with the property boundary and Little
River. The northern easement boundary crosses the property generally along an east-west dirt road with
the slope break defining the upland from the floodplain. A few dirt roads are present within the northern
edges of the easement; the majority of these roads are expected to remain. The road in the far northeast
corner of the easement will be removed for wetland restoration purposes.
• 2.7.2 Site Access
The site is accessible from the northern edge of the property on Lobelia Road, and a key is necessary get
into the gate. The project area is beyond a network of dirt roads. For more detailed directions see Section
1.1.
2.7.3 Utilities
No utilities are present on the project site.
2.7.4 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass
A check of FEMA flood zone mapping for Moore County indicates that almost all of the easement is
within the 100-year flood hazard zone with the exception of a small piece on the northern edge
(htt~://www.ncfloodmaps.com/default swf.asp).
A perimeter ditch, approximately 1200 feet long, is located in the floodplain in the northeast portion of
the easement. The ditch is not connected hydrologically to any jurisdictional streams and primarily drains
groundwater. It has no surface flow and no significant drainage area. A portion of the wetland
enhancement includes plugging this ditch which will raise groundwater within the floodplain. Upstream
properties will not be affected.

Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 3
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

3.0 Project Site Streams
The streams/ditches that flow through the project site are indicated on the Hydrological Features Map
(Figure 10.4) and are labeled A, B, C, D, and `perimeter ditch.' Channel A begins on the western side of
the project area and flows through a culvert under the dirt access road, then southeast across the site and
eventually into the Little River. Channel B appears on the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Lobelia 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle and the Moore County Soil Survey as a "blue-line" stream.
It is a second order stream, according to USGS, with a drainage area of approximately 128 acres. Flow
was monitored in this stream as it enters the site (flow data can be found in earlier Little River
documents). Channel B flows from the headwaters in the northern portion of the Barnes property, and
then through a culvert under the dirt road that bounds the project area. A few hundred feet after it leaves
the culvert it joins with Channel D and then flows southeast across the project area to the Little River.
Upon entering the forested area, both Channels A and B lose the most of their channel definition.
Channels C and D are both small tributaries to channel B. Photographs of the site are included in
Appendix 1.
•
A perimeter ditch, approximately 1,200 feet in length, is located in the northeast corner of the project site.
The perimeter ditch is separated from Channel C by a small berm (as seen during field visits in 2007).
The ditch appears to have been constructed to assist with drainage of the northeast corner of the pine
plantation by intercepting subsurface drainage from the steep topography on the north side and directing it
around to the south. •
The existing stream conditions were assessed by BLWI in 2004 using a Rosgen Level II Classification
(Rosgen 1996). Channel A was determined to have an average Rosgen classification of C5, and Channel
B and C are classified as E5. Meanders for onsite channels are smaller than what would be found in a
natural Sandhills system. The longitudinal slope of Channels A and B is 0.002 ft/ft while Channel C is
0.01 ft/ft. Stream bankfull depth in Channel A varies from approximately 0.38 to 0.54 feet deep while
bankfull width ranges between 5.5 and 14.88 feet. Channel B is a slightly deeper and narrower channel
where bankfull depth varies from approximately 0.36 to 3.2 feet deep and bankfull width ranges from 3.5
to 6.4 feet. Channel A has the smallest average cross-sectional area at 4.88 square feet while Channel B
and C have similar cross-sectional areas at 15.5 and 14.31 square feet, respectively. Streambed samples
for channels A and B were taken and sent off to a lab for particle size analysis. The resultant d50 for each
channel fell into the fine and medium sand categories, respectively.
The stream channels were briefly reassessed in April 2007 by Stantec (Appendix 2). The
geomorphological determinations above appear to remain consistent with what was observed by BLWI.
Most of the channels appear stable even though they may have been altered in the past. Upper portions of
Channels A and B near the project boundary show some detrimental effects from the small culverts under
the dirt roads and from some sediment washing in from the dirt roads. Beaver activity and several small
beaver dams were observed along the channels. Overall, the banks are stable and the streams are able to
access the adjacent floodplain.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 4
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

4.0 Project Site Wetlands
The project site is dominated by an 82 acre clear cut containing a recently planted pine plantation of
approximately 55 acres. The planted area was bedded and planted with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) in
2001. The planted pines currently range in height from 6 to 20 feet across the site. Various herbaceous
and woody species have also volunteered in the plantation area. Much of this vegetation is dominated by
blackberry (Rubus sp.), titi (Cyrilla racem~ora), red maple (Ater rubrum), and various sedges (Carex
spp.). Along the stream channels willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) have volunteered from the adjacent forest.
On the west side of the easement, just west of the bedded and planted area, two large grassy fields were
cleared and planted with a wildlife seed mix. The fields currently consist of a variety of sedges and
grasses with loblolly pines and titi beginning to invade those areas. A significant portion of these fields
are uplands. Further to the west, a cutover portion of the project site has been left to re-vegetate on its
own. These areas are now dominated by loblolly pine, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), titi, red maple,
blackberry, smilax (Smilax spp.) and a variety of other species.
South of the pine plantation is a mature bottomland hardwood forest along the Little River. The portion
within the project area is approximately 200 to 500 feet in width and is approximately the same width on
the opposite bank of the Little River. This forest has been cut in the past but enough time has passed for it
• to regenerate. Most of the canopy is dominated by willow oak, red maple, green ash, water oak, swamp
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), black gum, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and a smaller
portion, including a number of old meander bends and depressional areas, is dominated by swamp tupelo
(Nyssa biflora) and scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Photographs of the wetlands are
included in Appendix 1.
4.1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
The methods outlined in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) were used in February 2005 by BLWI to delineate the jurisdictional
wetlands within the cutover area south and east of the Channel A road crossing. Remaining wetland areas
within the easement, including the bottomland hardwood forest, were assessed by Stantec in July 2007
using USAGE methods and the approximate wetland boundaries were located to complete a jurisdictional
wetland map of the project site.
Much of the project site consists of jurisdictional wetlands, which is consistent with typical river valley
floodplains. Upland areas, with slightly higher elevation and drier soils are scattered throughout the
property as shown on Figure 10.4. There are approximately 105 acres of existing wetlands within the
project site. Of this, 48 acres of wetlands are located within the pine plantation, 17 acres in the other clear
cut areas (grassy fields and successional area), and 40 acres in the bottomland hardwood forest. Wetland
determination forms and wetland rating forms are located in Appendix 3.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 5
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

4.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION •
Hydrologic input for the wetland areas on the project site comes from overbank flooding of the stream
channels through the site and the Little River, as well as direct rainfall and poorly drained soils. There is
evidence of flow patterns through much of the bottomland hardwood forest and along Channels A, B, and
D. High flood flows from the Little River may get into the lower portions of the pine plantation, back
water up into the tributaries, and increase flows in Channel A by pushing water up into the forest at the
eastern side of the site.
Standing water has been observed between the rows of pines throughout the plantation and in the lower
portions of the fields confirming the generally poor drainage of the site. In 2003, seven Infinity
monitoring wells were installed by BLWI in the project area to record groundwater elevations (Figure
10.4). These wells were visited by Stantec in July 2007 to determine their status and refresh the batteries.
Gauge data downloaded from each of the Infinity wells was sporadic and did not cover an entire growing
season since installation. Hydrologic data is included for the three currently functioning Infinity gauges in
Appendix 4. Stantec also installed an additional three Ecotone wells across the site, one of which is
located in the onsite bottomland hardwood forest for reference purposes. One rain gauge is located along
the dirt road near Channel D. During the 2007 visit, a clog in the rain gauge was removed and batteries
were replaced. Precipitation data ranges from July 2004 to June 2006 (Appendix 4).
4.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
Soils are a vital component of any wetland enhancement project. Soil properties can affect vegetation •
survival, and groundwater hydrology, while at the same time exhibit indicators indicative of historic
conditions. Multiple soil parameters were intensely investigated for the purposes of this project.
4.3.1 Taxonomic Classification
The soil series that are mapped on the project site in the Moore County Soil Survey are Bibb and Kalmia
(Wyatt 1995). Bibb soils are poorly drained soils occurring on floodplains and consist of about 12 inches
of dark loam overlaying light-colored sandy loam subsoil. Bibb soils in Moore County are a taxadjunct to
the soil series and are coarse-loamy, siliceous, acid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents. Bibb soils are also
classified as a hydric soil. The soil series Kalmia is a well drained soil that occurs on stream terraces and
formed in loamy fluvial sediments. Kalmia typically consists of about 12 inches of light-colored sandy
loam over yellowish sandy clay loam that transitions to light-colored sand. Kalmia is a fine-loamy over
sandy or sandy-skeletal, siliceous, thermic Aquic Hapludult.
4.3.2 Profile Description
Soils in the cutover portion of the project area were auger-sampled and mapped by BLWI based on hydric
soil features according criteria referenced in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Figure 10.3). Eighty soil descriptions were taken in transects across the project area. Eight
topsoil samples from the cutover area were analyzed by the NC Department of Agriculture's Soil Testing
Lab (Appendix 5). In general, the drier Kalmia-type soils were not as abundant as shown in the soil
survey. Only 21 acres of uplands were found. A portion of the upland area consisted of transitional areas
that included areas that had hydric features too deep to be classified as a hydric soil. The remaining soils •
in the project area were found to have hydric features at or near the surface.
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 6
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

The average topsoil pH in the cutover area is 4.6 (average base saturation = 24%). According to the soil
test report, the project area has sufficient nitrogen, yet potassium and magnesium levels are low and
phosphorus levels are very low for establishing hardwood trees.
4.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION
Plant communities and vegetation were assessed within the project site (Figure 10.5). Approximately 55
acres of the site consists of a young pine plantation. This area was clear-cut, prepped and planted with
loblolly pine in 2001. No further forest management was performed on the site, allowing herbaceous and
woody vegetation to grow among the pines. The dominant woody species is loblolly pine, although there
is also winged sumac (Rhus copallina), inkberry (Ilex glabra), water oak, willow oak, titi, sweetgum, and
red maple. Herbaceous species include, blackberry, greenbriar, and various sedges. The loblolly pine
saplings range in height from 6 to 20 feet with the taller plants in the slightly higher, drier areas.
Blackberry is the dominant herbaceous species in the drier areas. The other emerging woody species are
similar to those found in a bottomland hardwood forest.
As mentioned earlier, a mature bottomland hardwood forest occurs along the Little River in the southern
portion of the project site. Much of the canopy is dominated by green ash, willow oak, water oak, swamp
laurel oak, loblolly pine, black gum, and red maple. There is an open understory of similar species as well
as American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), and titi. The sparse
herbaceous layer is dominated by false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia
virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and sedges, with scattered thickets of greenbriar and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea). Along the Little River and its overflow channels there is a greater abundance of
swamp tupelo with scattered bald cypress within the forest. Also, scattered within the forest are
depressional areas dominated by stands of swamp tupelo and black gum.
Other disturbed areas within the project site include cutover areas that were not bedded and planted
(successional area), and several small open fields that are located near the access road on the west side of
the site. Various saplings typical of the adjacent forests have begun to colonize these areas. Scattered
sweetgum and titi are found throughout the grassy area. Dominant herbaceous species are spikerush
(Eleocharis sp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and bur reed (Sparganium
americanum).
5.0 Reference Wetlands
BLWI originally identified a reference wetland site on private land across the Little River south of the
project site. A new reference wetland site has been identified within the bottomland hardwood forest in
the western portion of the site to facilitate ease in monitoring. A groundwater gauge has been installed in
the new reference wetland to compare groundwater levels within the project site. For the purpose of
species selection for the planting of the wetland enhancement areas, species composition across the onsite
bottomland hardwood forest as well as descriptions of the "Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods" from
Schafale and Weakley (1990) were used.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 7
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

5.1 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
The reference site gauge is located approximately 500 feet from the Little River and should have direct
flooding from the river only during the highest flows. This area was chosen to mimic much of the rest of
the site where hydrology is mostly supported through flooding of the tributaries, rainfall and poor
drainage, as well as high water tables within stream valley. Hydrology on the site will be monitored by
four groundwater gauges within the enhancement and restoration areas, as well as one groundwater gauge
in the reference site.
BLWI gathered river stage data upstream and downstream of the site at four separate locations. Overbank
channel data was also obtained at the site. Through associated stage-discharge information, statistical
analysis, and surface water hydraulics analysis, the water level stage within the Little River floodplain
upstream and downstream could be determined. This data is not repeated here and can be found in
previous restoration documents for the Little River site (BLWI 2005, 2006).
5.2 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
5.2.1 Taxonomic Classification
According to the Moore County Soil Survey (Wyatt 1995), the reference site primarily consists of Bibb
soils with a small portion of Kalmia soils. A description of Bibb and Kalmia soils can be found in Section
3.3 of this report. Soils in the onsite bottomland hardwood forest were assessed in July 2007 and were
typically gray clay with strong brown redoximorphic features and also periodic areas of sandy river
sediments.
5.3 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION
5.3.1 Community Description
The reference wetland is made up of the mature bottomland hardwood forest onsite described in section
4.4.
5.3.2 Basal Area
The woody vegetation basal area for the wetland reference area was calculated using a prism with basal
area factor of 10. The basal area for the bottomland hardwood reference is approximately 180 square feet
per acre.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 8
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
6.1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOAL5 AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the Little River project is to preserve and restore a natural floodplain system which
exhibits desired functions appropriate to the existing geomorphic setting of the site. The main functions of
this system are: nutrient processing, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and floodwater storage.
The preservation areas of the site will provide for perpetual protection of these currently functioning
areas. Wetland enhancement on the site will improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat by restoring the
natural diverse plant community to existing wetlands. Wetland restoration at the site will improve nutrient
processing and floodwater storage by restoring a natural wetland hydrology; and improve aquatic and
terrestrial habitat by planting the natural diverse plant community
Specific steps to achieve the goal are:
• Removal of the majority of planted loblolly pines and planting of native bottomland hardwood
tress and shrubs on 48 acres;
• Preservation of 4,433 linear feet of perennial stream channels, 40 acres of bottomland hardwood
. wetlands along the Little River, and 9.5 acres of successional wetlands;
• Restoration of 2.3 acres of wetland hydrology by plugging and filling aman-made drainage ditch.
The bottomland hardwood wetland enhancement will be accomplished with site preparation and minimal
earthwork by removing undesirable existing vegetation and planting native vegetation. The ditch in the
northeast corner of the site will be plugged and partially filled, thereby restoring the hydrology to the
surrounding area. The conversion of the pine plantation and associated riparian areas to hardwood species
will greatly improve the wildlife habitat on the property and improve the aquatic species diversity and
abundance in the stream channels on the site.
6.2 HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
This project will not incorporate any mass grading due to the fact that the site will naturally heal itself
with the help of vegetation enhancement. The only hydrologic modification on the project site will be the
plugging of the perimeter ditch located along the northeastern corner of the easement. This 1200-foot
linear ditch is easily accessible from adjacent dirt road along the eastern edge. Plugging this ditch should
raise groundwater in the adjacent areas and restore hydrology to approximately 2.3 acres of wetland. The
remainder of the project site hydrology will not be modified. It is expected that the low flow velocity
within the channels will lead to aggradation and a more natural hydrologic response over time.
6.3 SOIL RESTORATION
Soils investigations found that natural wetland floodplain soils exist on most of the site. Soil restoration
will focus on targeted fertilizer application where vegetation is planted.
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 9
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

6.4 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION •
6.4.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
As previously discussed, the target wetland community is bottomland hardwood forest throughout the
project site. Upland areas within the project boundary will not be planted. The upland areas within the
pine plantation and the fields will be left undisturbed to provide some diversity of habitat while the
bottomland hardwood forest becomes established. The planting plan is designed to include species that
would be found in the existing bottomland hardwood forest community as well as the "Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods" community described by Schafale and Weakley's Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (1990).
A majority of the existing loblolly pines within the bedded plantation will be removed before establishing
the bottomland hardwood forest. Removal will include cutting the pines trees near ground level and
chipping them when feasible. The plantation area will then be bush hogged where needed to remove
dense thickets of blackberries which will make planting easier and reduce the immediate competition with
the hardwoods. Desirable species will be left where practical.
The bedded plantation area and the grassy fields within the wetland areas will be planted entirely with
native, non-invasive vegetation (Table 10.3 Designed Vegetative Community). Most of the species will
be planted as bare roots at 400 stems per acre. The stream banks of Channel A and Channel B will be live
staked at greater densities in order to maintain bank stability and to quickly establish a woody buffer to
shade the stream channel and improve habitat. •
6.4.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
It is not anticipated that invasive plant species will be a significant problem on the Little River Site.
During the first year of monitoring, any invasive species problems will be noted and specific management
options will be proposed. These management options may involve chemical treatments, mechanical or
hand removal of undesirable species.
7.0 Performance Criteria
7.1 WETLANDS
The project involves the enhancement of existing jurisdictional areas within the pine plantation,
restoration of a small area surrounding an existing ditch, and the preservation of existing wetlands and
streams within the conservation easement. Therefore, except for the small restoration area, hydrology is
already assumed to be present due to the presence of hydric soil indicators and lack of drainage. In order
to monitor and confirm the hydrology, five continuous groundwater gauges are planned for the site. Four
of the gauges are located in the jurisdictional areas of the pine plantation and a fifth is located in the
reference wetland at the west side of the project. A rainfall gauge is also located on the site to monitor
precipitation.
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 10
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
Recorders will be programmed to record water table data on a daily basis. Water level data will be
compared. with data recorded at the reference site to determine success. Data from each of the gauges will
be downloaded on a bi-monthly basis.
Hydrologic success for the small restoration area will be based on the following success criterion:
Years One through Three -Hydrologic success criteria at the restored site will be met for years one
through three if the site demonstrates saturation for a maximum deviation of 50% from the duration of
saturation at the reference site during the growing season. Saturation is defined here as groundwater being
present within 12" of the soil surface.
Years Four and Five -Hydrologic success criteria at the restored site will be met for years four and five
if the site demonstrates saturation for a maximum deviation of 20% from the duration of saturation at the
reference site during the growing season. Saturation is defined here as groundwater being present within
12" of the soil surface.
Based on reference conditions and the stated criterion, it is expected that soil saturation for years one
through five at the site will meet hydrologic success conditions within the growing season for Moore
County (USAGE 1992). The growing season for. Moore County as defined by the Moore County Soil
Survey occurs from March 23 to November 7, a total of 228 days.
• Reference areas will be monitored for the minimum of five years. The small restoration area will be
compared to the references in order to track changes in expected. hydrology due to regional environmental
conditions.
7.2 VEGETATION
Vegetative sample plots will be quantitatively monitored during the growing season. According to
NCEEP guidance, 1-2% of the planted area should be sampled. Based on the approximate areas of the
two planting types (bottomland hardwood forest and- streambank zone), ten 100-meter square vegetation
plots will be established on the Little River site. Vegetation sampling plots will be proximal to
groundwater monitoring gauges, wherever practical, to assist in correlating vegetation and hydrology
parameters. Vegetation will be monitored based on the Carolina Vegetative Survey methodology version
4.0. In each plot, species composition, density, and survival of the installed vegetation will be monitored.
Volunteer plant species will not be considered in vegetative success determinations. The four plot corners
will be located using a Global Positioning System (GPS), permanently located with metal conduit stakes,
and included in the mitigation planfor the Little River Site.
The vegetative success of the bottomland hardwood forest will be evaluated based on the species density
and survival rates. Wetland vegetation monitoring will be considered successful if at least 260 trees/acre
are surviving at the end of five years.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 11
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
8.0 References
BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure, PA (BLWI), 2005 Little River / J-Bar Streams and Wetlands,
Restoration Plan Report. November 24, 2004 revised October 31, 2005.
BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure, PA (BLWI), 2006 Little River / J-Bar Wetland Enhancement Project,
Draft Restoration Plan Report. August 1, 2006.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Rosgen, D L, 1996 Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley. 1990. Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina -Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
USACE. 1992. Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memo to USACE districts from
Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, March 6, 1992; signed by MG Arthur E.
Williams, Directorate of Civil Works. •
Wyatt, Perry W. 1995. Soil Survey of Moore County, North Carolina. USDA-Natural Resource
Conservation Service.
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement ~ Page 12
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

9.0 Tables
TABLE 9.1 RESTORATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES
TABLE 9.2 LAND USE OF WATERSHED
TABLE 9.3 DESIGNED VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES BY ZONE
•

Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 13
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

•
•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 14
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
Table 9.1 Restoration Structure and Objectives
SCO Pro'ect Number D070625
.Restoration Segment Restoratfon
T e Linear Footage
or Acrea e
Bedded ine lantation Enhancement 45.7 acres
Restoration 2.3 acres
Grass fields Enhancement 7.5 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest Preservation 40 acres
Successional wetland Preservation 9.5 acres
Total Wetland Restoration 2.3 acres
Total Wetland Enhancement 53.2 acres
Total Wetland Preservation 49.5 acres

Total Wetland Acres 105 acres

Stream Reach A Preservation 1726 feet
Stream Reach B Preservation 1867 feet
Stream Reach C Preservation 550 feet
Stream Reach D Preservation 290 feet
Total Stream Len th 4,433 feet
•
Table 9.2 Land Use of Watershed
SCO Pro'ect Number D070625
Land Use Acrea a Percents e
Mixed shrubs/trees 231.5 69.1
Hardwoods 53.6 16.0%
Southern ellow ine 39.2 11.7%
Pasture 3.7 1.1
Roadwa s/Pathwa s 3.7 1.1
Cultivated 2.8 0.8%
Water 0.5 0.1
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Cazolina
Page 15
September 2007

•
Table 9.3 Designed Vegetative Communities by Zone
SCO Pro'ect Number D070625
Common Name , Scientific Name Southeast Re ion Indicator
Zone 1 Streambank
Smooth alder Alnus serrulata Facultative Wetland +
Swam do wood Corpus stricta Facultative Wetland -
Elderbe Sambucus Canadensis Facultative Wetland -
Vir inia willow Itea vir inica Facultative Wetland +
Zone 2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Overcu Oak uercus 1 rata Obli ate Wetland
Swam Laurel Oak uercus Lauri olia Facultative Wetland
Swam Chestnut Oak uercus michauxii Facultative Wetland -
Green ash Fraxinus enns lvanica Facultative Wetland
Swam to elo N ssa bi ora Obli ate
Cherr bark Oak uercus alcata var. a odae olia Facultative +
Water Oak uercus ni ra Facultative
S camore Platanus occidentalis Facultative Wetland -
Swam cottonwood Po ulus hetero h lla Obli ate Wetland
Sweetba Ma nolia vir iniana Facultative Wetland +
Titi C rilla racemi ora Facultative Wetland
Inkbe Ilex labs Facultative Wetland
Swam do -hobble Leucothoe racemosa Facultative Wetland
Black hi hbush blueber Vaccinium uscatum Facultative +
•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 16
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
•
•
10.0 Figures
FIGURE 10.1. VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 10.2. WATERSHED MAP
FIGURE 10.3. NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
FIGURE 10.4. HYDROLOGICAL FEATURES MAP WITH GAUGE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 10.5. VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP
FIGURE 10.6. RESTORATION SUMMARY MAP
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Cazolina
Page 17
September 2007

•
•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page ] 8
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

• • •

Property Boundary Figure 10.1 Vicinity Map
County Line
Municipality Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, NC
Project Area July 2007
Streams v ` F,~.,
Local Roads .~ o ~so~,soo s,ooo a,soo s,ooo
~' A.`(1SVti~t`I l ! Feet
/~/ Major Roads Stantec
Page 19

~-_f -`'~A~ I
"
,/ `-
....
s
y. j
l
i
~ I r ~ . ;
r l f
,~ /~ l
~~ `~---.'f~~~ ~I~J,/ ~~ i ( ~ ~.
~.;.-
~
.
p
f
r~~~= ~ .~., f ~ ~= s {~-; ;!~
1 ~ h
~ ~
\ '_ ~ ~l-~~f i; I'I ~ Aj,',

1
, f
~
~`-
;. ,; ~~ob i ~
-
~
~r ~.~~w, ~k, t ~ G,F y .f ~ t ~ . J, ~
r"(
~ ,
~
J (~~ ~ , 1 e/ia Ra c ,~-3+af~ ' hl ` r""'`'"r`• ~. ^ -' ~ t4~ • _,~'
,_
~
~r
r ;
~
't
-
~--
r
~
6
__
-, ~~,'f;~ ~~`_
4 J R
( ~ r .~, ~ ~ `ty lir
~
7/~
~S
}
~`
~r
~~
+ .,
~
~ ~
,..
,
~.~
,
Ja
_
90
~~,r.,~
~4, ` ~ !e R A `~ l '~.
y~Gtl~ ~ v~y -l^ 11 f J/ ~~ ~ \ 1
~
~
1+r
j
")il /
;"
C•
~
./
~
'j
J
/
•
i ~
^
~,
~ ~ ~_ _
~-~/-,~ f
~
~ F, ~~~
~
jt
_
~1, ~
-
J r
_ ~ ~ ; - , 1.11 f ~,-``'9' `.~ _'' r ' ~ '~ t ~tl ,{ ~ ~~'' ~ ~. ~... d l_ ~ ~'"~ 4~' ~~ ~. ~ ~.-~ ___~

.~ ~ ~~ ~ ? . ~ ~ J ~r 1

-.. .
lf/!e River - r IG
-
-
~+
:. , ~ ..
_. - f
,
~y
f _
/
-
4% ~ PI'OJ~C~ b~re~ '~,~~~ ` ~,~~

/
~.
,,
: _
`
' ~~ ~
..~/
,
,
e _
r
1893
~ 3sr
i; ~ ~ .f1 ~tT ~ , r~j
~,;', ;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/
I _
• ~. - `~^a ~ __ •~~"~~ a -' ''` _ ~~~±' ~ fir' ,` ~ = 4-p -~

..
_
m.+ „
`
'
~-
:
+
~
','
,2,6G .
r_
~
~_,~,k~,1 I r
ate w_
.:; =~~
` A ~
~.

Watershed Boundary (delineated by BLWI)
~- Easement Boundary Figure 10.2 Watershed Map
Property Limits Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, NC
/~~/, Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Reference) July 2007
Lobelia and Niagra Topographic Quadrangles
(Project site is located on the Lobelia topoquad) V~~"^
~^
o soo iooo zaoo sooo aooo Feet ~'.('O~~~t~'1l1
Stantec

•
•
Page 20

• • •

__.
Lf~~,
IP~ILe
/,
N
,~ ~ ~
~~
``=~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ,_
~~ n~
Moore County Soil Survey - -Project Area Figure 10.3 - NRCS Soil Survey Map
AeB; AeD -Ailey ~ Property Boundary Little River Wetland Enhancement
Bb -Bibb -Roads Moore County, NC
Gh6; GhD -Gilead -Streams/Ditches July 2007
KaA - Kalmia ~ ~ ~ Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Reference) mar
KeB - Kenansville o 150 soo soo soo lzoo Feet
~~~~ VaB; VaD; VaE - Vaucluse ~ ~ ~ yl~~,t~~~,l
Stantec
Page 21

.~ ~_~Z- J r ~ ~F4 Y is 5, CV ~ ~y' ?^T. ,"~. Y - } ~, ~ « 'y „~~ ~ ~- 1 n J C r
~. .c' ~.. i ,~ ...:'{»~+ ' :~ '~ roil + °rL ,~ ~ir~+~~~ "~' r `~' r fib, r ,,,~k-' fi j,~,~ x ~ S 4 a _ . s .
e„ ` .-~ ~ '` '' M ~.4h- -~~~` i~"7'~'^x •• ,yam, p~ ~4 S 4 ~ ~ i ~
~i .. ~ f 1 ~ t ~ i '1i4,, r '~ - E ~r~~S4 ' ~ .' '~I~ "7w~E ~~~ '4 { .,~' i.~~.:#'. .~ 4. t ~ ..i. 'a 'x~~:v' e } r
C y ~ w ~, ' d. t ~ s ~~ : c'' 1.1 ~"'' ~ ~!' r ~ i F° ~'~ C ~ ' 1 ~'L- 5 ~ ~ ~: `~ .
.. ~~ Y.. ~I~t f ,. ~ -r "{3cw 12 -~A {~~~ ~y ~.x~"~`~ ` ~ ~ x.4Era~ t,~,~h"~. ~1' +R~. ~~IE~ r'K ~Y ~ A c-. ...
Uplands (21 acres) ~ Property Boundary Figure 10.4 Hydrological Features
Wetlands (105 acres) ~- r Project Area
* Precipitation Gauge Streams/Ditches
Little River Wetland Enhancement
~.- Water Level Recorder v ^ ~ Moore County, NC
July 2007
0 200 400 800 1200 Feet ~',('(1~~~lt
Stantet
• ,'~ •

• • •
.~ - - ~. ~ . ~ .t _.;
.,
. ,:
,~+
~ .; _ r y,
n'u
~ ~ ,~
~ ..
.
_ . ~
~„ ~ ~. v ~ .. f,, ~. an . ~o ter pstch ~~~ ~1
{ ~` :1 ~ i~ 4 ~' ~ ~'
Y.
`~ a ~. • r _ .,~ ~Channel $~ t 1 r~ ~~ ~~~
.: c -; . ~ $ ~<g. ICS, ~c -_
.",~, ~, Chan r~-~~~„ x~
r ~ - ' ~ ~ ~
L. • ~ `. y`:3 ..'."°~~ o'" - 'g r^ ' ¢~' `~ .. 4 h '' Erb.:
5, 3 4 R f
~ it ~''` •iJ' -.. x ~ ~~.~' ~ ~ }~ S c'F $ t 9t _ ; ~ ~~`i
rf ~ .. ~'h y r,r. YE ~ d - ,}fit a f : ~ g~ 4'i~'.~
! ~ 7[
b {
~ {
e ".,~ c.,,. ~ ro 7 4
~''`_ : r "R. X °" ~ s ~ '~ 4 '~-~`' g ^f i •y,,,, _ ^~"W' a"sh" r~ .gprL
~ d
~~ ~
Successional Wetland ~ Property Boundary
Grassy Field - ~ Project Area
Bedded Pine Plantation Streams/Ditches
®Bottomland Hardwood Forest
0 200 400 800 1200 Feet
~ ~ ~ ~ .
~~ t ~,~ 'K -dam ~ ~.C ~R 4 ~ av Y~ 4.••
. 1 L
Figure 10.5 Vegetative Communities
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, NC
t,,;; July 2007
l',cx „v,t~•t n
~~~ ~
Page 23

.. -
..
.,. ,..
. _ ,. ,
'.• ~{ ~, J C'` Vim' ~
. V
~, ' M ~ ~ Channel B ~ ~ -*'~`
" < :~ ~
.•_ t ~,,
'r ..~ ..,.,fir . Ch ~• ~,„~'R, „~ r, xr r
.
q ~~ #a _
a :y,~ .. _
,•..~ .
~•~ ~~' ~ _ rfp .~.~~ ~ ~ ^.~-.rr...~,,.~g..~ ' f~"~ ~ ~. L~ S. .,a, +553..
,f~' Y ~- ~ ^~~--'~~' '` 5.~-. . • * - •`f.` r~ CT,-~ , .Y _ ° c~'°.ti.``~ ~j~..s ".~. ~ "•t ~ t., _~ .t<l
~,,' .k `Y` f r ~i <! i$- i.'.) A .uw ~ ~ +Y 1 ~ ~, f1J... ~a
~y - !^ ~ .
'fit ,~ ~ e ~•~r'~0. ~ ~ ' ~ ~fi '~:,~ .. A x k 1L a ,,,,,a
1 ~ r.. 7 ~y•f y !'~'. iii.' ~•. "r1' ~S _yt"' ~ t L d f ' ~I -.~ ~ '1~ ~, ,~ ,~i'~ _ .`~ ~ 4 ~ ~.
'~rs.M. ~ 3 ~ {~ ~Ly ~ i ~~~+ *.f ~ 4 1 . EI' ` ~-. L.
~ r ~ 9i 1 ~ 1 ~ .ft 5 j ~ ~. ~ ~ I ' ~~
'~ '' - fir, ~ ' ~ "tf"' ~ ~ ~`~ ,t°•~= .~ .~+.. , - ~` ~ >~ ~'r
~. ,q~
~!~:Ctk~v~ °~`~ 4J.r y~ .,.A ~, .t"~! Il ~~. !~ ~~ Y~,~.: \c'~. ~..+.. ~. _~yt~`Y•.\K ~. ~+~ ~- y
• - ae't .~; ~~~' r1..'4'~ i~N; , 3.. ~~ ~ 76.E al%' `~, .i4.. ~; ''a' 'r~ . -- '} ~
~~~ ~~ r ~_r.~t ~'.; '~~i ^"~, ~ T }} t 3 ~` T^ .~ a,~t'rtt ~ '~ R r' ~'' ~;~~ ~ '~ n~ • ~ z `~ ~ ~ 1. `,.
<i1 ' u
i7±".'• J• lY~~ a.. t ~' +i,..yi,.V ~. '' -rry~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t 4 ~ ~ V ~" .. ~4ta ` -r "'~. _t.- ,5 ~ +}, -~
/~gr7~Ar„`, ~ - ~ to ; f `.. f` ~i,- ~'" ~ ?'~Y r . X ~_y ¢ac .r d '> r a ~ > ~.. -•
ry1.'~ ~ . ~ M • A~` .u-i. ~~ ~ ~ ,r~ ;~~ . "N,~ { ~~s~; ~ trK•~ ;l #''. ~~ -p ~!u.~; '~• •,,4 e! ~ ~ C•~~ tt i +~:+ • ~,t,~ ;•.~ 3 ~ ~ 'r`
~ l.. 11 ~ 't+4,~~ t ~ ~ ~",~ .ti ~ n,~ '& t ' ~ ', i''t'id4 5 r. F ., w - .; 4 i d . ~ ,.
..2•+ r ?a N ~1K to i . '' y~}' ~ 5• tr L -+. 'u.
>t,` `°'rY~ •f ~~' ~ r'~ 7 ~ ~-,at ~~f f ~`~°f~+~~~~ y~;~,~ I ~ ~'+~ ,jFr ~ .~, sR~~ ~ ,`.~{ eH` ~t "~ a ~ -
~ ~ r l '~. ~. .~Lx ~ 4~Rti~y try ~ -~~ $y & a 7y~:~''". ~ ~~ t ~iR 47N. rx~ " s.+~ d ''_ SyJ s ~``.d.'1S.t t~.
{. .~(.: t. K t~ t ',~"~ ,. 57 dZ -~_+~ . ~ - _' ~ f . 'S 's ~ ,~I~ -~h~ "k,ti ~w. • 1 r '~' r ~ ~ e~~.
i
* Precipitation Gauge Wetland Enhancement (53.2ac)
~- Water Level Recorder Wetland Preservation (49.5ac)
~ Wetland Restoration 2.3ac Figure 10.6 Restoration Summary Map
Streams /Ditches ( )
Stream Preservation (44331fl Upland
Project Area ~ Property Boundary / ~., Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, NC
0 20o aoo aoo zoo Feet l~~,c•t~~~~tt~n~ July 2007
Stantec
• °r •

•
•
•
11.0 Designed Sheets
SHEET 11.1. CHANNEL PLUG DETAIL
SHEET 11.2. PLAN VIEW OF DITCH PLUG
SHEET 11.3. PLANTING PLAN
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Cazolina
Page 25
September 2007

MIN. 1 FT. WIDER TF
EXISTING CHANNEL
EXISTING GROUND
IMPERVIOUS SEI
MATERIAL
IMPERVIOUS DITCH PLUG
SCALE: NTS
i FT. I EXISTING TOP OF BANK
------r--------------- 4:1 SLOPE
_ FLOW DIRECTION
OF EXISTING CHANNEL
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
WI
a
of
J
N
WI
D
MI
WI
WI
~I
'E I
I
Little River
Wetland Enhancement Project
Moore County, North Carolina
Impervious Ditch Plug Detail
~ Sheet 11.1 ~
~~
Stantec Consulting Services Inc,
Suite 300, BO I Janes Franklin Road
Rolefgh, NC 27606
Tel 919.851,6866
Faz. 919.851,7024
rrrstantec,com
IMPERVIOUS
PLAN VIEW
nn i unn~ anuui~u
CROSS-SECTION A-A

•

i•
~ \
•
.7L~1~
Stontec Consulting Services Inc,
~ ~.. -~` Suite 300, 801 Jones Fronklin Road
~~ ~ ~'~ "~ Raleigh, NC 27606
~ ~.-''~~ IMPERVIOUSDRCHPLUG(fF~) Tel, 919,851,6666
~ / .~ ~ Fax. 9 i9,85 iJD24
~ ~~.
/ ~ ~ vrvstoMec.com
G~>
~ ~
~ -~"~~
/ ~- t
t
,~ / ,_- ~
!• _ °'
~-
6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ w~
1
1
R
S rr1
~,~1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LEGEND
^ IMPERVIOUS DITCH PLUG
® ROAD TO BE REMOVED
- - - CONSERVATION EASEMENT
NOTES:
1. ROADWAY MATERIAL SHALL BE USED
TO FILL CHANNEL.
2. SOIL FOR IMPERVIOUS DITCH PLUG
SHALL BE HARVESTED ON SITE.
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ON SITE
ENGINEER.
3. COMPACTION OF IMPERVIOUS PLUG "
SHALL BE APPROVED BY ON SITE ENGINEER, ""'
Little River
Wetland Enhancement Project
Moore County, North Carolina
Plan View of Ditch Plugs
Sheet 11.2 ~

~-

i•
Ve etative Zones
Cnmmnn Name Seienlific Name
1
1
~`
1`
11
1
1
1
ver
t Project
Carolina
~n
~ .,,,eet 11.3 ~
/ ~///
1
f
Icing Services Inc.
185 Fronklin Road

•
•
12.0 Appendices
APPENDIX 1. PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 2. STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
APPENDIX 3. USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS AND
WETLAND RATING FORM
APPENDIX 4. HYDROLOGIC GAUGE DATA SUMMARY, GROUNDWATER AND
RAINFALL INFORMATION
APPENDIX 5. SOIL TEST REPORTS
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
Page 33
September 2007

•
•
APPENDIX 1. PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
Page 35
September 2007

•
•
•
~ k : i 2, ~*
.~~ ~~: ~y r~r~a; ,~ ', ~
y i. ~^: i~j ~~ ~J
a ~r ~
s A'`r}~,~~ 4 r~ e
a ~~i ~'
a ~ ~n r L~. n ,d, aid; `~ ~~ y?
t ~"Y d A ., r w !
.if*w~. 1~4~ ' j k.
d
k~~i ~'~b~, ~~< ~ ti tt
f 't~
~+~ ~j~~ ~ ~ s A~ a 4 ~ ~ p, t
Channel A i~
a.- ~ ~
x~
, r a~~C Y r' ~ ~~ 4 ; ~~
~ aF <
~ !
~~SIS~ ivx ~i v+ r~
7 +~S

{ p+~,' d ~'

~z~

pp
,. ~ Y t y1'.' i y,T~.T ,y
~
r
' ~ ~ ~~ • ~.
+'~
n
d, ~
~~
~ r ;
~
~
~ Ik
~
+
f.2gv y
~ 9~F ^~ i~'r s n
r
~, ,r,!
r'fi • ~; ..
s
~ :~la ~ ~.~,. ~ ; i~ ,_rY £ t'~~iY ~ ~ ~ d r ~ ' ~e~i € ~

~ .. ~ n.~$

~
r '}
'~ r~g~ 'Y,r!"M
O' e.
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
Page 37
September 2007
Channel B, facing downstream

k f
•. . ~ ~ ~ 1 { ~ z,
~~. `'10. ? ~ j~' ~ ~ t a~P
9 ' (' ~
r ill. 1 r j~JC . -'`~ •~-'
is.~ J._ '-Yr
~''
r
,~ r l.y/.
i• "
~; ~ ~
~' ~
.r
,i
•
•
~~ ~ , ~, '
i'.. .j
~ ~~o .~, ~ ., •.'«,r i "
f.° :.wi.d Nt.• ~~
Ii~
^r ry.1 % S' R~ ~ Jy71.. rs
~ ~~ ~1 t ~~
.' ~
~Y. • ~
i
Channel C
/~
...~ *.
` i t ., , ~~ ,,~~
a ~ , . " "~,' rr ski`
k1, ~
,~ , ~ ~
~~ ~~~ , ~:
rt .fir ' r'
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 38
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007
Channel D, facing downstream

•
•
•
$ ,a
~M::*~:
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
r ~ s~,
.~,
~'`
.".>
P i {
~ ~~
~.:'
4 F.r.
r~_J
i Ay.
ff
~
"
f
~
i j
~+yy Yb
~o q
~.
4 `.S ~°
!
p
p. ~ 4

K. !.°
#
.+~)
1 f\
'

y
*}.
i~ ~
~ A,l ~,x
I i
'. ~~ `.'~
Perimeter ditch
~ "~ 4
~:~
Page 39
September 2007
Beaver dam on channel B

•
•
~ `•.T . •'
~':Y~.~.

_ 1.
..

.

. ~..- ~
l.. iey . ,

Onsite bottomland hardwood forest
(reference wetland)
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 40
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007
Onsite bottomland hardwood forest
(reference wetland)

•
•
_.
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
~~:
~ ~ ~:_
~ ~ ' ~' ~` °~ ~ ~, ~. 7
F
x wj ~7.~11 A 1 ~ i ~ ~.. .5¢+,,,
z.- y~ ` J
1 - ~ ~ % L
~f:
Y { ~ ~ i15
9/ :~
t! I q ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ..T L
~.I~~.fi ~ ~ij
Q~ ~ t Q ~.
y .,~': J ~, ,~ S a~ ,;,~ ,~ . a
~~ i ! s }
.~i;C~,.' ' i *,tp~a a .rye .~ +. ~~y,r
~ ~ "~',
;, ,. ', _
~_
,,
.:
Onsite bottomland hardwood forest
(reference wetland)
t ? ~Y
y*~.
Page 41
September 2007
Pine plantation covers approximately 55 acres of the project site

•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 42
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
•
•
APPENDIX 2. STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Cazolina
Page 43
September 2007

•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 44
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007
•
•

•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 6 7 Project: G ~ tl ~G ~r v2 r/' Latitude:
Evaluator: ~~ GOI wQ ~~ Site: ~-{-y,Qa~ ~ Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ~ ~ County: M.dD V B Other
if >_f9 or erennial if >_30 e. .Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = ~ ~ ) Absent Weak- Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 (~i 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ~
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 6 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1' 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0. 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes - 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ~ )
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0:5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria bacteria/fungus 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BL = 1~. • SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Hems zu ana z~ focus on cne presence or upiana ptanrs, ¢em to rocuses on me presence c~ aquaue or werrana prams.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
•

,S~v~Pa
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
• ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ~G ~~ ~ 2. Evaluator's name: ~Cdl'''~~/
3. Date of evaluation: 7~~ l ~ 7 4. Time of evaluation: ~. ~ ~ODA ~, '
5. Name of stream: (/1 T fo L ~ f~~~ ~~ yC f 6. River basin: CA~G~ `FAA y`
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ! ZOOf~"
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
8. Stream order: ~
10. County:
12. Subdivision name (if any): •
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
P
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GlS Other
l3. Location of reach under evaluation (notednearby roads and landm/~arks an//d attach map identifying stream(s) location):.
r~1~~ ~Uti ~9~ ~ LTf'~'I~G /~iVPnnr~~'-der Jk'q~'IG~'+ /4~s~o~u fi'Ls(~'. ~1~..~p.- .
14. Proposed channel work (if any):. ~,/~
15. Recent weather conditions: ~ r`/
16. Site conditions at time of visit:- ~+~'/ ~ rr4f
l7. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries,Habifat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed.. (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water. surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear onf USDA Soil Survey?_ YES NO
• 21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial % Indtistrial _% Agricultural
!O-!f rs a~o
~% Forested ~% Cleared / Logge~ _% Other ( ) ,.
22. Bankfull width: ~r7{'~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ~ Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep .(> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the: same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief" description of how to review. the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach tinder. evaluation. [f a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the.
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate. form used to evaluate each .
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of l00 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
/ _ _
_- _ _ _ __ -
Total Score (from revers ): ~~ Comments: ~~~6i' 8N~/~ia.` -l~1 04~ GdKaF'~~~`Olrl,
~'towf •ihry -n/c /Ji/-d!/f.ttifN ,•o~ 14•lS~rs o r r ah : f~bats
Evaluator's Signature ~~~ Date / / y~~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental.profe§sionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a'
• particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION: POINT :RAN~E ~
,: S
CQRE
..Coastal Piedmopt ' 1llouuta~a
, ~
_ :~ ..
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream - _
' .
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max Dints) 0 - S . U- 4 D•-~ 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration =. max Dints 0 - 6 0.- 5 .` 0 - 5 J
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max Dints)
0 -. 6
0 = 4 - .~
0 , S
Li
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
` '
'
extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max Dints) 0 - $ 0
= 4 0.- 4 /~
S Groundwater discharge

(no dischar e = 0; s rip s, see s, wetlands etc. = max Dints 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max- Dints 0 - 4 0 - 4' 0 -2 , '
x ~ Entrenchment /.floodplain access
p'' dee I entrenched = 0; fre vent floodin = max Dints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 Q Z 5
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max ints 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 .~ 2,
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max Dints)
0 - 5
0.-4
0 - 3;. ~.::`
3
10 Sediment input -
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max Dints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 ` . 3
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate- ' `

fine homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max Dints)
NA
0.- 4
0 ~ S /•
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening `

H
dee l incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max ints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 .0 ~ 5. -/
a 13 Presence of major bank failures

r„~
severe erosion = 0; no erosion stable banks = max Dints) 0 - 5 0 - 5 0.- 5 .
J
~
~ 14 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5 Z
E
., no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max Dints)
~ IS Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial im act =0• no evidence = max Dints) 0 - 5 0 _ 4 0 - 5
16 ` Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes

~
(no riffles/ri les or .Dols = 0• well-develo d = max ints) 0- 3 0 5
- 0- 6 Z
17 Habitat complexity

(little or no habitat = O;.fre went, varied habitats = max Dints) 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 3
18 Canopy coverage over streambed

---++++++
no shadin ve etation = 0• continuous cano = max Dints
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5. I
19 Substrate embeddedness
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max) ~
NA
0 - 4
0 - 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

~
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous s = max Dints) 0 - 4 0 - 5 . 0 - S.
~ 2l Presence of amphibians

(no evidence = 8• common, numerous es = max Dints) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4.
Z
a
~ 22 Presence of fish

~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max Dints 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 ~

23 Evidence of wildlife use

(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max Dints) 0.-6 0-S 0-S
Total Points Possible 100 10(7 10Q '_ '~j ~ `'
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
i nese cnarac~ensncs are not assesses in coasta~ streams.

•

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

•
Date: ju/y ?/ ~~ Project: / I f~~~ ~~~~~ Latitude:
Evaluator: /J ~~l(tiPi~~ Site: •~~-l,,e~~ ~ Longitude:
Total Points: c
Stream is at least intermittent ~I~S County: ~/]„~~„e Other
if >_19 or perennial if >_30 ` ~ ~ W e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = ~ ~ Absent Weak Moderate Stron
18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ® 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 .5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0. 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ~
Yes = 3
° nnan-mace aitcnes are not rateo; s/ee'aiscussions mmanua~
R Hvrtrnlnnv (Suhtntal = b 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1- 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growin season 0 1 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0' 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.5
C Rinlnnv /Suhtntal = 0 ~ S 1
20 b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0. 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1: 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria bacteria/fungus 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 4. SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Hems zu ana n rocus on cne presence or upiana piarns, Hem ca focuses vn uie Nreserwe u, ayuauc yr wcum~u Nrai.w.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

5 tv~a~,~
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
• ;,~„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
a
Provide the following information for the stream reach un
~ der assessment: Q .
l
C
!/
(
/ ~ ~
1. Applicant's name: ~ we
~'
2. Evaluator's name: ~ ,
-
7
3. Date of evaluation: / ~
~~
~ ~ 4. Time of evaluation: ~ ~ d~ /°•~''~ •
_L/ n
J
1
5. Name of stream: ~ t l o `~ ~Tl ~° ~C%+i'P~' 6. River basin: ~i~ ~+`/~'e ~'°~ ~"
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: - ~ •
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~ o~O~f 10. County: I~`QDY-P
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): ~ Longitude (ex. -77.5566! I ):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotolG[S Other G1S Other
l3. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby r ads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):.
~
Qs~a
T ~~~~ ~i v.¢/' ~ j -dgr I y'Af e`~vt Si°~.e
14. Proposed channel work (if any):.
15. Recent weather conditions: ~
r ~
n
``//
t/~
16
Si
di
i
f
i
i
i
/`id
t:
!L~i
.
te con
t
ons at t
me o
v
s
17. identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries,Habifat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed.. (I-I.V)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 1~ If yes, estimate the water.surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
21
i
d
h
d l
d
% R
id
i
l 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?_ YES NO
l
l
%
i
l
i
l
%
i
du
. Est
mate
waters
e
an
use: _
es
ent
a tura
_
Commerc
% In
str
a
._
Agr
cu
a
~% Forested ,}
UO% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( ) .
22. Bankfull width: J~'Ft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 fo 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight / Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous-Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored.using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review. the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of. the stream reach under. evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the.
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the Stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate. form used to evaluate each .
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~~ Comments: '..
Evaluator's Signature ~ ~~r~~`'" Date ~! ~',/~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental.pi-ofessionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a'
• • particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change =version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION: POII~IT :RAN~E . SCORE
Coastal Piedmont.: . 1Vtount~in-± ~~
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream

no_ flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max Dints 0 - 5 0 - 4 a~ 5
2 Evidence of past human alteration '

extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max Dints 0 - 6 0.- S 0 -
~ ,~ 3
.. 3 Riparian zone .
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max Dints)
0 -. 6
.0 - 4
0 ' S
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ~= -
-
(extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max Dints) 0 - 5 4
0 4
0;
5 Groundwater discharge
s 0- 3 0- 4 0 ~4 2
(no dischar e = 0; s rip s,
ee s wetlands etc. = max Dints
U
~ 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
y, (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = maz points 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 2
i-I,i
p ~ Entrenchment / floodplain access
0 - 5
0
4
0 ' 2
'' dee I entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max Dints) -
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands .
no wetlands = 0; lar a adjacent wetlands = max Dints 0 - 6 0 - 4 0.~ 2 6
9 Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max ints)
0 - 5
0.-4 .
0 = 3 =.::-
3
10 Sediment input
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max Dints)
0 - S
0 - 4
0 = 4 , ` .
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate. NA* 0
4 0 =
:, /•
fine homo enous = 0• laaz a diverse sizes = max Dints) - S.
l2 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
5 `

~
dee I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max Dints - 0 - 4 0 ~ 5.
,
13 Presence of major bank failures
a
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max Dints) 0 - S 0 - 5 0.- 5
~
~ 14 Root depth and density on banks
~
1
,., no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max Dints) 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial im act =0; no evidence = max ints) 0 - 5 0 _ 4 0 - 5 f
16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes

~
no riffles/ri Les or ,Dols = 0• well-develo d = max Dints) 0 - 3 0 5 t) - 6
17 Habitat complexity
(little or na habitat = 0• fre went, varied habitats = max Dints)
0 - 6
0 - 6
0 - 6
3
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 `
(no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max Dints) - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5..
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4
dee I embedded = 0• loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

~
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5.
t}
O 2 ~ Presence of amphibians
i
• 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 Z

no ev
dence = 0
common, numerous s= max Dints
- ,
O
~ 22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
~
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0
- 6
0 - 5
0 - 5 ~(
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) . /
Total Points Possible 100 100 I00 ~ ~=~ \:
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
~ nese cnaractensucs are not assesses m coastal streams.
•
•

•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: ~~ ~ Z ~ 7 Project: G ~ ~ l,L ~yy,~^`vZ-d` Latitude:
Evacuator: P Gd f w,P11 Site: Sfreq~ ~ Ci Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at feast intermittent 2 3 County: r^
if? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 /" `00 ~^'~ e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (subtotal = `'i ) absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 b. 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on exi_ sting
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ~
Yes = 3
Man-mane mtcnes are not rates; see aiscuss~ons In manual
R Hvrtrnlnnv (Suhtntal = ~, .S 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge Q 1 _ 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water inchannel - d or rowin season 0 1 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features} present? No = 0 Yes 1.
C_ Bioloav (Subtatal = 7~S 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1. 2 3
24. Fish 0 0: 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance} 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacterialfungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 °. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL 1. SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
gems cu ana n locus on me presence or upiano pFants, item za lotuses on me presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
•

•
•
•

5t~.~~ c
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following inforrmation for the stream reach under assessment: /~ /~ / . .
1. Applicant's name: I t/ L' ~ ~~ 2. Evaluator's name: /"c !id ~r'"`G~( /
3. Date of evaluation: s 7~ ~ ~0 7 4. Time of evaluation: ~ ~ ~©iDw'1
5. Name of stream: ~ ` ~O L ~~~~~ R/,.~~ 6. River basin: t/ ~ g,~-
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: ~ .
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5O6 ~f 10. County: ~OOlr'~ ' ..
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. }2. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.5566! I ):
16. Site conditions at time of
•
Method location detern~ined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G[S Other GIS Other
l3. Location of[[reach~/u]~nder evaluation (note nearby,proadsland landmarks anCd aLttach map identifying stream(s) location):.
l ft'~C- I'[ r V~Y / ~ ~~41~' /Ce51OYCr ~!`4tti J, (~ .
14. Proposed channel work (if any): n( N~~
I5. Recent weather conditions: fJY y
l7. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries.Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ~ [f yes, estimate the water:surface area:
l9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on~USDA Soil Suryey?_ YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
C1~~/o Forested
22. Bankfull width: ~T 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: yStraight -Occasional bends
_% Commercial % Indtistrial _% ,agricultural
~% Cleared /Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ r~
-Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
-Frequent meander -Very sinuous ~ Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining Ehe most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored.using.the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief' description of how to review. the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach tinder. evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or. weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the.
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate.~fonn used to evaluate each .~
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score,of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~ ~ Comments: `.
Evaluator's Signature t%'~' Date ~~~~Q~
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental.pFofessionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this farm is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a'
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS. ECOREGIOIY POINT -:RANGE ~: COR
E
..Coastal .Piedmont:. M~ugttiiQ-a~, .
~:~ ....5 .;.
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream '

no flow or saturation = 0; strop .flow = max Dints 0 - S 0 - 4 0
3 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration ' ~

extensive alteration = 0• no alteration =. max Dints 0 - 6 0.- 5 . U- ~ ~
.. 3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max Dints)
0 -. 6
0 = 4
0 - 3
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0 - S 0 ~' 4
- 4
0
extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max Dints) ,
,.a 5 Groundwater discharge

U
no dischar e = 0; s rip s see s wetlands
etc. = max Dints 0- 3 0- 4 0, 4 Z
~ 6 ,
Presence of adjacent floodplain

(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points 0-4 0-4 0 2

~ Entrenchment / floodplain access
p'' (dee 1 entrenched = 0; fre went floodin = max Dints) 0 - S 0 - 4 0 = 2 _ 5
8 Presence of ad jacent wetlands 0
6 0

no wetlands = 0; lar a ad'acent wetlands = max Dints - 0 - 4 .-- 2. 6
9 Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max ints) 0 - 5 0.-4 . 0 = 3; =:.:;: .~.
10 Sediment input
0 - S
0 - 4
0 = 4 `
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max Dints) .
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate. • `

fine homo enous = 0• laaz a diverse sizes = max Dints)
NA
0.- 4
0 - S.. /
12
Evidence of channel iacision or widening
0
5
0
`

,fir
(dee I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max ints) - 0 - 4 - S.
..
''' 13 Presence of major bank failures

~,
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max Dints)
0 - 5
0 - S
0.- 5 u
I
~
~
14 Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0 - 4
0 - 5
z
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw hout = max Dints) .
~ 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial im act =0; no evidence = max Dints)
0 - 5
0 _ 4
0 - 5 I
16 Presence of riffle-pool ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ri les or Dols = 0• well-develo d = max Dints) 0 - 3 0 = 5 0 - 6 Z
1 ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 3
(little or no habitat = 0; fre went varied habitats = max Dints)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
I
(no shadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max Dints) .
19 Substrate embeddedness NA' 0 - 4 0 - 4 ~
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
~„~ (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max Dints) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5. /
(y
2i Presence of amphibians
• 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 Z
© no evidence = 0
common, numerous es = max Dints
O 22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max Dints) 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2
~
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6
0 - 5
0 - 5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 IQl7 `I00
~"~
TOTAL SCORE (also enter .on first page)
i nese cnaractensncs are not assesses m coastal streams.
•
•

~~g /"!ate to ;'^~~'
•

Project Name ~ i f~'l~. R i ~Gr~ J -~~'' J~lG 6'40 lvl~e-I~d /~
Nearest Road
County IVtoore . ~ Wetland Area ~ acres Wetland Width ~'~~~~~~ feet
Name of evaluator ~` ~~~"<« Date 7~z ~ 7
Wetland )E,ocation
on pond or lake
~/ on perennial stream
- on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other ~ '
Soil series Ya ~~id ~ ~~ bb
predominantly organic -humus, muck,
or peat
predominantly mineral -non-sandy
predocrunantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
- steep topography
ditched or channelized
/ total wetland width z 100 feet
...._ ~ -fit, ~ c'
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
- forested/natural vegetation 9S
_ agriculture, urban/suburban S
____ impervious surface
Dominant vegetation
(1) dad laity P;h~
~' I Flooding and wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
~' seasonally flooded or inundated
iritermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*.
- Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
-Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
- Pocosin ~ _ Carolina Bay
_ Bog forest _f__/ Other ~h~ Pl°" ~' ~'~"'
_________ *the ratin~_s~stem cannot be_ap~lied to salt or brackish_inarshes or stream channels
weight
R -Water storage ~ x 4.00 = `«<~,~~ Wetland

A
Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~
x '4.00 >«:;
T Pollutant removal ~ * x 5.00 = ~~~~~~~
~ Wildlife habitat ~ x 2.00 = =~<`",
• N Aquatic.life value 2 x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education ~ x 1.00 =
Rating
*Add l .point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream,
upslope, or radius

~.
~~ l~,f ~~ ~.s~d
•
Project Name ~ ~ fiL~~. ~~ y~Y ~ 3"Q'ay' Nearest Road N'G 6qd Ld+~el%u
County Il/loor2 ~ etland Area ~`~~~ acres Wetland Width 300-6~Td feet
Name of evaluator .~°~~~i Date ~/y ~° ~
Wetland ~,ocation
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Dominant vegetation
Soil series ~ i b b
- predominantly organic -humus, muck,
or peat
predominantly mineral -non-sandy
predonnantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
~ total wetland width z 100 feet
G -ft,~~:
Adjacent land use
(within 1/Z mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
_ forested/natural vegetation 45
- agriculture, urban/suburban
____ impervious surface
(1) W;-llow 0,~ ~
(2) ~~~ M~,ole
(3) (rrtCH ~s~ ~.
~;
~' ~ Flooding and wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
~r~ seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or suiiace water
Wetland type (select one)*.
~Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin ~ _ Carolina Bay
_ Bog forest ~ Other
_________ *the ratin~_system cannot be applied to_salt or brackish_inarshes or stream channels
weight
R Water storage S x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 x 4.00
T Pollutant removal ~ * x 5.00 =
I
• N
G
Wildlife habitat S x 2.00 =
Aquatic life value 5 x 4.00 =
Recreation/Education
x 1.00 =
0
~~
0
0
Wetland
*Add l point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream,
upslope, or radius

•
•
•
APPENDIX 3. USAGE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS AND
DWQ WETLAND RATING FORMS
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Cazolina
Page 57
September 2007

•
•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 58
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Little River Bottomland Hardwood reference Date: 7/3/07
A licant /Owner: NC EEP Coun :Moore
Investi ator: A Coleman / M Ruiz State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: by well LRR
VEGETATION
•
Dominant Plant S ecies Scientific Name Stratum Indicator
1 swam to elo N ssa bi ora Tree OBL
2 smilax Smilax rotundi olia Herb FAC
3 iant cane Arundinaria i antea Herb FACW
4 water oak uercus ni ra Herb FAC
5
6
7
8
9
IO
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC- :100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[ ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
[ ]Aerial Photographs [ ]Inundated
[ ]Other [ ]Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[X] Water Marks
[X] No Recorded Data Available [X] Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS [X] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[X] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit 2 (in) [X] Water-stained Leaves
[X] Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil 2 (in) [X] FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
•

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bibb Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist
Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-7 A 10YR3/2 Sand loam
7-18+ B 10YR4/2 10YR5/6 Common Cla
10YR2/1 Few

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ]Reducing Conditions
X Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hydric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks:

•
•

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: Little River Bottomland Hardwood ine lantation Date: 7/3/07
A licant /Owner: NC EEP Coun :Moore
Investi ator: A Coleman / M Ruiz State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID: wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: pine plantation
VRC'TRTA TTnN
•
Dominant Plant S ecies Scientific Name Stratum Indicator
1 lobloll ine Pinus taeda Tree FAC
2 titi C rilla racemi ora Shrub FACW
3 red ma le Acer rubrum Tree FAC
4 sweet um Li uidambar s raci ua Tree FAC+
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC- :100%
Remarks:
HYi~R (~LnCrY
[X] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
[ ]Aerial Photographs [ ]Inundated
[X] Other [X] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[ ] No Recorded Data Available [ ]Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS [ ]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[X] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit 7 (in) [X] Water-stained Leaves
[X] Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil 0 (in) [X] FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
Groundwater wells on site: data meets USACE h drolo re uirements
•

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Bibb Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist
Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 A 10YR4/2 Sand loam
3-18+ B 10YR5/1 10YR2/1 Common Cla
7.SYR5/6 Few

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[X] Reducing Conditions
X Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hydric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks:

•
•

•
•
•
APPENDIX 4. HYDROLOGIC GAUGE DATA SUMMARY, GROUNDWATER AND
RAINFALL INFORMATION
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
Page 67
September 2007

•
•
•
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 68
Moore County, North Cazolina September 2007

•
Little River - 2007 Groundwater Data
WL0001 (SN: N3EBAE7E)
•
5
0
-5
-10
-1s
s
n
p -20
-25
30
35
Little River - 2007 Groundwater Data
WL0004 (SN: N3EBAD4A)
5
0
-5
-10
-15
~ -20
L
a
o -25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/07 2/1/07 3/4/07 4/4/07 5/5/07 6/5/07 7/6/07 816/07 9/6/07 10/7/07 11/7/07 12/8/07
Date
-Gauge Data -Ground ---12"
•
Litt]e River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Carolina
Page 69
September 2007
-40
1/1/2007 2/1/2007 3/4/2007 4!4/2007 5/5/2007 6/5/2007 7/6/2007 8/6/2007 9/6/2007 10/7/2007 11/7/2007 12/8!2007
Date
-Gauge Data -Ground -~-12"

Little River - 2007 Groundwater Data
WL0009 (SN: N3EBACES)
10 - -- -- __ --
I -- - - ---_ . ___ ~ - - --------~
I I
I I
5 I I
1 I
I I
0
I Ground Surface I
_g I
gauge I I
malfunction I Required I
-10 I Depth ~ I
' I I
r -15 I ~
it
O I I
I I
-20 1 I
I I
I I
-25 I I i
Beginning of I End of I
Growin Season I I
30 g I Growing Season I
I I
-35
I I
I I
-40
1/1/2007 2/1/2007 3/4/2007 4/4/2007 5/5/2007 6/5/2007 7/6/2007 8!6!2007 9/6/2007 10/7/2007 11/7/2007 12/8/2007
Date
-Gauge Data -Ground -~--12"
The following gauges contained no current data and were malfunctioning at the time of download:
W L0002
WL0005
WL0007
WL0008
m
v
c
q
Little River -Rainfall
a
3.5
3
2004 Growing Season 2005 Growing Season
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2006 Growing Season

data begins
July 8, 2004 I
' i I
I
!~ data ends
June 3, 2006
~\ry~\~ooa ~\ry~~o~ ~~~^\ryo~ ~~'`~'\~oo~,~~~'`~\~o~ ~.~^~\~oo~ ~~'`~\~oo~ 5~'`~\~oo~ ~~'`~\ry~o~ ~\'`°\~~oy,.,\`~\~oo~ .,\'`~~~06 ~\~~~~~06 c,\'`ti~~~o6.~\~°\ry~o6 o~"~ry~o6
Date
Little River Wetland Enhancement Page 70
Moore County, North Carolina September 2007

•
•
•
APPENDIX 5. SOIL TEST REPORTS
Little River Wetland Enhancement
Moore County, North Cazolina
Page 71
September 2007

• • •
NCDA Agronomic Division 4300 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Report No: 05202
• rower.' eman, m r Copies to: County Extensionon Direct
115 E First S[
~`' ` • : - Clayton; NC 27520
`... .
•~~ ~ -~ oil hest ~e ort
•'~' l/J Farrn:
9129/03 SERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Moore Coun
ronomist menu:. I -- 11.
Field Information lied Lime Recommendations
mp a o. st rop r or ear me s u n n e
10001 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwood,E . 1.2T 0.0 60-80 60-80 E 0 0 11
2nd Cro
Test Results
Soil Class HM% WN CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn A/ 1 Mn-A1 2) Zn-I Zn-Al Cu-1 S-i SS-/ N[E-N NHa-N Na
MIN 0.71 1.20 4.7 43.0 2.7 4,6 6 19 36.0 5.0 18 36 36 29 24 0.0
Field Information tied Lim Recommendations
mp a o. st rop r roP or ear ime e u n n Note
10002 No Crop 1stCrop: Hardwood,E 1.2T 0.0 10-90 50-70 $ 0 0 11
2nd Cr :
Test Results
Sol! Class NM% WN CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-i Ca% Mg% Mn-i Mn-Al (i) Mn Al 2) Zn-1 Zn-A! Cu-1 S-1 SS-/ NCB-N Nl#-N Na
MIN 1.19 1.11 3.9 28.0 2.8 4.7 0 25 16.0 8.0 18 34 34 34 38 0.1
Field Information lied Lim Recommendations
mp a o. st rop r A Crop or ear me s u n ote
10003 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwood,E 1.6T 0.0 70-90 70-90 $ 0 S 11
2nd Cr
Test Results
Soll Class HM% WN CEC BS% Ac pH P-! K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-Al (1) Mn-Al (2) Zn-I Zn-A/ Cu-l S / SS-/ Nl~-N Ntd-N Na
MIN 0.92 1.28 3.8 13.0 3.3 4.5 0 16 8.0 4.0 10 22 22 38 98 0.0
Field Information lied Lim Recommendations
mp a Cast rop r rop or ear me a n ote
10004 No Crop 1stCrop: Hardwood,E 1.5T 0.0 70-90 60-80 Y 0 8 11
2nd Cro
MIN 0.71 1.11 4.0 20.0 3.2 4.5 0 19 12.0 6.0 26 24 24 38 39 0.0

NCI]A AaronamlC Division 4300 Reedy Creel(ROad Raleinh. 1110 97607_64r,S !91 Ql 7?L3_7rL~5 f:rrouar ('nlnm~n e.nr.nr Do.,..'. w... nc~n~ e.. ~
1 rmatlon 1 me commen Ions - - -- - - - - -- --
e o. r roP ar ear rme s n
10005 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwood,E 1.4T 0.0 70-90 60-80 $ 0 0 11
2nd Cr
Test Results
or ass - - rN n - -
MIN 0.76 1.10 3.9 23.0 3.0 4.6 0 23 13.0 8.0 14 26 26 31 32 0.1
F1 1 rmaUon 1 Ume Recorrxnen ar,1s
SarrAp a Na st r / rvp or ear trine N s Cet Zn Mn See Note
10006 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwaod,E 1.1T 0.0 70-90 60-80 0 0 $ 11
2nd Cr :
Test Resu is
Sol! Class HII!% NUI/ C ~ Ac p P-l K-1 Ca Mrs! Mn-r41 1 Mn-Ai ( Zn-1 Zny41 Cu-1 S-1 SSt NQ-N A4Nk-N Na
MIN 097 126 3.8 26.0 2.8 4.8 0 18 14.0 11.0 10 22 n 42 99 OA
Field Information lied U Recommendations
e a r r op or ~r rme s n
10007 No Crop 1stCro~ Hardwood,E .9T 0.0 70.90 70-90 $ 0 $ 11
2nd Cr
Test Results
Sort C ass C Ac p - - Cad MglG t n-A1 1 n Al 2 n-1 ZrM1 CtF1 -1 SS-1 NL~-N NFk-N hAa
MIN 0.97 1.26 26 15.0 2.2 4.8 0 13 8,0 5.0 30 17 17 35 59 0.0
Field Information lied Li Recommendationu
e o. r rop ar ear rme s n
10008 No Crop 1stCro~ Hardwood,E 1.3T 0.0 70-90 70-90 $ 0 0 11
2nd Cr
MIN 1.61 126 3.7 24.0 2.8 4.5 0 13 16.0 7.0 14 26 26 30 24 0.0
• • •