20061346 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060821

Co
D -c
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
September 15, 2006
Mr. M. Randall Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street
Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject Property: Lloyd Site Stream Wetland Restoration Project
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 061346
Onslow County
. „i
f .s,.
5E? ` LiJi16
Dear Mr. Turner: ivlwnt;o l;v?r, r?
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below impact 1.1
acres of Waters of the State in order to restore 4,750 linear feet of stream and 3.3 acres of jurisdictional
riverine wetlands and 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine wetlands on the subject property, as described
within your application dated August 7, 2006. After reviewing your application, we have decided that the
impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3495 (GC3495). This Certification
can also be found on line at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/certs.html. This Certification(s) allows
you to use Nationwide Permit 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In
addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non-
discharge, and stormwater regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or
to conduct Impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire in three years or upon the
expiration of the 404 Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream Restore 4,758 linear feet
of stream Lloyd Property Stream
Restoration Project Engineer
Drawings Pl-1 - PL4
404 Wetlands N/A (acres)
Waters 1.1 acres Same as above
Buffers N/A (square ft.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
No ha
Phone [phone] Customer Servicel-877.623-67• cne "JhCaroaro)Jijin
FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state. nc.us ?7
Page Two
Mr. M. Randall Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
DWQ # 061346
September 15, 2006
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire in
three years or upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
Page Three
Mr. M. Randall Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
DWQ # 061346
September 15, 2006
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Permit # 061346 under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Joanne Steenhuis in the DWQ
Wilmington Regional Office at 910-796-7215.
Sin ely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclosures: GC 3495
Certificate of Completion
cc: Brad Shaver - USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Ian McMillian - DWQ 401 Oversight Unit
Stephen Rynas - DCM Morehead
Central Files
WiRO
O?O? W A T ?9pG
J ?
Town of Newport
c/o Mayor Derry] Garner
PO Box 1869
Newport, NC 28570
Michael E. Y_asley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 19, 2006
Subject: General 401 Water Quality Certification #3494
Town of Newport WWTP Expansion
DWQ Project #061087
Carteret County
Dear Mayor Garner;
The Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO) received your application for a Nationwide 7 Permit and a General 401
Water Quality Certification application dated June 28, 2006 and the additional information received on September
18, 2006 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). After reviewing your application to place fill within or
otherwise impact 0.005 acres of wetlands and 0.005 acres of stream for the purpose of replacing the existing 12"
outfall line with a 24" outfall line to meet the increased capacity needs for the Town on the subject property.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3494 (GC3494). This Certification can also be found on line at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/certs.htm1. This Certification allows you to use the Nationwide 7 Permit
when the USACE issues it. Written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is not required
provided that you can meet all of the conditions of the General 401 Water Quality Certification.
If at anytime during construction of your project you determine that you cannot meet these conditions or if there
are any additional impacts to wetlands or water quality not described in your application, you must contact
this office immediately.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (910)-796-7215.
Sincerely,
Joanne Steenhuis
Environmental Specialist III
Enclosure: WQC #3494
cc: Ellen Huntley, PE - Hobbs Upchurch & associates, PA
Mickey Sugg - USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Ian McMillian - DWQ 401 Oversight Unit
Stephen Rynas - DCM Morehead `
Central Files
r
WiRO
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Service 1 -877-623-6748
One
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet: v, ?ww.ncA,aterQuality.or NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper orthCaroli
Naturidw
permits
Subject: permits
From: Joanne Steenhuis <Joanne. Steenhuis@ncmail. net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:15:33 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Bev. [e-mail], Brad Shaver
<Brad.E. [e-mail]. mil>
The Following NW 27 have been issued :
1) Lloyd Site Stream Wetland Restoration DWQ # 061346 - Onslow
2) Crowns west Stream restoration Site DWQ # 061358 - Onslow
1 of 1 9/18/2006 2:21 PM
Triage Check List
Date: 8/23/06 Project Name: Lloyd Site - Stream Wetland Restoration
DWQ#: 06-1346
County: Onslow
r.' N.
1 !? l j i
To: Noelle Lutheran, Wilmington Regional Office
60-Day processing time: 8/21/06 to 10/19/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
R
200®134®
Natural Resources
Restoration & Conse[vadon
August 18, 2006
Mr. Brad Shaver
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
United States Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890

Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide Permit 27 Authorization for the Implementation of the
Lloyd Site Stream Wetland Restoration Project in Onslow County
Mr. Shaver:
Please find attached to this letter the following items: p R/;z!,
1) a completed Preconstruction Notification (PCN) form
2) Exhibit 1: project vicinity map
3) Exhibit 2: conservation easement plat AUG 2 1 2006
4) Exhibits 3A-3C: figures from restoration plan
pENk - VVgTER Uk?
5) Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan ?L"DSANDSTORMW TTE'?BRANOH
Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information concerning the Lloyd Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site. The owner/applicant, Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), is proposing
stream and wetland restoration at the Site to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) in fulfilling its restoration goals. A copy of the Detailed Wetland Restoration
Plan for this Site is included in this permit application package. The Site is located
approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow
County in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak
River Basin (Exhibits 1-2). The Site is characterized by active pastureland, fallow fields, and
forest stands. Under existing conditions, Site streams are characterized by straightened, G-type
reaches. Site streams have been degraded by dredging, straightening, and rerouting of the stream
channels. Additional stream impacts include bank collapse and erosion, channel incision,
changes in stream power and sediment transport, and loss of characteristic riffle/pool complex
morphology. Site floodplains and wetlands have been impacted by deforestation, vegetation
maintenance, soil compaction by livestock, and groundwater draw-down from ditching and
stream channel downcutting. Land use within the upstream watershed is currently characterized
by agricultural land, pasture, forest land, and low-density residential development; less than five
percent of the upstream watershed is composed of impervious surface. Residential development
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsysteins.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 2
becomes more concentrated south of the watershed in the direction of the City of Jacksonville
and north of the watershed in the direction of the Town of Richlands.
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions in the on-Site, upstream, and downstream
segments of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream
channels; 4) reestablishment of historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream. The proposed restoration plan is expected to
restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland, and restore a minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine
wetland within the Site boundaries. Primary activities proposed to accomplish the above include
restoration of Site stream channels on new location through 1) belt-width preparation and
grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation of channel plugs,
5) backfilling of the abandoned channel, 6) ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in-stream structures
and a Terracell drop structure at the Site outfall, and 8) construction of a piped channel crossing.
The project is also expected to entail restoration of riverine and nonriverine wetlands by 1)
filling an agricultural ditch, 2) the reestablishing historic water table elevations, 3) excavating
and grading elevated spoil and sediment embankments, 4) reestablishing hydrophytic vegetation,
and 5) reconstructing stream corridors. Restoration of native forest communities will occur
throughout the Site (see Exhibits 3A-3C).
Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two degraded and channelized, unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order
to return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. The main tributary is
a second-order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching, vegetative
clearing, hoof shear from cattle and horses, and erosive flows and is characterized by excessive
incision. A portion of this tributary has been relocated from its original floodplain position to a
linear ditch excavated along the edge of cleared pasture land. The eastern tributary is a first-
order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching, vegetative clearing,
hoof shear from cattle and horses, and incision and no longer receives natural stream flows. A
berm was placed near the eastern property/Site boundary to redirect stream flows into a linear
ditch that drains south along the eastern property boundary into roadside ditches along the
southern property boundary. The roadside ditch ties into the main tributary in the southwestern
portion of the Site.
Flow from these stream reaches will be diverted and redirected into stable, meandering streams
to be constructed/restored on new location that approximate the hydrodynamics, stream
geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. The old ditched stream
channels will be abandoned and backfilled. Impacts will occur on 4758 linear feet (1.1 acres) of
the degraded and channelized reaches, (see Exhibit 3A-3C). Portions of the Site underlain by
hydric soil have been impacted by channel incision; vegetative clearing; earth movement
associated with the dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site tributaries; ditching of
Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 3
agricultural fields; and compaction by livestock grazing; no impacts to wetlands will occur due
to restoration activities.
Justifications for Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two degraded and channelized unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order
to return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches were
previously channelized (dredged and straightened) and moved to the outer extents of the
floodplain to improve drainage for agricultural use and currently remain in these conditions. Site
restoration efforts will include the restoration of these two stream reaches by constructing
channels on new location within the historic floodplain that approximate the hydrodynamics,
stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. These activities
will impact a total of 4758 linear feet of degraded and channelized stream yet construct
approximately 5858 linear feet of stream. A total of 4750 linear feet of mitigation credit is
currently being submitted as part of this project due to sections of the constructed stream that
will occur outside of the conservation easement or beneath vehicular/livestock crossings.
Surface Water Anal
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas has been analyzed to predict the feasibility of
manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent
properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with
provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing
potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year
storms under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities
have been implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak
flood flows for Site features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International)
program and regional regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry
and cross-sections are digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are
adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once corrections to the geometry are
performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along Site features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-Site cross-
sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM.
Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the
computed water surface elevations will be calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS model has been completed for the proposed Site restoration; the study indicates
that the proposed stream and wetland restoration design will result in maintainence of a "no-rise"

Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 4
in the 100-year floodplain. Although the Site is located within a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodway, no FEMA cross-sections or detailed mapping occurs
within the Site; therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) are not expected to be necessary for this project.
Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, 13 federally
protected species are listed for Onslow County. The following table lists the federally protected
species for Onslow County and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each.
Potential habitat may occur within the Site for American alligator; however, this species is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with another rare species, which does not occur in
North Carolina, and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. Detailed plant-by-plant surveys
were conducted for Cooley's meadowrue, golden sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife within Site
ditches during the optimal survey window for golden sedge and rough-leaved loosestrife on May
31, 2006 and for Cooley's meadowrue on June 19, 2006. Prior to conducting plant surveys
existing populations of each species were visited. Surveys within the Site resulted in no findings
of golden sedge, rough-leaved loosestrife, or Cooley's meadowrue; therefore, this project will
have no effect on these plant species (See attached letter from the FWS).
Federallv Protected Species for Onslow Coun
Habitat Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Present Conclusion
Within Site
Vertehrates
American Alligator
Threatened (S/A)
Yes Not
alli ator mississi iensis Applicable
Threatened
Bald eagle Halc (proposed for No No Effect
e phalus
leucoceph delistin )
Eastern cougar Puma concolor Endangered No No Effect
cou ar
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das Threatened No No Effect
Leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea Endangered No No Effect
turtle
Loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Threatened No No Effect
turtle
West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered No No Effect
manatee
Piping lover Charadrius melodus Threatened No No Effect

Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 5
Red-cockaded I Picoides borealis I Endangered I No I No Effect
Vascular Plants
Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered Yes No Effect
meadowrue
Golden sedge Carex lutea Endangered Yes No Effect
Rough-leaved Lysimachia Endangered Yes No Effect
loosestrife as erulae olia
Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened No No Effect
amaranth
*Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A) = a
species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are
not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on June 16,
2005 and one known NCNHP element is documented within 2 miles of the Site. The element is
a Natural Bridge (Significant Natural Heritage Area) located approximately 1 mile southeast of
the Site adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the New River.
One designated unit of Critical Habitat for piping plover is located in Onslow County on the
Bogue Inlet, which is greater than 20 miles southeast/seaward of the Site (USFWS 2001).
Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR
60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
A file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology on December 15, 2005 with
SHPO representative John Mintz to determine if any cultural resource investigations have been
conducted within the Site vicinity and to determine whether any significant cultural resources
have been documented within the area. Mapping documented no previously recorded
archaeological sites within or in the vicinity of the Lloyd Property. Therefore, this project will
have no effect on known archaeological resources.
Survey and Planning mapping of known historic resources was reviewed on December 15, 2005
with SHPO representative Jennifer Spivey. Mapping documented two surveyed structures within
the Lloyd Property (ON331 - Nathan Jones House and ON371 - Bill Mazingo House) adjacent
to Gum Branch Road. No further studies were conducted on either of the structures.
Construction of the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site will avoid these structures and
therefore, this project will have no effect on the Nathan Jones House or the Bill Mazingo House.

Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 6
CAMA
The proposed mitigation implementation will not impact Areas of Environmental Concern
(AECs) and, accordingly, will not require any authorization from the NC Division of Coastal
Management (See attached letter).
Your time and consideration in reviewing the enclosed material is greatly appreciated. Should
you have any questions about the project, please call me at (919-755-9490). Thank you.
Sincerely,
M-4dN*TP1X#'
M. Randall Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
CC: Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetland Unit
Attachments: Exhibits 1-3C
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 6 1 3 4 6
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Pen-nit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
AUG 2
1. Owner/Applicant Information 1 2006
Name: M. Randall Turner war, ?r Nk . ?L
Mailing Address: Restoration Systems LLC SMost?R,uN,U,;? rY -Cpf 1101 Haynes Street H
Suite 107
Raleigh North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490 Fax Number: 919-755-9492
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: M. Randall Turner
Company Affiliation: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mailing Address: 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107, Raleigh North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Updated 11/1/2005
Page I of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Lloyd Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not Applicable
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 444000684704 and 444000795550
4. Location
County: Onslow Nearest Town: Richlands
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Not Applicable
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From the Town of
Richlands travel south on Highway 24/258 for approximately 4 miles turn left (head east) on
Northwest Bridge Road (labeled as Gum Branch Road in the 2003 North Carolina Atlas and
Gazateer for approximately 2 miles The Site will be on the left side (north side) of
Northwest Bridge Road see Exhibit 1).
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.8614 °N 77.5106 °W
6. Property size (acres): - 24.4 acres (see Exhibit 2)
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Unnamed tributaries to the New River
8. River Basin: White Oak River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 9
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the
time of this application: Site floodplains and wetlands have been impacted by deforestation,
vegetation maintenance soil compaction by livestock and groundwater draw-down from
ditching and stream channel downcutting. The Site is characterized by active pastureland,
fallow fields and forest stands. Pastureland is currently grazed by livestock including cattle
and horses and livestock have access to the entire Site. The Site watershed, approximately
1.4 square miles at the Site outfall is characterized by agricultural land, pasture, forest land,
and low-density residential development; less than five percent of the upstream watershed is
composed of impervious surface. Residential development becomes more concentrated
south of the watershed in the City of Jacksonville and north of the watershed in the Town of
Richlands.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The primary
goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable riffle-pool stream channel; 2)
enhancement of water quality functions in the on-Site, upstream, and downstream segments
of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream channels; 4)
reestablishment of historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream. The proposed restoration plan is expected
to restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland and restore a minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional
nonriverine wetland within the Site boundaries. Primary activities proposed to accomplish
the above include restoration of Site stream channels on new location through 1) belt-width
preparation and grading, 2 floodplain bench excavation 3) channel excavation, 4)
installation of channel plugs, 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel, 6) ditch rerouting, 7)
installation of in-stream structures and a Terracell drop stricture at the Site outfall, and 8)
construction of a piped channel crossing The project will also entail restoration of riverine
and nonriverine wetlands by 1 filling an agricultural ditch 2) reestablishment of historic
water table elevations, 3) excavating and grading elevated spoil and sediment embankments,
4) reestablishing hydrophytic vegetation and 5) reconstructing stream corridors. Restoration
with native forest communities will occur throughout the Site (see Exhibits 3A-3C).
Equipment that will be utilized to accomplish the above restoration plan may include but is
not limited to a track hoe front end loader, dump trucks, and bulldozers.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Restoration Systems is proposing stream and
wetland restoration at the Lloyd Site as a full delivery project to assist the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program in fulfilling its restoration goals.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued pennits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 9
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. No previous permits have been obtained or requested for this job.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A sediment and erosion control permit will be obtained from the Division of Land Quality prior
to construction. No additional permit requests are anticipated for this Site in the future, however,
additional restoration opportunities may be pursued in areas adjacent to the Site, which will
require additional, similar permit requests.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two degraded and channelized
unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order to return the Site to historic
conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. The main tributary is a second-order, bank-to-
bank stream system which has been impacted by ditching vegetative clearing, hoof shear
from cattle and horses and erosive flows and is characterized by excessive incision. A
portion of this tributary has been relocated from its original floodplain position to a linear
ditch excavated along t_he edge of cleared pasture land. The eastern tributary is a first-order,
bank-to-bank stream system which has been impacted by ditching,_veg_etative clearing, hoof
shear from cattle and horses and incision and no longer receives natural stream flows. A
berm was placed near the eastern property/Site boundary to redirect stream flows into a linear
ditch that drains south along the eastern property boundary into roadside ditches along the
southern property boundary. The roadside ditch ties into the main tributary in the
southwestern portion of the Site.
Flow from these stream reaches will be diverted and redirected into stable, meandering
stream constructed/restored on new location that approximate the hydrodynamics, stream
geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. The old ditched
stream channels will be abandoned and backfilled.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 4 of 9
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within
1 00-year Distance to
Nearest Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh
,
Floodplain
Stream Impact (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc,)
es/no)
(linear feet)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) No impacts
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.5 acres
4. Individually list all intennittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermittent? m Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet) Area of
Impact
acres
Exhibits 3A-3C Main Tributary Fill Perennial 10 2379 0.55
Exhibits 3A-3C Eastern Tributary Fill Perennial 10 2379 0.55
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 4758 1.1
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, Impact
indicate on ma bay, ocean, etc. (acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) No impacts
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 1.1
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 1.1
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 4758
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 9
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Not Applicable
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): Not Applicable
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): Not Applicable
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: Not Applicable
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Two degraded and channelized
unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order to return the Site to historic
conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. The proposed restoration plan is expected to
restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland, and restore a minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine
wetland within the Site boundaries.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 9
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.stateaie.us/iicwetlands/strmgide.htm1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://l12o.eni.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htin. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes X No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
A CE document has been prepared per FHWA guidance (See attachment)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 9
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neese), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitieation
I 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; LoMC 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260. Not Applicable
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. No impervious surface currently exists on the
Site and no impervious surface is proposed with the restoration activities. A sediment and
erosion control permit will be obtained from the Division of Land Quality prior to construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 9
Not Applicable
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No El
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Not Applicable

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 9

?r

F - .i

.±%' H'f,M'B!`i.ti iT. r1TIF (
} 4 . .'
REST t__ •j ,

a 1b

I[
Atl?

Rup
aft" q

Reference HOFM',
Forest ANN S IF FOR157
'
P

#P
A
"
,
Lloyd
4
Site Location •L ,?, ??•, } 0
5 ?
0
but, 0

x
bo

-
si
^
1 mi. 0 1 mi. 4 mi. ,• w i ` ~\? f?
?" -
1:150,000 ,•? ?;# ,
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atiss and Gewheer, p.77.

n.un?>.w?n vend r?..e
SITE LOCAT
ION ITNn by
CLF
FIGURE

III?Y+ .?i:? IGY:f LLOYD RESTORA TION SITE 'c May 2006
Onslow County, Nort h Carolina
05-021

x?? M
{e? t
1
?I
,
1t
r I
Ij
S '
is
if
ko
s

i e lit
?
?lit
fill _ I le i! a,,, `??c
wm?
NN
ra x
F3k"

n
r n
c
0 m
AV
O m
N
Z y
G ? A
10
? D tl
_ z m
?m
z
OD f
V?
oo
3
zmoAoog
c.
mmm;mm
n'fm mm
y
n m ' u
u
$ ° m n -
C ? = A ?
C.
? W
w

Om m
mom
D A O
Z D
m D D
m O m
DOA
Tma
_o?

i
/
m 0 D - ? ?
m D S m
3 0 D D
3 r z O
Fm0
3 z
I mo
? D H
t"? 3 Nv0 -
y
?I 2 3 m =
it
00
D N_
Z n
z
I o .
_
_ I m
T O 1
r-

z
W c O
y o Z
o ?
? o a ?o
CD U)i a
3
0*
vn To -u
vo
-
0 =
O
z
m
0)
0
z
U)
f
Hill
0 o w ; A
'v o N
m a ° m E
G 0 w o s
° w o
o m w °o
3 m =
°un m m m' m
m ? a
3 > >
3 V V
3
m
NCC
S
Q
fD
n
co
NGG
Ix'I
Q
?W
n
ro

1
m O
D
S
,. 3 T
O
z
ry
A
.a
en
T x
?m
z
m0
< O
,x
wZ
T r
1
J 0m
0 A
/ A
T n
N 0
CF
C1
C
m
tJ

n

l z
a=
? \ A?
? N
I ?'
1
I f
1
1

,
1 r?
I
Z?
\r
\
TF, \
M F, N
ti
T
N z `
N O
O `
2
m0 `
0,
n,
?
O ? 2
I T
pNN
O
00 N
T VI
RI
N
Z >

z
" z
0 z

z
z

O
O
p. r-

;o 0-
a
o
Q1 n U)
D O
(D N p
80 O CD

2i?'d i? o g c £
K
3 _
3 ,
00
m ?L
D N \ \
Z O X\
I F
V
N O
q 0
w O
_ x
_ v
3 c
2 O
O
In ?
? a
co
z
cn 3
Natural Rcsource?;
F`.esloratiori & Conserval.il'M
May 25, 2006
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Section 401 Oversight
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
SUBJECT: Authorized Agent for Restoration Systems
Mrs. Karoly:
Please accept our designation of Mr. M. Randall Turner, AKA Randy Turner, as the duly
authorized agent for Restoration Systems, LLC in all matters related to regulatory issues.
Mr. Turner has our permission to perform signatory duties on pen-nit applications,
permits and other documents related specifically to Clean Water Act regulatory actions,
as well as regulatory actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the NCDENR such as
Isolated Wetland Permits, Riparian Buffer Certificates, etc. If you agree with this
designation, please forward this letter to your field offices.
Restoration Systems has made this same designation to Ken Jolly for all future federal
regulatory actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps. Thanks for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
George A. Howard, ice-President
cc: John Dorney, Program Development
Pilot Mill -1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsysteins.coni • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
r
Y
August 18, 2006
Restoration Systems, LLC
Attn: David Schiller
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Lloyd Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
White Oak River Basin - Cataloging Unit 03030001
Onslow County, North Carolina
Contract # D06003-1
Dear Mr. Schiller:
In July 2006, Restoration Systems, LLC submitted a Restoration Plan for the Lloyd Site Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project.. The project is located approximately one mile northwest of the town of
Jacksonville, in Onslow County, and is in the White Oak River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03030001). The
Plan proposes to restore historic stream and wetland functions to a channelized stream and degraded non-
jurisdictional wetlands. Restoration activities will include removal of spoil from past dredging activities
and improving the streams access to a floodplain, and restoring degraded, currently non jurisdictional
wetlands. These activities will improve floodplain function, reduce sediment and nutrient inputs, and
improve both aquatic and riparian habitat.
An approximately 24.4 acre permanent conservation easement has been placed on the site. As a result of
this restoration project, approximately 4750 Stream Mitigation Units, 3.3 Riverine Wetland Mitigation
Units and 3.1 Non-Riverine Wetland Mitigation Units will be generated to provide compensatory
mitigation for permitted unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands in North Carolina.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program has reviewed the plan and has no additional comments at this time.
Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits and/or certifications and complete the implementation
of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project (Task 4). A copy of this letter should be included with
your 401/404 permit applications.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at [phone] or
email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
PQ-- O
Guy C. Pea ce
EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
cc: files
Resto?i?c?... LaAa m? ti... Protect Oar Rates EN
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Pr mini, 102 Mail Service (enter, Raleiy,h, V. 11699-1651 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep,I,ci
PROGRAPA
t
RESTORATION PLAN
LLOYD SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06003-1)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
IN THE CAPE FEARIWHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030001
Prepared for:
r?
-j
fikosysteili
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
And
A.-EnvlronmenW 1-
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Spring, North Carolina 27592
June 2006
GCrf9DdCP
AUG 2 1 2006
+Yt I i.AN;jS ME) S i QR?AW, .
r
1

a
t

t

['I

1

u

t
t

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site), located approximately 1 mile southeast
M of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County, will provide a minimum of
4750 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.3 acres of riverine wetland restoration, and 3.1 acres of
nonriverine wetland restoration. The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ]
Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit HU
03030001. This subbasin of the White Oak River Basin is entirely contained within Onslow
County and consists of the New River and its tributaries, several small Coastal Plain streams,
and the Intracoastal Waterway.
' This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities on the Site. A 24.4-
acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities.
The Site contains 24.4 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River,
riparian buffer, and upland slopes. An undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch, approximately 25
miles northwest of the Site in Duplin County, was utilized as the reference reach.
The two UTs to the New River and adjacent floodplain represent the primary hydrologic features
of the Site. The drainage basin size is approximately 1.4 square miles at the Site outfall. The
Site watershed is characterized by agricultural land, pasture, forest land, and low-density
residential development; less than five percent of the upstream watershed is composed of
impervious surface. Residential development becomes more concentrated south of the
watershed in the City of Jacksonville and north of the watershed in the Town of Richlands. The
a Site is characterized by active pastureland, fallow fields, and forest stands. Pastureland is
currently grazed by livestock including cattle and horses, and livestock have access to the entire
Site. No exclusionary barriers occur adjacent to on-Site streams or wetlands and livestock have
degraded stream banks and compacted hydric soils.
Under existing conditions, Site streams are characterized by straightened, G-type reaches. Site
streams have been degraded by dredging, straightening, and rerouting of the stream channels.
Additional stream impacts include bank collapse and erosion, channel incision, changes in
stream power and sediment transport, and loss of characteristic riffle/pool complex. morphology.
Site floodplains and wetlands have been impacted by deforestation, vegetation maintenance,
soil compaction by livestock, and groundwater draw-down from ditching and stream channel
downcutting.
Restoration activities will restore historic stream and wetland functions, which existed on-Site
prior to channel straightening and rerouting, livestock impacts, and vegetation removal. Stream
construction of meandering, E-type stream channel will result in a minimum of 4750 linear feet
of stream restoration. Wetland restoration will occur within sections of the Site floodplains
(riverine wetlands) and interstream divide (nonriverine wetlands) underlain by hydric soils and
will result in the restoration of a minimum of 3.3 acres or riverine wetland and 3.1 acres of
nonriverine wetland. Restoration activities include removal of spoil castings from channel
dredging/straightening activities, filling and redirecting of existing on-Site downcutting reaches,
¦ t filling of a drainage ditch within the interstream divide, and revegetation with woody vegetation.
Detailed Restoration Plan
Executive Summary page 1
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
t

1
1

11

' Characteristic wetland soil features, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation communities
are expected to develop in areas adjacent to the constructed channel. The existing, degraded
channel will be abandoned and backfilled. Reestablishment of stream-side and hardwood forest
' communities will be undertaken throughout floodplain reaches bordering the restored stream
channel to further protect water quality and enhance opportunities for wildlife.
' A Monitoring Plan will be prepared that entails a detailed analysis of stream geomorphology,
wetland hydrology, and Site vegetation. Monitoring of the project will be conducted as set forth
under the multi-agency Stream Mitigation Guidelines dated April 2003. Success will be based
' on the criteria described under each of the monitored parameters outlined in this document.

0
0

Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page 2
' Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
2.0 METHODS ............................................................................. ..........................................
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................... ..........................................3
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .................... ..........................................3
3.2 Soils ............................................................................. ..........................................
3.3 Plant Communities ......................................................... ..........................................6
3.4 Hydrology ...................................................................... ..........................................
3.4.1 Drainage Area ............................................................. ..........................................
3.4.2 Discharge .................................................................... ..........................................
3.5 Stream Characterization ................................................ ..........................................8
3.5.1 Stream Geometry and Substrate ................................. ..........................................9
3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold .... ........................................10
3.6.1 Stream Power ..............................................................
0
........................................
3.6.2 Shear Stress ................................................................ ........................................ 10
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ........................................11
3.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands .................................................. ........................................13
3.7.1 Groundwater Modeling ................................................. ........................................ 13
3.7.1 .1 Groundwater Model Descriptions .......................... ........................................13
3.7.1 .2 Groundwater Modeling Applications ...................... ........................................14
3.7.1 .3 Groundwater Modeling Results ............................. ........................................16
4.0 CON STRAINT EVALUATION ................................................. ........................................19
4.1 Surface Water Analysis and Hydrologic Trespass .......... ........................................19
4.2 Protected Species .......................................................... ........................................20
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES ......................................................... ........................................21
5.1 Reference Channel ........................................................ ........................................ 22
5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems ....................................... ........................................23
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN ........................................................... ........................................24
6.1 Stream Restoration ........................................................ ........................................25
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location ................................. ........................................25
6.1.2 In-Stream Structures .................................................... ........................................ 27
6.1.3 Piped Channel Crossing .............................................. ........................................28
6.2 Wetland Restoration ...................................................... ........................................28
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification ........................................... ........................................29
6.4 Plant Community Restoration ........................................ ........................................30
6.5 Planting Plan .................................................................
3
........................................
7.0 MONITORING PLAN .............................................................. ........................................32
7.1 Stream Monitoring .........................................................
3
........................................
7.2 Stream Success Criteria ................................................ ........................................32
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring ..................................................... ........................................ 33
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria ............................................ ........................................33
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring .................................................... ........................................ 33
7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................... ........................................ 34
7.7 Contingency ...................................................................
4
........................................
8.0 REF ERENCES ....................................................................... ........................................36
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page i
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
' APPENDIX A TABLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND
FIGURES
' APPENDIX B PRECONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPHS
' List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Map
'
Figure 3 Reference Stream Reach Location
Figure 4 Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 5 Drainage Area Land Use
'
Figure 6 Existing Conditions
Figure 7 USDA-SCS Soils Map
' Figure 8 Typical Soil Profiles
Figures 9 Existing Conditions Dimension
Figure 10 Existing Conditions Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
' Figure 11 Proposed Conditions Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
Figures 12 Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures PL 1-4 Restoration Plan Sheets
' Figure 14 Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 15 Typical Structures
Figure 16 Planting Plan
' Figure 17 Monitoring Plan
' List of Tables
Table 1. USDA Soils Mapped within the Site ......................................................................... .....5
Table 2. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ........................................................ .....8
Table 3. Stream Power (0) and Shear Stress (r) Values ...................................................... ...12
Table 4. DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod ................................. ...17
'
Table 5. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss ............................................... ...18
Table 6. Federally Protected Species for Onslow County ...................................................... ...21
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem .................................................................................. ...24
'
Table 8. Planting Plan ........................................................................................................... ...31
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page ii
I Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
LLOYD PROPERTY
DETAILED RESTORATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems is currently developing stream and wetland restoration at the Lloyd Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (Site) located approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5
miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03030001010030 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-05-02) of
the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit HU 03030001 (Figure 2, Appendix
A) (USGS 1974). This subbasin of the White Oak River Basin is entirely contained within
Onslow County and consists of the New River and its tributaries, several small Coastal Plain
streams, and the Intracoastal Waterway (NCDWQ 2001).
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities on the Site. A 24.36-
acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities.
The Site contains 24.36 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River,
riparian buffer, and upland slopes. An undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch approximately 25
miles northwest of the Site in Duplin County was utilized as the reference reach (Figure 3,
Appendix A).
The two UTs to the New River and adjacent floodplain represent the primary hydrologic features
of the Site. The drainage basin size is approximately 1.4 square mile at the Site outfall (Figure
4, Appendix A). The Site watershed is characterized by agricultural land, pasture, forest land,
and low-density residential development; less than five percent of the upstream watershed is
composed of impervious surface (Figure 5, Appendix A). Residential development becomes
more concentrated south of the watershed in the Town of Jacksonville and north of the
watershed in the Town of Richlands. The Site is characterized by active pasture, fallow fields,
and forest stands (Figure 6, Appendix A). Pasture is currently grazed by livestock including
cattle and horses, and livestock have access to the entire Site. No exclusionary barriers occur
adjacent to on-Site streams or wetlands and livestock have degraded stream banks and
compacted hydric soils.
Site land use, including livestock grazing, removal of riparian vegetation, and straightening and
rerouting of stream channels, has resulted in degraded . water quality, unstable channel
characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and decreased wetland
function.
The purpose of this plan is to outline a detailed restoration plan for stream and wetland
restoration activities. The objectives of this study include the following.
• Classify on-Site streams based on fluvial geomorphic principles.
• Identify jurisdictional wetlands and/or hydric soils within the Site boundaries.
• Identify a suitable reference forest, stream, and wetland to model Site restoration
attributes.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 1 I
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
I,

• Develop a detailed plan of stream restoration and wetland restoration activities within the
24.4-acre conservation easement boundary.
• Establish success criteria and a method of monitoring the Site upon completion of
restoration construction.
Site restoration efforts will result in the following.
• Restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of stream within two UTs to the New River.
• Restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and restore a minimum
of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional non-riverine wetland.
• Reforest approximately 23.1 acres of floodplain and interstream divide with native forest
species.
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and will be
accomplished by:
• Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including
a) removal of livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) cessation of
broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to
Site streams and wetlands; and c) provide a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and
wetlands to treat surface runoff.
• Reducing sedimentation within on-Site and downstream receiving waters through a) a
reduction of bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and
agricultural plowing to Site streams and b) providing a forested vegetative buffer
adjacent to Site streams and wetlands.
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and
sediment loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby
reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; c) restoring depressional
floodplain wetlands and increasing storage capacity for floodwaters within the Site; and
d) revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing
Site floodplains.
• Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability.
Providing wildlife habitat including a forested riparian corridor within a region of the state
highly dissected by agricultural land use.
IL This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the
Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and
forest studies; 3) restoration plans; and 4) Site monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval
of this plan by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), engineering
.:. construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented as outlined. Proposed
restoration activities may be modified during the civil design stage due to constraints such as
access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints), or
other design considerations.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 2
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information was obtained from available sources including USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Catherine Lake, North Carolina), United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) soils mapping for Onslow County (USDA 1992), and recent Onslow County aerial
photography to evaluate existing landscape, stream, and soil information prior to on-Site
inspection.
A reach of Bullard Creek located approximately 25 miles northwest of the Site (Figure 3,
Appendix A) and other off-Site streams were utilized to obtain reference data. Reference
stream and floodplain systems were identified and measured in the field to quantify stream
geometry, substrate, and hydrodynamics to orient the channel reconstruction design. Stream
pattern, dimension, and profile under stable environmental conditions were measured along
reference stream reaches and applied to degraded reaches within the Site. Reconstructed
stream channels and hydraulic geometry relationships have been designed to mimic stable
channels identified and evaluated in the region. Stream characteristics and detailed restoration
plans were developed according to constructs outlined in Rosgen (1996), Dunne and Leopold
(1978), Harrelson et al. (1994), Chang (1988), and State of North Carolina Interagency Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003).
Characteristic and target natural community patterns were classified according to Schafale and
Weakley's, Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990). Plant
communities were delineated and described by structure and composition.
Detailed field investigations were conducted between January and April 2006, including
generation of Site channel cross-sections, profiles, and plan-views; valley cross-sections;
detailed soil mapping; and mapping of on-Site resources. Hydrology, vegetation, and soil
attributes were analyzed to determine the status of jurisdictional areas.
SCS soil mapping and soil map units were ground truthed by a licensed soil scientist to verify
existing soil mapping units and to map inclusions within soil map units. Adjustments to hydric
soil boundaries were delineated using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with
reported submeter accuracy. Recent (1998) aerial photography was evaluated to determine
primary hydrologic features and to map relevant environmental features.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Lloyd Site is located approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of
Jacksonville, in Onslow County (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site is located in the Middle
Atlantic Coastal Plain, Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion of North Carolina within USGS 14-digit HU
03030001010030 (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service
USGS 8-digit HU 03030001 (Figure 2, Appendix A) (USGS 1974). Regional physiography is
characterized by flat plains on lightly dissected marine terraces. The ecoregion is characterized
by Carolina bays, swamps, and low-gradient streams with silty or sandy substrate (Griffith
Detailed Restoration Plan page 3
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

2002). This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation
averaging approximately 56 inches per year (USDA 1992).
The Site encompasses two UTs to the New River (main and eastern tributaries) as well as the
adjacent floodplain and hydric soils. The tributaries converge on the Site and drain an
approximately 1.4-square mile watershed at the Site outfall (Figure 4, Appendix A). The main
tributary is a second-order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching,
vegetative clearing, hoof shear from cattle and horses, and erosive flows and is characterized
by excessive incision. A portion of this tributary appears to have been relocated from its original
floodplain position to a linear ditch excavated along the edge of cleared pasture land. The
' q eastern tributary is a first-order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by
ditching, vegetative clearing, hoof shear from cattle and horses, and incision and no longer
receives natural stream flows. A berm was placed near the eastern property/Site boundary to
redirect stream flows into a linear ditch that drains south along the eastern property boundary
into roadside ditches along the southern property boundary. The roadside ditch ties into the
main tributary in the southwestern portion of the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A). Site tributaries
flow through a relatively broad, gently sloping (approximately 0.003 to 0.004 rise/run) alluvial
valley (Valley Type VIII) with a floodplain width ranging from 150 to 250 feet.
The upstream drainage basin is characterized mainly by agricultural and forest land with
interspersed low-density residential development; impervious surfaces appear to account for
less than 5 percent of the drainage basin area (Figures 4 and 5, Appendix A). Residential
development becomes more concentrated south of the watershed in the City of Jacksonville and
north of the watershed in the Town of Richlands. The Site is characterized by active pasture,
fallow fields, and forest stands (Figure 6, Appendix A). Pasture is currently grazed by livestock,
which have access the entire Site.
3.2 Soils
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina
are depicted in Figure 7 (Appendix A) and described in Table 1 (USDA 1992). On-Site
verification and ground-truthing of SCS map units were conducted in January 2006 by a
licensed soil scientist to refine soil map units and to locate inclusions. Refined soil mapping
units are depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A). Systematic transects were established and
sampled to ensure proper coverage. Soils were sampled for color, texture, consistency, and
?i depth at each documented horizon.

Detailed soil mapping for the Site has been prepared based on landscape position and hydric
verses nonhydric characteristics. Hydric soils were further distinguished as riverine or
nonriverine for purposes of wetland restoration planning.
three revised soil map units were identified: 1) hydric
interstream soils (nonriverine), and 3) nonhydric soils.
As depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A),
floodplain soils (riverine), 2) hydric
Detailed Restoration Plan page 4
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table 1. US DA Soils Ma ed within the S ite
Soil Series Hydric Family Description
Status
This series consists of moderately well-drained, slowly
permeable soils on slightly convex divides near large
Aquic drainageways in uplands. Slopes are generally between
Craven Nonhydric Hapludults 1 and 4 percent. Depth to the seasonal high water table
occurs at 2 to 3 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of
more than 60 inches.
This series consists of moderately well-drained,
moderately permeable soils on uplands. Slopes are
Goldsboro Nonhydric Aquic generally between 0 and 2 percent. Depth to the
Paleudults seasonal high water table occurs at 2 to 3 feet. Soft
bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils in shallow depressions on
Grifton Class A Typic uplands. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs
Ochraqualfs at 0.5 to 1 foot. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more
than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly
drained, slowly permeable soils in interstream areas in
Lenoir Class B Aeric uplands. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs
Paleaquults at 1 to 2.5 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more
than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
Typic moderately permeable soils of floodplains. Depth to the
Muckalee Class A Fluvaquents seasonal high water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Soft
bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils in interstream areas. Depth
Rains Class A to the seasonal high water table occurs at or near the
Paleaquults surface. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer (Environmental
Laboratory 1987). Based on SCS mapping, hydric soils underlying the Site stream channels,
immediate floodplain, and interstream divide include soils of the Muckalee and Rains series.
Detailed soil mapping of the Site indicates that hydric soils of the Muckalee series encompass
approximately 19.2 acres (79 percent of the Site) adjacent to Site stream channels targeted for
restoration and extend into the immediate floodplain (Figure 6, Appendix A). Soils of the
Muckalee series are characterized by light gray to dark gray or gley colored matrix with mottles
consisting of sandy loam textured surface soils underlain by sandy clay loam or sandy clay
textured soils (Figure 8, Appendix A). In general, areas of hydric soils of the Muckalee series
1
1
1
Detailed Restoration Plan page 5
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
n
have been disturbed by stream alterations including dredging, straightening, rerouting, and
downcutting of streams; floodplain ditching; deforestation; and soil compaction due to livestock
grazing. Based on preliminary studies, on-Site soils of the Muckalee series appear to have
historically supported jurisdictional riverine wetlands that were intermittently flooded by over-
bank stream flows; upland runoff, groundwater migration into the Site, and, to a lesser extent,
direct precipitation.
Detailed soil mapping of the Site indicates that hydric soils of the Rains series encompass
approximately 3.3 acres (14 percent of the Site) within the interstream divide between Site
streams (Figure 6, Appendix A). Soils of the Rains series are characterized by mottled light
gray or gley colored sandy loams underlain by sandy clay (Figure 8, Appendix A). In general,
areas of hydric soils of the Rains series have been disturbed by ditching, deforestation, and soil
compaction due to livestock grazing. Based on preliminary studies, on-Site soils of the Rains
series appear to have historically supported jurisdictional nonriverine wetlands with groundwater
hydrology driven primarily by precipitation.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and replanting with native hydrophytic vegetation will be
performed in the areas of hydric soils including both the Muckalee (riverine wetlands) and Rains
(nonriverine wetlands) series. See Section 6.2 for detailed wetland restoration information.
Nonhydric Soils
Based on SCS mapping and field observations, nonhydric soils underlying the Site are mapped
as Craven fine sandy loam, Goldsboro fine sandy loam, and Lenoir loam.
Nonhydric soils mapped at the Site occur on upland margins of the Site floodplain and
interstream divide, encompassing approximately 1.81 acres (7 percent) of the Site (Figure 6,
Appendix A). Nonhydric floodplain soils are generally located on gentle rises in the Site and are
characterized by dark grayish-brown to grayish-brown colored sandy loam or dark gray colored
1 ! loam underlain by sandy clay (Figure 8, Appendix A). These soils may be subject to occasional
flooding; however, aerobic features in the soil profile suggest that the landscape position and
soil permeability are sufficient to maintain nonhydric soil characteristics.
3.3 Plant Communities
i
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Two plant communities
have been identified on the Site: 1) pasture/fallow fields and 2) forest (Figure 6, Appendix A).
Pastureland maintains little vegetative diversity, and is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.)
planted for grazing. Occasional opportunistic weeds are encountered and various shrubs and
vines occur along ditch and stream banks such as greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and rushes (Juncus spp.).
Forested areas occur within a small portion of the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A). This community
is characterized by a canopy layer consisting of sweetgum (r iquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), American
holly (Ilex opaca), white oak (Quercus alba), water oak (Quercus nigra), loblolly pine (Pinus
Detailed Restoration Plan page 6
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1
1
taeda), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The understory is sparse and consists of
species listed above as well as sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, Chinese privet, and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida).
3.4 Hydrology
Hydrology within riverine areas of the Site is defined by the presence of surface water flows,
groundwater migration into open water conveyances, groundwater seepage onto floodplain
surfaces, and, to a lesser extent, precipitation. Surface water flows result primarily from
upstream drainage basin catchment, discharge into upstream feeder tributaries, and surface
water flows into and through the Site.
Hydrology within nonriverine areas of the Site are defined by high water tables, poor drainage
resulting in surface ponding, sheet flow from adjacent areas, and precipitation.
3.4.1 Drainage Area
This hydrophysiographic region is considered characteristic of the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The region is characterized by Carolina bays, swamps, and low-gradient streams
with silty or sandy substrate (Griffith 2002). This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by
moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging approximately 56 inches per year (USDA 1992).
The Site occurs within USGS 14-digit HU 03030001010030 (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-05-02) of
the White Oak River Basin (Figure 2, Appendix A) (USGS 1974).
The Site drainage area encompasses approximately 1.4 square miles at the downstream Site
outfall (Figure 4, Appendix A). The drainage area is characterized by agricultural land, forest,
and low-density residential development (Figure 5, Appendix A). The two Site UTs to the New
River ultimately drain to a section of the New River which has been assigned Stream Index
Number 19-(1) and a Best Usage Classification of C NSW (NCDWQ 2005).
3.4.2 Discharge
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the
channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon
et al. 1992). Current research also estimates a bankfull discharge of 11.4 cubic feet per second
(cfs) would be expected to occur approximately every 0.1 to 0.3 years (Geratz et al. 2003). This
is much shorter than previous state and nationwide estimates in other ecoregions of
approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994). The shortened recurrence
interval may be attributed to precipitation inputs onto wide, nearly level land with a large surface
storage capacity, an elevated water table, and slow flushing rates (Geratz et al. 2003).
The Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic province; therefore, regional curves for
the Coastal Plain (Geratz et al. 2003) were utilized and verified by regional regression
equations, Cowan's roughness equation method, and reference stream data.
Based on available Coastal Plain regional curves, the bankfull discharge for the reference reach
averages approximately 11.0 cubic feet per second (Geratz et al. 2003). The USGS regional
regression equation for the Coastal Plain region indicates that bankfull discharge for the
Detailed Restoration Plan page 7
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
?I?

reference reach at a 0.1 to 0.3 year return interval averages approximately 4.5 to 12.0 cfs
(USGS 2001). In addition, a stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of
Arcement and Schneider's (1989) weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component
values and applied to the following equation (Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge
estimate.
Qbkf = [1.486/n] * [A*R2J3*S112]
where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water
surface slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference
' reach averages approximately 20.6 cubic feet per second. Field indicators of bankfull and riffle
cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-sectional area for the reference
reach. The Coastal Plain regional curves were then utilized to plot the watershed area and
discharge for the reference reach cross-sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull approximate
an average discharge of 11.4 cfs for the reference reach.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions
at the Site will be based on bankfull indicators found on the reference reach and Coastal Plain
r regional curves. Table 2 summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull discharge.
To verify regional curves and USGS regression models, gauged streams are generally analyzed
to determine a return interval for momentary peak discharges. Momentary peak discharges
(return interval between 0.1 to 0.3 years) would be calculated from the USGS gauge data
collected monthly and plotted against the regional curve. However, data for stations within
close proximity to the Site and of a similar drainage area were not available. The limited
number of available stations within Onslow and surrounding counties occurred on large rivers
with drainage areas ranging from 94 square miles to greater than 500 square miles. Therefore,
data from such gauges is not applicable to the Site, which ranges from 0.5 square mile to 1.4
square miles at the Site outfall.
I
It
I able 2. Reference Reach Bankfull Disc harge Analysis
Watershed Area Return Interval Discharge
Method (square miles ears cfs
Coastal Plain Regional Curves
Geratz et al. 2003 1.27 0.1-0.3 11.0
Coastal Plain Regional Regression Model
USGS 2001 1.27 0.1-0.3 4.5-12.0
Mannin 's "n" using Cowan's Method 1956 1.27 NA 20.6
Field Indicators of Bankfull (Coastal Plain Regional
Curves, Geratz et al. 2003 1.32 0.1-0.3 11.4
3.5 Stream Characterization
Stream characterization is intended to orient stream restoration based on a classification
utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into
comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary
components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-to-depth ratio, sinuosity,
Detailed Restoration Plan page 8
' Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Existing Site reaches are classified as G-
type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio) streams. Each stream type is modified by a number
1 through 6 (e. g., E5), denoting a stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1)
bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6) silt/clay.
3.5.1 Stream Geometry and Substrate
Locations of existing stream reaches and cross-sections are depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A).
Stream geometry measurements under existing conditions are summarized in Figure 9 and the
Morphological Stream Characteristics Table in Appendix A. The Site is characterized by
dredged and straightened, G-type streams. The reference reach exhibits a sinuous, E-type
channel and is discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.
G-type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio) streams are generally in a mode of degradation
derived from near continuous channel adjustments resulting from very high bank erosion. Bed
and bank erosion typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution from a stable E-type
channel into a G-type (gully) channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension
of the G-type channel into an F-type (widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue
to widen laterally until the channel is wide enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel
at a lower elevation so that the original floodplain is no longer subject to regular flooding.
Existing stream characteristics are summarized below.
Dredged and Straightened G-type Reach
Dimension: Site streams have been dredged and straightened and are classified as G-
type reaches. Cross-sectional areas of the channel currently range from 41.7 to 94.2 square
feet (compared to 6.1 to 7.2 square feet predicted by this study). Incision of the channels is
indicated by bank-height ratios ranging from 5.1 to 6.4. The channels are currently
characterized by eroding banks as the channels attempt to enlarge to a stable cross-sectional
area as described in the evolutionary process outlined above.
Pattern: Straightening of the channels have resulted in a loss of pattern variables such
as belt-width, meander wavelength, pool-to-pool spacing, and radius of curvature. The channel
is currently characterized by a low sinuosity of 1.02 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance) and
no distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools is present.
Profile: The average water surface slope for the dredged and straightened reaches
measures 0.0032 for the main tributary and 0.0043 for the eastern tributary (rise/run). These
values are nearly equal to the valley slopes (0.0033 and 0.0044, respectively) resulting in a
sinuosity of 1.02. Typically, dredging and straightening will oversteepen a channel reducing
channel length over a particular drop in valley slope, as is depicted in this case. In addition,
dredging and straightening channels disturbs perpendicular flow vectors that maintain riffles and
pools, resulting in headcuts, oversteepened riffles, and loss of pools.
Substrate: Channel substrate is characterized by silt- and sand-sized particles typical of
this region of North Carolina.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 9
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold
3.6.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing water and sediment load.
One form of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to
aggradation, or deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the
stream to transport sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or
stability thresholds for materials forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or
degradation occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream
power can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment
transport of streams. Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream
power) or per unit of channel bed area. The total stream power equation is defined as:
Q = pgQs
where Q = total stream power (ft-Ib/s-ft), p = density of water (lb/ft), g = gravitational
acceleration (ft/S ), Q = discharge (ft3/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of
water (y = 62.4 Ib/ft3) is equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg.
A general evaluation of power for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge
and water surface slope for the reach. As slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase,
h stream power increases and more energy is available for reworking channel materials.
Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus stream power.
Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular, over-
widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will
decrease stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to
aggradation of the stream bed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream
power. Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power
and relatively coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto
adjacent floodplains have lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable.
Stream power assessments can be useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and
the deposition or erosion of sediments from the stream bed.
3.6.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing
water exerts on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment
supply (size and amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the
stream bed and bank on water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the
ability of a stream to efficiently transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the
bed is defined as follows:
Detailed Restoration Plan page 10
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

=7Rs
where r = shear stress (Ib/ftz), r = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the
energy slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not
necessarily provide a good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to
account for local variability and instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied
based on channel form and irregularity. For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can
be assumed from the following equation:
timax = 1.5ti
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
Tmax = 2.65ti(Rc /Wbkf) 0.5
where R, = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope,
dimension, and pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity
increase to maintain adequate shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have
higher shear stress values than required for bedload transport will scour bed and bank
materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with lower shear stress values than
needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the
available power divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and
vegetation. The stream power equation can thus be written as follows:
w = PgQs = iv
where w = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ftz), i = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
w = QMbkf
where Wbkf= width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach
the resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of
relative magnitude of these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of
open channels is only imperfectly understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this
interaction have yet to be developed for conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of
characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical formulas.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 11
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1.

Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1)
maximum permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The
former is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream
power cannot be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters.
However, stream power and shear stress are generally better measures of fluid force on the
channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged
and straightened, G-type reaches, 2) the reference reach, and 3) proposed on-Site conditions.
I Important input values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit
?? shear power and shear stress) are presented in Table 3. Average stream velocity and
discharge values were calculated for the existing on-Site stream reaches, the reference reach,
and proposed conditions.
In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed
channel should exhibit stream power and shear stress values so that the channel is neither
aggrading nor degrading. Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed channel reaches
are expected to maintain stream power as a function of width values of approximately 0.20 and
shear stress values of approximately 0.17 (slightly lower than that of the reference reach and
existing degrading reaches).
Table 3. Stream Power (0) and Shear Stress (,r) Values

Water Total Shear
Discharge surface Stream Hydraulic Stress Velocity
ft21s Slo a ft/ft Power S2 n/W Radius v t v Tmex
..
Existing Conditions
G-t e* 12.0 0.0039 2.92 0.32 1.03 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.38
a Reference Reach 11.0 0.0040 2.75 0.30 0.99 0.25 0.95 0.23 0.37
Proposed Conditions
- _
-
?
E-type* 12.0 I !7.0029 l 2.17 0.20 ? 0.92
? 0.17 1 0.99 ? 0.165
J * At the Site outfall.
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the dredged and straightened, G-type
reach, than for proposed E-type channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by
bank erosion, channel incision, low width-depth ratios, and bank-height ratios greater than 5;
degradation has resulted from a combination of water surface slopes that have been steepened,
channel straightening, dredging, and trampling by livestock. Stream power and shear stress
values for the proposed channels should be lower than for existing channels to effectively
transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting, resulting in stable channel
t characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are slightly higher than for the
proposed channels; however, the valley and water surface slopes are slightly higher for the
` reference reach resulting in higher stream power and shear stress values. The reference reach
is characterized by fully forested riparian fringes and is therefore able to resist stream power
Detailed Restoration Plan page 12
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

and shear stress of these magnitudes. However, the proposed channels will be devoid of deep
rooted vegetation; therefore, proposed targets for stream power and shear stress values should
be slightly less than predicted for the reference reach.
3.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual,
the presence of three clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology) are required for a wetland jurisdictional determination.
Hydric soil limits were mapped in the field during January 2006. Based on field surveys and
groundwater models discussed below, jurisdictional wetlands do not currently occur within the
Site with the exception of an approximately 0.5 acre area located near the Site outfall (Figure
10, Appendix A). Areas within the Site which may have historically contained jurisdictional
wetlands have been significantly disturbed by compaction due to livestock grazing; relocation,
dredging, straightening, and rerouting of on-Site streams; ditching of fields; and removal of
vegetation and are currently effectively drained below jurisdictional wetland hydrology
thresholds.
Historically, on-Site wetlands may have supported communities similar to a Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp and a Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) communities typically occur on
alluvial floodplains of small blackwater streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally
flooded. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are typically located on poorly drained interstream
flats not associated with a stream. Despite the landscape position difference between the
riverine and nonriverine areas of the Site, vegetative communities are similar and historically
may have been dominated by species contained within the reference forest located upstream of
the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A) such as sweetgum, cherrybark oak, tulip poplar, ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and American holly within an understory
of sweetbay, fetterbush, highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and giant cane. On-Site
impacts may have reduced hydrologic functions, biogeochemical functions, and plant and
animal habitat interactions of these communities.
3.7.1 Groundwater Modeling
Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize water table elevations under historic
(reference), existing, and post-restoration conditions. Specifically, the study compared the
output of two models (the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD) to estimate the lateral effect
of agricultural drainage ditches and downcutting stream channels within the Site on the depth to
the groundwater table.
3.7.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions
Boussinesq Equation
The Boussinesq Equation represents a two-dimensional general flow equation for unconfined
aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the decline in elevation of the
water table near a pumping well as time progresses. The equation is based primarily on

Detailed Restoration Plan page 13
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site . I
hydraulic conductivity, drainable porosity, and the saturated thickness of the aquifer. One form
of the equation is as follows:
X = (K ho t/f)'''/ F(D,H)
where K = hydraulic conductivity (in/hr); ho = depth to aquiclude (in); t = duration (hours); f =
drainable porosity (dimensionless ratio); F(D,H) = profiles (graphs) relating ditch depth, water
table depth, and depth to the aquiclude(ho); and X = wetland impact distance (in).
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was originally developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and
r water table control systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD predicts
water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two drains of equal elevation.
The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table depth, surface runoff,
subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long periods referenced to
measured climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range of
soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs, 1982), Ohio
(Skaggs et al. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et al. 1985; Fouss et al. 1987), Florida (Rogers 1985),
Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et al. 1987) indicate that the model
can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates. DRAINMOD has also
been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et al. (1993). Methods for evaluating water
balance equations and equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs (1980).
DRAINMOD was modified for application in wetland studies by adding a counter that
accumulates the number of events wherein the water table rises above a specified depth and
remains above that threshold depth for a given duration during the growing season. Important
inputs into the DRAINMOD model include rainfall data, soil and surface storage parameters,
evapotranspiration rates, ditch depth and spacing, and hydraulic conductivity values.
al 3.7.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications
Boussinesq Equation
In this study, the Boussinesq Equation was applied to agricultural field ditches and entrenched
. stream channels to predict where the linear distance of a drawdown in the groundwater exceeds
1 foot for 5 percent of the growing season. This percentage was selected based upon reference
wetland groundwater modeling described below and guidance from the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for the
wetland impact distance with data for the following variables 1) equivalent hydraulic
conductivity, 2) drainable porosity, 3) an estimated depth to the impermeable layer or aquiclude,
4) the time duration of the drawdown, 5) target water table depth (1 foot below the soil surface),
and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) values were estimated using published conductivity data in the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Skaggs et al. 2002) and the Onslow County soil survey (USDA
1992). The soil layer depths were obtained from descriptions in the Onslow County soil survey
and were verified in the field. Drainable porosity was determined using published data (Skaggs
et al. 1986) and records maintained by the USDA-NRCS National STATSGO database (Map
Detailed Restoration Plan page 14
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Unit User File [MUUF] computer program). The depth to aquiclude was obtained from
published values for both the Rains and Muckalee series (Skaggs et al. 1986).
The time variable, t, is based on 5 percent of the Onslow County growing season or 11 days.
For the purpose of this study, the growing season is defined as the period between April 8 and
November 5 (USDA 1992). Values for the function F(D,H), defined as a function of ditch depth,
water table depth, and depth to the aquiclude, were taken from plotted numerical solutions to
the Boussinesq Equation (Figure 2j, Skaggs 1976), where D = d/h0 and H = h/h0. The variable
d is defined as the ditch elevation above the aquiclude. The variable h0 is the distance from the
surface to the aquiclude. The variable h is equal to the height after drawdown for the water
above the aquiclude at distance X from the ditch. For the purposes of this analysis, h was
defined as the distance between the aquiclude and a point 1 foot below the surface. Minimum
ditch depths were determined during cross-sectional analysis of agricultural field ditches.
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was used to model the zone of wetland loss resulting from the addition of the
agricultural field ditches and channel incision. This zone was estimated by determining the
threshold drain spacing of parallel ditches that would result in the area adjacent to the ditches
meeting the wetland hydrology criterion in just over one-half of the years simulated. Ditches
spaced any closer than this threshold distance would result in the entire area between the
ditches experiencing a loss of wetland hydrology. If ditches were spaced further apart than the
threshold distance, there would be a strip between the ditches which would still meet wetland
hydrology criteria. One-half of this threshold spacing provides an estimate of the drainage effect
on each side of a single agricultural field ditch. This application of the model recognizes that the
water table midway between two ditches spaced at the threshold spacing will be lower (i.e., the
soil at that point will be drier) than would be the case at the same distance from a single ditch
(i.e., at a distance of one-half the threshold spacing from a single ditch). This results in a
conservative estimate of drainage impacts for a single ditch to the adjacent groundwater table.
A second ditch parallel to the first ditch at the threshold distance would cut off seepage from the
zone beyond the threshold distance and permit greater groundwater table drawdown at the
midpoint than would occur if this second ditch were not present. Therefore, the width of the strip
of land that would experience hydrologic conversion from wetland to upland hydraulic conditions
would be less than a distance equal to one-half the threshold spacings.
Wetland hydrology is defined for DRAINMOD as groundwater within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 11 consecutive days during the growing season in Onslow County (USDA 1992).
Wetland hydrology is achieved in the model if target hydroperiods are met for one-half of the
years modeled (i.e. 21 out of 42 years).
Additional inputs for soil parameters and relationships derived from soil water characteristic data
such as the groundwater table depth/volume drained/upflux relationship, Green-ampt
parameters, and the water content/matric suction relationship were obtained from published
values (Skaggs et al. 1986). Hydraulic conductivities and ditch depths were calculated as
described above. Surface depressional storage was estimated from published ranges (Skaggs
et al. 1994 and Skaggs 1980) after visiting the Site. Drainage coefficients for the ditches were
calculated based on formulas provided with DRAINMOD.
t
Detailed Restoration Plan page 15
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site I

Weather data for a 42-year period was obtained for North Wilmington, North Carolina in New
Hanover County. Potential evapotranspiration rates were calculated based on Thornthwaite's
method and adjusted using monthly factors derived from more reliable average values for crop
evapotranspiration for the Coastal Plain known from New Hanover County. The DRAINMOD
simulation was conducted for the time period from 1949 through 1991.
3.7.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results
Reference Wetland Model
For development of reference wetland standards, modeling was performed to predict historic
wetland hydroperiods (as a percentage of the growing season) in various undrained conditions.
The reference model was developed by effectively eliminating the influence of ditching and
forecasting the average hydroperiod over the number of years modeled. Two iterations were
4 performed to evaluate changes in wetland hydroperiod between 1) old field (post-farmland)
stages of wetland development and 2) forested stages of wetland development.
Old field stages of wetland development were simulated by modifying soil drainage
characteristics such as rooting functions in proximity to the B (clay) horizon, A horizon (plow
layer) hydraulic conductivity, and water storage capacity within the plow layer. The old field
model provides a hypothetical approximation of the potential hydroperiod exhibited immediately
after channel restoration is conducted and drainage networks are removed.
Forested stages were modeled to predict wetland hydroperiods that may occur within reference
(relatively undisturbed) wetlands in the region. The reference forest model is expected to
provide a projection of wetland hydroperiods and associated functions that may be achieved
over the long term (10 or more years) as a result of wetland restoration activities and steady
state forest conditions. The steady state model application assumes increases in rooting
functions, organic matter content, and water storage capacity relative to post-farmland periods.
The reference model predicts that, in Rains and Muckalee soils, old field stages of wetland
development exhibit an average wetland hydroperiod encompassing 10 and 8 percent of the
growing season, respectively, over the years modeled (Table 4). This average hydroperiod
translates to free water within 1 foot of the soil surface for an 11 day period. During the 42-year
modeling period, reference wetland hydroperiods exhibited a range extending from less than 2
percent (38 out of 42 years) to more than 20 percent (2 out of 42 years) of the growing season,
dependent upon rainfall patterns (Table 4).

}

Detailed Restoration Plan page 16
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1
1
Table 4 DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod
Number of Years Wetland H dro lo Achieved (42-year period)
Duration of the Growing'Season Rai ns Muckalee
Wetland Hydrology Achieved Old Field
Stage* Forested
Sta e" Old Field
Sta e* Forested
Stage"
2% 4 days 38 41 34 37
4% 8 days 35 36 30 34
6% 12 days 32 36 28 33
8% 16 days 27 36 19 31
10% 22 days 19 31 8 25
12% 26 days 13 28 3 21
14% 30 days 7 26 2 19
16% 34 days 7 24 1 16
18% 38days 3 21 0 14
20% 42 days 2 16 0 11
22% 46 days 0 16 0 9
24% 50 days 0 10 0 5
26% 54 days 0 7 0 5
28% 60 days 0 3 0 2
30% 64 days 0 3 0 2
" Old Field Stage - immediately after backfilling and plugging ditches; relatively low surface water storage
"• Forested Stage -10 or more years after restoration; relatively high surface water storage
As surface topography, rooting, roughness, and storage variables increase during successional
phases, the model predicts that hydroperiods will increase to steady state forest conditions with
an average wetland hydroperiod of 18 percent in Rains soils and 12 percent in Muckalee soils
over the 42 years modeled (Table 4). The average hydroperiod translates to free water within 1
foot of the soil surface for a 38-day period in Rains soils and a 26-day period in Muckalee soils.
Again, the hydroperiod ranges from less than 12 percent (1 year) to more than 30 percent (3
years) during the 42 year period dependent upon rainfall patterns. Therefore, the reference
model suggests that groundwater fluctuations must be tracked within a reference wetland site to
accurately assess a target hydroperiod for any given year.
As described above, the average wetland hydroperiod in Rains and Muckalee soils is forecast to
exhibit a gradual increase from less than 10 percent of the growing season immediately after
Site implementation to as much as 18 percent in Rains and 12 percent in Muckalee under
steady state forest conditions. A gradual increase in hydroperiods may suggest that water
storage capacity (rooting functions, organic materials/debris accumulation, microtopography,
etc.) exhibits a significant effect on maintenance of wetland hydrology in on-Site wetlands. In
old field stages of succession, accelerated runoff may occur within the compacted soil surfaces.
For purposes of this preliminary model, runoff is assumed to occur at accelerated rates which
reduce the influence of evapotranspiration on wetland hydrodynamics. This accelerated
drainage would be expected to decrease as successional vegetation colonizes the Site.

Detailed Restoration Plan page 17
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site I
t

Because wetland hydroperiods during old field stages of wetland development are projected to
extend for less than 12.5 percent of the growing season, wetland monitoring plans that extend
for a five-year period after restoration should utilize a minimum 5 percent wetland hydrology
criteria to substantiate restoration success. Alternatively, hydroperiods within the restored
wetland area may be compared to the reference wetland, with success criteria stipulating that
restored wetland hydroperiods must exceed 75 percent of the wetland hydroperiod exhibited by
reference.
Methods may be employed to increase complexity in the soil surface (A-horizon plow layer)
during restoration activities. These modifications, including woody debris deposition and soil
scarification, may increase water storage capacity across the surface of relatively impermeable
layers (B-horizon surface). If water storage is not adequately established during early stages of
wetland development, marginal or non-wetland conditions may occur in elevated areas of the
Site. Invariably, rooting influences on water storage capacity will require an extended period of
forest development to establish (assumed at greater than 10 years).
Existing Site Conditions
Groundwater models were utilized to forecast the maximum zone of ditch and incised stream
influence on jurisdictional wetland hydroperiods. The maximum zone of influence may be used
to predict the area of wetland hydrological restoration that may result due to Site
implementation. In addition, the model provides an estimate of the area that may continue to be
degraded in perpetuity by remaining ditches used to drain adjacent pastureland. Ditch depths
and spacing were varied in the model until wetland hydroperiods were reduced relative to the
reference groundwater model predictions.
Both the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD have an ability to support different ditch
morphology and features, suggesting that use of these methods in evaluation of drainage
impacts from agricultural field ditches and stream channel incision is applicable with proper data
inputs. Performing a comparison of output from both models is recommended due to output
predictions typically within the lower limits (Boussinesq Equation) and upper limits (DRAINMOD)
of the range of drainage influence likely to occur in real world conditions. Groundwater model
results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
f Zone of Influence feet
Ditch Depth
Boussinesq Equation DRAINMOD Model" Drainage Impact Used for
(feet) this Stud
Rains Muckalee Rains Muckalee Rains Muckalee
)
1 10 9 82 55 46 32
3 106 86 222 138 164 112
5 132 104 275 188 204 146
"Zone of influence equal to half of the modeled ditch spacing.
The Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD model predict a range of influence on the
jurisdictional wetland hydroperiod (5 percent of growing season) of 86 to 222 feet of lateral zone
of influence for a 3-foot ditch, dependent upon soil type (Table 5). The Boussinesq Equation
Detailed Restoration Plan page 18
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
value is expected to be at the low end of the drainage impact and the DRAINMOD model value
is expected to be at the high end of the drainage impact. Therefore, an average value for
drainage impact was calculated from the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD results. Figure
10 (Appendix A) provides a depiction of modeled wetland hydroperiods based on ditch depths
and spacing under existing conditions. As the Site succeeds towards steady state forest
conditions, the zone of potential wetland loss is expected to be reduced due to projected, lower
infiltration and runoff rates.
Groundwater model simulations for existing conditions indicate that all hydric Rains soils (3.29
acres) and approximately 18.66 acres of hydric Muckalee soils within the Site are below
jurisdictional wetland hydrology criteria and are considered effectively drained due to the
groundwater drawdown from relocation, dredging, straightening, and rerouting of on-Site
streams; ditching of fields; livestock grazing; and removal of vegetation (Table 5 and Figure 10,
Appendix A). Of these effectively drained areas, groundwater model simulations indicate that
jurisidictional wetland hydrology will be restored as the result of Site restoration activities within
approximately 6.98 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and approximately 3.29 acres of
jurisdictional nonriverine wetland (Figure 11, Appendix A). However, a portion of the area
restored according to the groundwater model simulations is located within the restored stream
channel's 50 foot riparian buffer and therefore, will not count toward the Site wetland restoration
acreages; Site construction activities will result in a minimum of 3.3 acres of riverine wetland
restoration and a minimum of 3.1 acres of nonriverine wetland restoration.
4.0 CONSTRAINT EVALUATION
4.1 Surface Water Analysis and Hydrologic Trespass
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to
predict the feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects
to the Site or adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses along with provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and
wetland restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year
storms under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities
have been implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak
flood flows for Site features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International)
program and regional regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry
and cross-sections are digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are
adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once corrections to the geometry are
performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along Site features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-Site cross-
sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 19
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the
computed water surface elevations will be calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for Site
restoration activities. A primary objective of the stream and wetland restoration design is
maintenance of a no-rise in the 100-year floodplain. Although the Site is located within a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway, no FEMA cross-sections or
detailed mapping occurs within the Site; therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are not expected to be necessary at this time.
However, coordination with FEMA will be conducted, if necessary, prior to initiating Site
construction activities.
4.2 Protected Species
• Federal Species
Species with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, 13 federally
protected species are listed for Onslow County. Table 6 lists the federally protected species for
Onslow County and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each.
4 Potential habitat may occur within the Site for American alligator; however, this species is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with another rare species, which does not occur in
North Carolina, and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. In addition, potential habitat may
occur within the Site for Cooley's meadowrue, golden sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife in the
form of wet, maintained ditches. Plant-by-plant surveys within suitable habitat were completed
during the optimal survey window for golden sedge and rough-leaved loosestrife on May 31,
2006 and for Cooley's meadowrue on June 19, 2006. Prior to conducting plant surveys existing
populations of each species were visited. Surveys within the Site resulted in no findings of
golden sedge, rough-leaved loosestrife, or Cooley's meadowrue; therefore, this project will have
no effect on these plant species.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on June 16, 2005
and one known NCNHP element is documented within 2 miles of the Site. The element is a
Natural Bridge (Significant Natural Heritage Area) located approximately 1 mile southeast of the
Site adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the New River.
It
One designated unit of Critical Habitat for piping plover is located in Onslow County on the
Bogue Inlet, which is greater than 20 miles southeast/seaward of the Site (USFWS 2001).
Detailed Restoration Plan page 20
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table 6. Federally Protected Species for Onslow Cou
Habitat Present Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Within Site Conclusion
• American alligator Alligator mississiiensis Threatened S/A Yes Not Applicable

Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
No
No Effect
Eastern cougar Puma concolor cou uar Endangered No No Effect
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das Threatened No No Effect
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coriacea Endangered No No Effect
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta careta Threatened No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered No No Effect
Piping lover Charadrius melodus Threatened No No Effect
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
oi_ ...
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum cools i Endangered Yes No Effect
Golden sedge Carex lutea Endangered Yes No Effect
Rough-leaved
loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered Yes No Effect
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus Threatened No No Effect
*Endangered= a taxon "in danger or extinction mrougnout an ui a siynmctaa Nun'uu vi 1. iaiiyc , - ^?•• •• ?•? •?
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A) = a species
that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina State list as Endangered,
Threatened, Special Concern, Candidate, Significantly Rare, or Proposed (Amoroso 2002,
LeGrand and Hall 2001) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.
106-202 et seq.). Based on NCNHP records, no state listed species are documented within 2.0
miles of the Site.
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
A fundamental concept of stream classification entails the development and application of
regional reference curves to stream reconstruction and enhancement. Regional reference
curves can be utilized to predict bankfull stream geometry, discharge, and other parameters in
altered systems. Development of regional reference curves for North Carolina was initiated in
1995. The curves characterize a broad range of streams within the Piedmont physiographic
province. Small watersheds or deviations in valley slope, land use, or geologic substrates may
not be accurately described by the curves; therefore, verification of individual watersheds may
be necessary. Reference reaches have been utilized in conjunction with regional curves for
detailed planning and characterization of this restoration project.
A relatively undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch approximately 25 miles northwest of the Site in
Duplin County was utilized as the reference reach. This reference reach is characterized by an
Detailed Restoration Plan page 21
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
11
E-type channel. Distinct bankfull variables were identifiable in the reach and pattern/profile
characteristics appear to have not been degraded, allowing for assistance with channel design.
The Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics and Figure 12 in Appendix A include a
summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for the reference reach used to establish
reconstruction parameters. Channel cross-sections were measured at systematic locations and
r stream profiles were developed via total station.
5.1 Reference Channel
The approximately 230-linear foot reference reach was visited and classified by stream type
f (Rosgen 1996). The reference reach is characterized as an E-type, sinuous (1.37) channel with
a silt dominated substrate. E-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool
channels exhibiting high sinuosity (1.3 to greater than 1.5). E-type streams typically exhibit a
sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow pattern. In North Carolina, E-type
streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains (Valley
Type Vlll). E-type channels are typically considered stable; however, these streams are
sensitive to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel disturbance, and may rapidly
convert to other stream types.
Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicates a bankfull cross-sectional
area of 11.6 square feet, a bankfull width of 9.3 feet, a bankfull depth of 1.2 feet, and a width-to-
depth ratio of 7.4 (Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics, Appendix A). Regional
curves predict that the stream should exhibit a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately
11.3 square feet for the approximate 1.27-square mile watershed (Geratz et al. 2003), slightly
below the 11.6-square feet displayed by channel bankfull indicators identified in the field.
However, the 11.6-square feet cross-sectional area is within the range of statistical error for
present Coastal Plain regional curves. For a more detailed discussion on bankfull discharge
see Section 3.4.2 (Discharge).
Figure 12 (Appendix A) provides a plan view and cross-sectional data for the reference reach
and depicts the bankfull channel and floodprone area. The reference reach exhibits a bank-
height ratio of 1.0, which is representative of a stable E-type channel. In addition, the width of
the floodprone area ranges from 150 to 250 feet giving the channel an entrenchment ratio of
16.1 to 26.9, typical of a stable E-type channel.
19 Pattern: In-field measurements of the reference reach have yielded an average sinuosity
of 1.37 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The valley slope of the reference channel
(0.0055) is slightly steeper than, but similar to that of the Site. Accompanying this sinuosity are
several channel attributes which are slightly lower than typical for E-type streams in the region.
These include an average pool-to-pool spacing ratio (L?p/VVbkf) of 4.6, a meander wavelength
ratio (LM/Wbkf) of 3.7, and a radius of curvature ratio (RcNVbkf) of 1.7. Meander geometry values
for this reference reach are slightly low for E-type channels within this region; however, the
values are acceptable. These variables were measured within a stable reach which did not
exhibit any indications of pattern instability such as shoot cutoffs, abandoned channels, or
oxbows.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 22
t
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Profile: Based on elevational profile surveys, the reference reach is characterized by a
valley slope of 0.0055 (rise/run). Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide slopes
to average water surface slope are 3.2, 0.2, 0.7, and 0.6, respectively. Riffle slopes are steeper
than typical for this valley type, and run slopes are flatter than typical for this valley type.
Steeper riffle slopes in conjunction with shorter riffle lengths account for the moderate valley
slope and allow for more moderate run slopes resulting in a channel which is neither aggrading
nor degrading.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by silt-sized
particles.
5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which
to model restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs
should be ecologically stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (pre-
disturbance) conditions of the restoration site. Quantitative data describing plant community
composition and structure are collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference
data for design of the restoration Site planting scheme.
The RFE for this project is located immediately upstream of the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts will
attempt to emulate. Four circular, 0.1-acre plots were randomly established within the reference
area. Data collected within each plot include 1) tree species composition; 2) number of stems
for each tree species; 3) diameter at breast height (DBH) for each tree species; and 4) a list of
understory species. Field data (Table 7) indicates importance values of dominant tree species
calculated based on relative density, dominance, and frequency of tree species composition
(Smith 1980). Hydrology, surface topography, and habitat features were also evaluated.
Four 0.1-acre plots were established which best characterize expected steady-state forest
composition. Forest vegetation was dominated by ironwood, sweetgum, and cherrybark oak.
Understory species within the RFE include canopy species as well as fetterbush, sweetbay,
giant cane, Chinese privet, highbush blueberry, and Japanese honeysuckle.
1
1
1
?I

Detailed Restoration Plan page 23
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Relative l Relative l Relative
Number of Frequency Basal Area Importance
Tree Species Individuals' Density (%) Frequency (fts /acre) Basal Area Value

(%) (°
)
/° (%)
Red maple
1 1.6 25 3.7 2.0 2.0 0.02
(Acer rubrum)
Ironwood
12 19.0 100 14.8 3.8 3.7 0.13
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Pignut hickory
4 6.3 50 7.4 8.1 7.9 0.07
glabra)
(Carya
Dogwood
2 3.2 25 3.7 0.8 0.8 0.03
(ComUS sp.)
Ash
2 3.2 25 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.03
(Fraxinus sp.)
American holly
4 6.3 50 7.4 2.2 2.1 0.05
(Ilex opaca)
Sweetgum
15 23.8 100 14.8 16.1 15.7 0.18
(Liquidambar styraciflua)
Yellow poplar
5 7.9 75 11.1 17.0 16.6 0.12
(Liriodendron tulipifera)
... .........
White oak
3 4.8 50 7.4 9.6 9.4 0.07
(Quercus alba)
........
Water oak
2 3.2 25 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.03
(Quercus nigra)
Laurel oak
2 3.2 50 7.4 15.1 14.7 0.08
(Quercus laurifolia)
Swamp chestnut oak
1 1.6 25 3.7 3.5 3.4 0.03
)
(Quercus michauxii
........ .....
Cherrybark oak
10 15.9 75 11.1 22.2 21.7 0.16
(Quercus pagoda)
TOTALS 63 100 675 100 102.4 100 1.00
' Sum of four 0.1-acre plots
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions in the on-Site, upstream, and downstream
segments of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream
channels; 4) reestablishment of historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream.
The complete restoration plan is depicted in Figures PL 1 through PL 4 (Appendix A). The
proposed restoration plan is expected to restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site
Detailed Restoration Plan
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 24
tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland, and restore a
minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine wetland within the Site boundaries.
Components of this plan may be modified based on construction or access constraints.
Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1) stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration, 3)
soil scarification, and 4) plant community restoration. A monitoring plan and contingency plan
are outlined in Section 7 of this document.
6.1 Stream Restoration
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new
location that approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative
to reference conditions. Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded channel and the
proposed, stable channel are listed in Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics and are
depicted in Figures 9, 12, and 14 in Appendix A.
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan are expected to be developed
during the next phase of this project. Erosion control will be performed locally throughout the
Site and will be incorporated into construction sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Site
are unconsolidated, alluvial sediments, which do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance;
therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses and immediate planting with disturbance-adapted
shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving process. In addition, on-Site root mats
(seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed after disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed
to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent feasible. The number of
transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long
distances through the Site's interior.
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
The entire Site is located within a floodplain suitable for design channel excavation on new
location. The stream will be constructed on new location and the old, dredged and straightened
channel will be abandoned and backfilled. Primary activities designed to restore the channel on
new location include 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3)
channel excavation, 4) installation of channel plugs, 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel, 6)
ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in-stream structures and a Terracell drop structure at the Site
outfall, and 8) construction of a piped channel crossing.
Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-
width corridor which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading
will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled.
These segments will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction
of the underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon
completion of construction activities.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 25
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be
' developed and the location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile.
Pool locations and relative frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local
variations in the floodplain profile.
Floodplain Bench Excavation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove the eroding material and
' collapsing banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the
erosive potential of flood waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull
benches may be created by excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling
t eroded/abandoned channel areas with suitable material. After excavation, or filling of the
bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is expected to be stabilized with suitable erosion
control measures. Planting of the bench with native floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce
' erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood waters, filter pollutants, and provide
wildlife habitat.
' Channel Excavation
The channel will be constructed within the range of values depicted in Table of Morphological
Stream Characteristics in Appendix A. Figure 14 (Appendix A) provides proposed cross-
sections, plan views, and profiles for the constructed channel.
The stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted
' with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or
overhanging the constructed channel is encouraged.
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the
outer bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments, available root mats, and/or
' biodegradable, erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote
more rapid development of an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or
collected on-Site and inserted through the root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.
' Certain low slope portions of the design channel may be expected to form braided, multistem
channel characteristics similar to undisturbed, Muckalee stream complexes in the vicinity of the
' Site. These stream reaches are expected to reduce the total design channel length due to a
reduction in channel sinuosity from 1.3 to 1.0. The minimum stream restoration length of 4750
linear feet has accounted for the reduced sinuosity in these low slope portions of the Site.
' Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs will consist
' of low-permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to
withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events across the Site. Dense clays may be
imported from off-site or existing material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for
' plug construction. The plug will be of sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in
the existing banks and channel bed.
I
' Detailed Restoration Plan page 26
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will
be performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will be
filled to the extent that on-Site material is available and compacted to maximize
microtopographic variability, including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of
the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear
depressions may be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical
areas may be obtained by excavating shallow depressions along the banks of these planned,
open-channel segments. These excavated areas will represent closed linear, elliptical, or oval
depressions. In essence, the channel may be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral
pools adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled channel sections. These pools are
expected to stabilize and fill with organic material over time. Vegetation debris (root mats, top
soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the backfill area upon completion.
Ditch Rerouting
The eastern tributary is currently routed around Site pastures to the roadside drainage network.
Restoration activities revolve around diverting this stream flow through its historic floodplain.
However, the roadside drainage network must remain in place upon completion of restoration
activities, and must function to drain the existing hydrologic design of the roadway. Therefore,
rerouting the ditch around the Site and tying the ditch network back into Site drainage features
near the Site outfall has been proposed. The rerouted ditch will be excavated adequately to
drain the roadway; the location of the rerouted ditch is depicted in Figure PL 1 (Appendix A).
6.1.2 In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-
stream structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary
activities designed to achieve these objectives may include the installation of log vanes and a
TerraCell drop structure.
Log Vanes
The primary purpose of the log vanes is to direct high velocity flows during bankfull events
towards the center of the channel (Figure 15, Appendix A). Log vanes will be constructed
utilizing large tree trunks harvested from the Site or imported from off-site. The tree stem
harvested for a log cross-vane arm must be long enough to be imbedded into the stream
channel and extend several feet into the floodplain. Logs will create an arm that slopes from the
center of the channel upward at approximately 5 to 7 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain
elevation. Logs will extend from each stream bank at an angle of 20 to 30 degrees. A trench
will be dug into the stream channel that is deep enough for the head of the log to be at or below
the channel invert. The trench is then extended into the floodplain and the log is set into the
trench such that the log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size
to completely block stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed) then a footer log
will be installed beneath the header log. Support pilings will then be situated at the base of the
log and at the head of the log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in place, filter
fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream side of the vane and draped over the structure to
Detailed Restoration Plan page 27
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
I

I
I
I
force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure is then backfilled with suitable
material.
TerraCell Outfall Structure
A TerraCell drop structure is proposed at the Site outfall to lower Site hydrology to its
preconstruction elevation. To avoid hydrologic trespass, the drop structure may be installed
approximately 200 feet from the downstream Site outfall. The structure should be constructed
to resist erosive forces associated with hydraulic drops proposed at the Site. TerraCell is a light
weight, flexible mat made of high density polyethylene strips. The strips are bonded together to
form a honeycomb configuration. The honeycomb mat is fixed in place and filled with gravel or
sand. Material in the TerraCell structure may be planted with grasses and shrubs for additional
erosion protection. The TerraCell structure will form a nickpoint that approximates geologic
controls in stream beds.
6.1.3 Piped Channel Crossing
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of one piped channel crossing to allow
access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities (Figure 15, Appendix
A). The crossing is located on the section of stream which bisects the conservation easement;
the location of the proposed channel crossing is depicted on Figure PL 2 (Appendix A). The
crossing may be constructed of two pipes a minimum of 1.5 feet in diameter and hydraulically
stable rip-rap or suitable rock and will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated
vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the crossing will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable material, which is free of
fines.
6.2 Wetland Restoration
Alternatives for wetland restoration are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system
which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Restoration activities
are expected to restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and a minimum
of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine wetland (Figure 11, Appendix A).
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soil have been impacted by channel incision; vegetative
clearing; earth movement associated with the dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site
tributaries; ditching of agricultural fields; and compaction by livestock grazing. Wetland
restoration options should focus on 1) the reestablishment of historic water table elevations, 2)
excavation and grading of elevated spoil and sediment embankments, 3) reestablishment of
hydrophytic vegetation, and 4) reconstruction of stream corridors.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
The existing channel depths average 5 feet, while the depth for the proposed channel averages
approximately 1 foot. Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have been drained
due to lowering of the groundwater tables and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream
reaches. Reestablishment of channel inverts at 0.8 to 1.2 feet in depth is expected to rehydrate
hydric Muckalee soils adjacent to Site streams, resulting in the restoration of jurisdictional
hydrology to riverine wetlands.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 28
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
In addition, drainage ditches are effectively removing wetland hydrology within the interstream
flat. Filling of these ditches is expected to rehydrate hydric Rains soils within the Site, resulting
in the restoration of jurisdictional hydrology to nonriverine wetlands.
Excavation and Grading of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to the existing channel and area ditches have experienced both natural
and unnatural sediment deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during
dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain.
Major flood events may have also deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from
on-Site eroding banks and upstream agricultural fields. The removal of these spoil materials
and/or filling of on-Site ditches with spoil material represents a critical element of on-Site
wetland restoration.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
On-Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as
land clearing, livestock grazing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will be
revegetated with native vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis will
focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage. Sections 6.4 (Plant Community Restoration)
and 6.5 (Planting Plan) provide detailed information concerning community species
associations.
Reconstructing Stream Corridors
The stream restoration plan involves the reconstruction of the entire on-Site length of the two
UTs to the New River. The existing eastern tributary has been routed around the Site pasture
into the roadside drainage network. Restoration activities revolve around diverting this stream
flow through its historic floodplain. Existing channels will be backfilled so that the water table
may be restored to historic conditions. However, some portions of the existing channels may
remain open for the creation of wetland "oxbow lake-like" features. These features will be
plugged on each side of the open channel and will function as open water systems. They are
expected to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife as well as create open water/freshwater
marsh within the Site.
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent
important components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex
surface microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools,
oxbows, and hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are
scattered throughout these systems. As discussed in the stream reconstruction section, efforts
to advance the development of characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed.
After construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1
foot in vertical asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Subsequently, community
restoration will be initiated on complex floodplain surfaces.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 29
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
11

Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, on-Site observations, and community descriptions
from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
1 were used to develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during
community restoration activities. Based on Schafale and Weakley (1990) community
descriptions, the RFE most closely resembles a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype) community, which occurs on alluvial floodplains of small blackwater
streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamps are typically underlain with soils of the Muckalee series such as those present within
riverine areas of the Site and the RFE.
k Vegetative species present within the RFE also correspond with species of a Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), which most closely
resembles nonriverine areas of the Site underlain by soils of the Rains series. Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests are typically located on poorly drained interstream flats not associated with a
stream that are seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables, poor drainage, or sheet
of flow from adjacent areas. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests may grade to Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamps at the head of drainages. Despite the landscape position difference between
riverine and nonriverine areas of the Site, vegetative communities are similar and will be
combined when developing the primary plant community associations.
a
Community associations that will be utilized to develop primary plant community associations
include 1) Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest and 2)
stream-side assemblage (Figure 16, Appendix A). Planting elements are listed below.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp/Nonriver! ne Wet Hardwood Forest
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
3. Cherrybark oak (Quercus falcate var. pagodaefolia)
i 4. American elm (Ulmus americana)
5. Green ash (Fraxinus americana)
6. Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
7. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
4. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and
overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the
+ channel throughout the meander belt-width. Shrub elements will be planted along the
reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends. Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest is targeted for the majority of the Site including the
?i
Detailed Restoration Plan page 30
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
i
floodplain and the interstream flat. The following planting plan is the blueprint for community
restoration.
6.5 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish vegetative community patterns across the
landscape. The plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of
proposed Site preparation, and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advance notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various noncommercial
elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side
assemblage will be planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 8
depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association.
Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. A total of 23,661 diagnostic tree and
shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
Tnhln R Plantinn Plan

Vegetation
Association Small Stream
Swamp/Nonriverine Wet
Hardwoods
Stream-side
Assemblage

TOTAL
Area acres 19.24 3.89 23.13

species Number
lanted"
% of total Number
lanted""
% of total
Number lanted
Swamp chestnut oak 2616 20 -- - 1962
Laurel oak 2616 20 -- -- 1962
Cherrybark oak 2616 20 - - 1962
American elm 2616 20 - 1962
Green ash 916 7 - 654
Sweetbay 916 7 - -- 654
Silky dogwood 785 6 3174 30 654
Black willow -- - 3174 30 1058
Buttonbush -- - 2116 20 794
Elderberry -- - 2116 20 794
TOTAL 13,081 100 10,580 100 23,661
" Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
"" Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, as well as wetland components of hydrology,
and vegetation. A general Site monitoring plan is depicted in Figure 17 (Appendix A).
Detailed Restoration Plan page 31
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
t

7.1 Stream Monitoring
The Site stream reach is proposed to be monitored for geometric activity. Annual fall monitoring
will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a
water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format.
Data to be presented will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4)
maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface
slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate composition. The stream will subsequently be
classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in
channel morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data in each successive
monitoring year. A photographic record that will include preconstruction and postconstruction
pictures has been initiated (Appendix B).
7.2 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream
system.
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in
channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in
restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the width-to-depth ratio should characterize an
E-type and/or a borderline E-type/C-type channel (s 18), bank-height ratios indicative of a stable
or moderately unstable channel, and minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width,
and/or bank erosion along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or
shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain at approximately 1.3 (thalweg
distance/straight-line distance). The field indicator of bankfull will be described in each
monitoring year and indicated on a representative channel cross-section figure. If the stream
channel is down-cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank
.. or slope stabilization methods will be employed.
Some areas within the design channel may be expected to form low-slope, braided,
stream/swamp complexes similar to Muckalee swamps in the area. These stream/swamp
complexes would not be considered unstable; however, footage of stream channel restoration in
these reaches will be recalculated from distance along the thalweg (1.3 sinuosity) to distance
along the valley (1.0 sinuosity).
Stream substrate is not expected to coarsen over time; therefore, pebble counts are not
proposed as part of the stream success criteria.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred.
Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure,
abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within the Site and on a reference site to
c* monitor groundwater hydrology. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing

Detailed Restoration Plan page 32
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
season at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit
(USEPA 1990).
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 10 percent within
Rains soils (nonriverine wetlands) and 8 percent within Muckalee soils (riverine wetlands) of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. This value is based on DRAINMOD
simulations for 42 years of rainfall data in an old field stage. These areas are expected to
support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation
and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in these areas.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including
construction of ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in
support of jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with USEPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990) and
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant growth should be
included in each annual monitoring report.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 30,
after each growing season, until the vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to five sample plots (10
meters by 10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site. Sample-plot distributions are
expected to resemble locations depicted in Figure 17 (Appendix A); however, best professional
judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of
construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include
species composition and species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and
herbaceous species will also be recorded.
7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon
the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are
dependent upon density and growth of "Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree
Detailed Restoration Plan page 33
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Species include planted species along with species identified through visual inventory of an
approved reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community used to orient the project design:
All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to define
"Characteristic Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in
the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must
be surviving in year 4 and 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5. Planted species
must represent a minimum of 30 percent of the required stems per acre total (96 stems/acre).
Each naturally recruited Characteristic Tree Species may represent up to 10 percent of the
r required stems per acre total. In essence, seven naturally recruited Characteristic Tree Species
k may represent a maximum of 70 percent of the required stems per acre total. Additional stems
of naturally recruited species above the 10 percent and 70 percent thresholds are discarded
from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30 percent is reserved for planted Characteristic
Tree Species (oaks, etc.) as a seed source for species maintenance during midsuccessional
phases of forest development.
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with
tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as
needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria.
7.7 Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair
and/or installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank
stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables
that are not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns, which. may jeopardize
stream success include 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3)
bank erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that on-Site structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired,
maintained, or replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize
adjacent stream banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which
remain intact, but exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer pilings will be
repaired by excavating a trench on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric
in front of the pilings. Structures which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse
of header/footer pilings, will be removed and replaced with a structure suitable for on-Site flows.
Headcut Migration Through the Site
h In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through on-Site
measurements [i.e. bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut
migration and repairing damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration
may be impeded through the installation of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or
log cross-vane weir) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is
Detailed Restoration Plan page 34
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include channel backfill with coarse
material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or
willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs at the Site resulting in elevated width-to-depth
ratios, contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be
implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may include the installation of cross-vane
weirs and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot
cutoffs or channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to
stable values.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 35
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

8.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Amoroso, J. L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for Zeigenfuss
soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Chang, Howard H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering,
37, 473-475.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
Dunne, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company. N.Y.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengston, and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating Subsurface Drainage in the
Lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30(6). (1979-
1688).
Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs, and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a Water Management Model for
a Louisiana Sugar Cane Field. Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists, 4:18-28.
Geratz, J.W., W.V. Sweet. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence
Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of American Water Resources
Association, 39:861-871.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 36
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
?1,

Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological
Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. USDA Forest Service.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.
LeGrand, H.E. and S. P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the
Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. White Oak River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. North Carolina Waterbody Reports
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.htmi [June 24, 2005]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water Management Model Evaluation for Shallow Sandy Soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28(3): 785-790.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Skaggs, R. W. 1976. Determination of the hydraulic conductivity-drainable porosity ratio from
water table measurements. Transactions of the ASAE 19(1): 73-80.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. Drainmod Reference Report. Methods for Design and Evaluation of
Drainage Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. South National Technical Center. Fort Worth,
Texas.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.

Detailed Restoration Plan page 37
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site I

Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions
of the ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.
Skaggs, R. W., and A. Tabrizi. 1986. Design Drainage Rates for Estimating Drain Spacings in
North Carolina. ASAE Paper Number: 84-2055.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Skaggs, R.W., D. Amatya, R.O Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1994. Characterizations and
evaluation of proposed hydrologic criteria for wetlands. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 49 (5): 501 - 510.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 2002. Methods to Determine Lateral Effects of a Drainage Ditch on
Wetland Hydrology. ASAE Annual International Meeting / CIGR XVth World Congress.
Paper Number: 020602
Smith, R. L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology, Third Edition. Harper and Row, New York. 835
PP.
Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx, and G. Wyseure. 1987. The Use of Simulation Models to
Evaluate the Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems. Proceedings of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University, pp. A67-A76.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
Carolina. United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type
Classification (MIST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and
Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Critical Habitat for Piping Plovers
(online). Available: http://www.tws.gov/plover/ [June 24, 2005]. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North
Carolina.

Detailed Restoration Plan page 38
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.
t
1
Detailed Restoration Plan page 39
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
r
Appendix A.
Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics
and Figures
IA
Morphological Stream Characteristics Table
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Exlsltin Channel
Variables Eastern Tributary Main Tributary REFERENCE PROPOSED
1,bave..11.ncei
G-type O-type
Stream Type G5/6 G516 E6 E5/6
Drainage Area ml') 0.55-0.57 0.63-0.69 1.27 0.55-1.4
Bankfull Discharge lots) 5.1-52 6.7-6.2 11.0 5.1-12.0
Dimension Variables
an u Cross-Sectional Area 6.1 -62 6.7-7.2 11.6 6.1-12.1
Existing Cross-Sectlonal Area ( ) 53.9-94.2 41.7-59,8 11.6 6.1 - 12.1
Mean: 6.5 Mean: 7.1 Mean: 9.3 Mean: 9.4
Bankfull Width (Wal)
Range: 4,6-7.2 Range: 6.3-8.4 Range: Ranga: 77- 11.0
Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (D.) Range: 0.8-1.3 Range: 0.8-1.1 Range: Range: 0.8-1.2
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 23 Mean: 1.6
Bankfull Maximum Depth (D,n„) Range: 1,2-1.7 Range: 0.9-1.3 Range: Range: 1,0-2.3
Mean: 7.1 Mean: 7.0 Mean: 8.9 Mean: 13,2
Pool Width (W" Range: 5.3.8.9 Range: Range: 8.7-9.0 Range: 7.7-15.4
Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3 Mean 3.1 Mean 2.5
Maximum Pool Depth (D" Range: 1.0 - 1.6 Range: Range: 2,2-4.0 Ranga: 1.8-3.3
Mean: 9.0 Mean: 9.3 Mean: 225 Mean: 225
Width of Floodprone Area (Wrp)
Ren e: 7.8-10.2 Range: 8.7-10.8 Ren e: 150-250 Range: 150-250
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 24.2 Mean: 24
Entrenchment Ratio (W,n/yyma) Range: 1.3-1.6 Range: 1.1 - 1.5 Range: 161-26.9 Range: 16 - 27
Mean: 6.5 Mean 7.0 Mae. 7.4 Mean: 10
Width I Depth Ratio (WbarDbed Range: 3.5-8.6 Range: 5.9 - 10.5 Range: Range: 7.12
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 19 Meam 1.6
Max. Dba/Dbu Ratio Range: 1.3 - 1.5 Range : 1.1 - 1.3 Range: Range: 1.3 - 1.9
Mean: 6.4 Mean: 5.1 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbu Ratio
Range: 4.5 - 9.0 Range: 4.9 - 5.2 Range: Range: 1.0-1.3
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 2'S Mean: 2.5
Mean Depth (D Dbu) Range: 1.0- 1.6 Range: 1.2-16 Ran e: 1.8-33 Range: 1.8. 3.3
Pool Width /Bankfull Mean 1.1 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4
Width (W bu) Range: 0.8-1.4 Range: O.B - 1.1 Range: 0.9-1.0 Range. 1.0-1 7
Pod Area /Bankfull Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 16
Cross Sectional Area Range. ----- Range: ------ Range. 1.0-1.7 Range: 1.1-2.1
Pattern Variables
Mean: 43 Mean: 47
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lpd Range: 32 - 55 Range: 31 - 77
Mean: 71 Mean: 75
Meander Length (L„) No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive pattern
d
l
d
t due to
f
iffl
d
l Range: 55-82 Range: 46-154
Bell Width (Wb„) poo
s
ue
o
rimes an
staighlening activities o
r
es an
poo
s
staighlening adivales Mean: 34 Mean: 31
Range: 21 - 36 Range: 15- 77
Mean: 16.1 Mean: 21
Radius of curvature (R.) Range: 11.7 - 18.6 Range: 15 - 44
Sinuosity (Stn) 1.02 1.02 17 1.3-1.4
Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean. 4.6 Mean: 5
Bankfull Width (Lp u,) Range: 3.4 - 5.8 Range: 4-7
_
Meander Length/ Mean: 7.6 Meam 8
Bankfull Width (L„ Wbu) No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive pattern
d Range: 5.9-8.8 Ranga: 6-14
Meander Width Ratio riffles and pools due to
stalghtening activities ue to
of dales and pools
staighlening activities
Mean: 3.7
Mean: 4
(Wbsn/Wbu) Range: 2.3.3.9 Range: 2-7
Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 1.7 Mean: 2.2
Bankfull Nidlh (Rc/WbM) Range: 1.6.2.0 Ran e: 2 - 4
Profile Variables
Mean: 0.0025
Average Water Surface Slope (5,,,) 0.0043 0.0032 0.0040
Range: 0.0017 - 0.0029
Mean: 0.0039
Valley Slope (S,,) 0.0044 0.0033 0.0055 Ren e: O.OOJJ -0.0044
Mean: 0.0129 Mean: 0.0033
Rime Slope (Sans)
Range: 0,0070 - 0.0180
Range: 0.0007 -0.0064
Mean: 0.0000 Mean: 0.0025
Run Slope (5,,,,,) No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive Pattern Range: 0 - 0.0023 Range: 0 - 0.0102
rimes end pools due to of riffles and pools due to
mew: 0
0028
Mean: 0
0015
Pool Slope (S
) alalgMening activities staighlening activities . .
'n Range: 0 •0.01198 - Range: 0 - 0,0087
Mean: 0.0023 Mean: 0.0013
Glide Slope (Ss,n,)
Range: 0.0021 - 0.0024
Ren a: 0.0.0055
Profile Ratios
Rime Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 3.2 Mean: 1.3
Slope (S„a,IS) Range: 1.7-4.0 Range. 0.4-2.2
Run Slope(Water Surface Mean: 02 Mean: 1.0
Slope (S„JS No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive pattern
d
f
iffl
l
d Range: 0.0.8 Range: 0 - 3.5

Pool Slope/Waler Surface riffles and pools due to
slaighlening activities es an
poo
o
r
s
ue to
staighlening acllv8ies
Mean: 03
Mean: 0.6
Slope (S 5) Range: 0 - 2.4 Range: 0 - 3.0
Glide SlopeANster Surface Mean: 0.6 Mean: 0.5
Slope (S S„.,) Range: 0.5 - 0.6 Range: 0. 1.9
1
i
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
i
1
t.
r?
' % ? .Ji• r ?.-'i « y? =rte'' ? (t ;9
f jV..
*.
7 T^P FOREST
?;•;
jl H 0_4 M'0 N N S -A
Ho'
44 Or,
_tt
,? ?Z?y.fATF. •italtESi •? ..c, -' '?/ `"` ~c' , \
w t _ - _ - „'4, ky-0w fir, (l - -__.. ????• ?.,
C a.ae . E nN) . '
r?
`
.. _` ? - • mot, ti \ a« r
y, KT E: P O R ti ti'f 'All
Rt#eronce H01 MANN S
'R:owt A'
/! `ate„v" ? ?• • ''!?• 9 ? . ? ,.?
/- M
Lloyd b.$,t•.. i s.
s
x: Site Location h; ' a
- - '? ?h 1?a g' r
", 14
'Ali I
1 ml. 0 1 ml. 4 mi. Ali,
'fi7r
1:130,000 rut, r ii '
Source: 2001 North CaroHna Atlas and Gazetteer, p.77. :

,a:,:,,,:, rr, ,.
•
SITE LOCATION Dwn by
CAF
FIGURE
,
o : sl - I '.,c „
LLOYD RESTORATION SITE Date.
May 2006

r...,.,.m,,.. Onslow County, North Carolina
Proles" 05-021
ri ton
rl ..C _ nn rly N11 l ill'. + e
,?N , ? ( Institute ? i w?
Elroy Best ?r r -,. 11 1 '-
nl ?? ?r?Iht;ers t? 11 `I( c
LaGrange x /f z u._ 1 t
ft Barnwell
I \ Kinstbll / r C
Falhr,g Creek r. ?? . ? `r ? _
SWOP Spr,ng5 r. ?.`.r Z. ??'11 Dover skin
y I L F N V R Wis,n For ks_`'?? Jasper
?-
Mocks ( -
Kill
`Tuscarora Beltalr
\ ' a
Outlaw ` Deep Run Hyn a oorlrow
Bridge ridge
tancus Albertson NeW
`• / Phillips ''.lames City Gr nt.
Jonestown -
a / Crossroads -R lot- Trent
r
Korneray' !-Trenton ? t Wouds
. -;Pink Hill
fhurO,all
J .,O N E S
Comfort Z 11 poll pck;vdlu
U P L I N Ravenswo
-„y 1 roAta
?- Cahln -Pot 'r ., ar.R'T ... ? I'?/?'
Hill Huffma
? Kenansvdle \ .,
Haw ? i`?._?• ?.Y
Beuiaville ' Branch - -
Hall Lloyd ay,v,Ue
Richlands -
F Site Location t3elgrade?
rE /
e r nr Gum 8rAnch V
i t
I vmm.?
I Pope
Fuunfain Hall Moon M in Chinquapin rl '
Charity Rhen a Lake - `` -
/ Maready ?( < <'Kellurn tf f
.? `. (, a I tar Lnndi?s?s p? ? j u,ns ? -
Sloan N I (rl:-`tom O I Srtella -
' Jacksonville Sdverdal?
Cypress -------
(',reek r.? . -
\ Peletner
` Till tarty ' . ? Miti?nfay? Llubert tlcearl
0
u Piney G een Uo
Haw J
W .-? C?1r.M el
Willard \ Swansboro
- -PadgGit' Verona '. ?eorCreek ?,?s!ddt 9rkLdl'
Maple Ilil :amp
l - Leieune /.
\1`1'Jan Eden
Dixon
'•
N D R
1 'neads Ferry (/ ?•.
Hurgaw _ - \ Pe7i?
Olkstorle
St Helena` .J - - ' Chadwick Acres
t. - - \ Holly Ridge '
i
?, t\ Ashton ? Edg9combe ? orris Landu,6 dV
5mi. 0 5mi. IS mi. y a ? Surf City ?- Stoop Point
u,
.....1:025,000
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974 State of North Carolina 0 f npsad Beach
CLF FIGURE
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP Dwn by
,"r-sr- . nc. 2M2 Date' A
LLOYD RESTORATION SITE May zoos G)
- Onslow County, North Carolina Project
• ?., r; ,?„ .,,?.,? , 05-021

1

t
t
I
s Y ? ? i ? ws.? Ga•oWa ? 9D]
l1r
f)
rp%\
? '
?
?
MA Q +\jh, ?? // -
,`
• ®` \\ - '1
44 / • YvY w' \ a t•>r°rM W I / F;.,
M`
-__ \ l ,.?+?
r i
7
p' r • "° ? ? ? ann 40 ?'?? a
\._-? .. _? ~
j 1.. `•.I....' ?a ? 1f'. ..
-_AO \ Iv Imo. i'
W?
a P IM / \ ?Q 'y p
? y ,Srta - p ' Iii
Reference > / s
Stream Location t 1„1 a,G
903 1.e 1 PIA HIN ,
:
Rl
'7
1 •
.
K.
...
t
yn i OnY MCI
?, ? 111 4 241

j-
?
t: /. \ IP
/S E ?

un n - - IA 1tY 11` 5 _
LL
903
/ q
' ?? A ?n a. .
r
a
r
'
_
`\ ?•; ? o f emu" = " _
1
?
.
? s
?7
•\ •4 .. An,
ao _ t 4
w:.l w
f
-
21 I -' .war c -• a I
'•C i
'

NE CW
P b
"' nw
,
,
_-?"
,^•
- Y _ `1
1 P? .
.
- `..w .,{ µar,nr4 f oaf '°w't - - 177a t•.,/ I
?.?,
?S}I... 1111 w ?a
?LL/? 8 1 \ P
ius
21
a

)
\
•?' eYa'r°Si w \q\t •
11 - 24
903 t •. ` ' ?1?,>cr` , a*"A `4, - r"" I - ---_ _" F \ ?`&&
1
,E . ?.,, `
w+eca`y? . .
ro

a;a,
t!I ? 8
\
A
\
_ /
n
TP
r O
+nI - .
24
a 1 w _
_
y
M
.
P I
^1 xoW1

O to
24 /
.
241 '?A.
o, , 41 .r
.

50

i '?U'
;?"
411, Lloyd Site
= ?•
-10 miles
q b
v
A
Ri f3 n.
Ili .? / r
.,
Ilp {?p'+ Si .
:a?? • - v
p
j r
m

,\
? I•
- 7
1-
tee(
'
?.
j?
_
' - ? A / l nek y/ a1
Q
ya•• lea''
...
\`
J
?„
g
• _tl `I' ,.:4...ry-
Y .?.
111 ? l
I
.,
.
w.?.
40 yY? 1 f g
,
u.m. _ .. f e
`

1 mi. 0 1 ml. 4 mi.
? t T?4y S
sa•. ?;,?- a
. t
1:150,000 ;
so 1
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.78.
c'

i
v
R
U
REFERENCE STREAM
REACH LOCATION Dwn by
GLF
FIGURE
L5
11-
nnJ
,. rn
t'inlu.v 5(xn? N(; :!'/54;
n i'2 5-IC9,
°?9 7.11 J9991a.

LLOYD RESTORATION SITE

Dale. FEB 2006
Onslow County, No rth Carolina
Project. 05-021

Z.M7iR.4 r +I - ?+'
1 t.. l
',1 l f !} ;'/? ?lCI) I p 111 ,^ i y .`..
/ . t .Jpd)/
•I ?
K
/1 } , °1 ;p / .r•tflity?Y... ill
f \ {
11 '•?: L :y: aN'15i i ?4??
•,1 1
d ? 1 CMYr1t:Uiir'ek t r
T
44,
Legend
Property Boundaries
n site Boundary = 24.26 acres
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Miles Drainage Area = 1.4 square miles
. ,;•
0- by. FIGURE
CLF
I'"RoMa?9,NC2 riv SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA
)ele: 4
May 2006
216.1693 LLOYD RESTORATION SITE
(919 i3N-3929ra1c
Onslow County, North Carolina PIOIact
:!"
OS-021
Mom Environmental, InC.
t
t
t
e
t
t
1
I

left
A F
j? Atum" , [ 1
T
f w rWIE
it+ is r??.Y *'?r??'a, 1 E
?-1"Hyp ? ,R1{ a.^ Ny,N,^1rh? t ? ?? _.9 yfl • s' " .
i- ~ { :i ?? l y w k i
,C. ll Xr C
Legend
flirr'. Property Boundaries
Site Boundary
=Drainage Area= 1.4 square

2126 Rowland Pond Drive

DRAINAGE AREA LAND USE D- by
CLF
/ vViflow Spring, NC27692
[phone]
s (919 341.3939ha
LLOYD RESTORATION SITE Dale
. May 2006

lom Environmental, Inc.
1 Onslow County, North Carolina
1 1 Project.
05-021
1
t

0

I
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
I
1
Q
e, I •,
• s
Property Boundary
(] Site Boundary

46
tar ty ` !- y 1i?+'I'f 11?.,-sue
/
r
Legend f'
1 :
Alap Unir __ Soil Name Slope Class Taxonomic Name Hydric Status
CrB _
Craven tine sand loam 1-4",f, A uic Ha 7ludults north dric
GoA Goldsboro tine sand loam 0-?"1, At uic Polcudults nonh dric
Gt Gritlon tine sand loam ncarl level T is 00raL ualrs Class A
Le Lenoir loam ttcarly level Al'I'IC PalLat Mills Class B
Mk Muck;dcc loam near) level T Tic Fluvat uents Class A
Ra Rains tine sand loam near) level T -,ic Palcat cults Class A
• ??r Z-? r ?t
Dwn. by:
zl26noeleroPon"onve USDA-SCS SOILS MAP CLF FIGURE
W'11- Spring, NC 27529 Date:
191912151693 LLOYD RESTORATION SITE MAY zoor,
19191 077-7413 N. ?]
Onslow County, North Carolina /
" , Project 05-021
Soil Profiles
Muckalee
Hydric Floodplain Soils Adjacent to Upstream Channel
as Observed in the Field
Texture
0
l0 YR 4/2 A Fine Sandy Loam
10
20 10 YR 5/2 Cgl Sandy Clay
30 10 YR 5/2 Cg2 Sandy Clay Loam
40
I
50
Depth in inches
Muckalee
Hydric Floodplain Soils Adjacent to Downstream Channel
as Observed in the Field
Texture
0
10 YR 4/3 A Sandy Loam
10
20 10 YR 5/2 Cg l Sandy Clay
30 10 YR 511 Cg2 Sandy Clay
40
50
Depth in inches
2121 Fnnlontl WnM aiHl
v;mow SV,,g NC27`92
ift lelsl zis•m9a
y1917<I78J91nr
Rains
Hydric Inerstream Divide Soils as Observed in the Field
Texture
0
10 YR 4/2 A Fine Sandy Loam
10
20
2.5 Y 5/2 Btgl Sandy Clay Loam
30
2.5 Y 511 Btg2 Sandy Clay
40
50
Depth in inches
Goldsboro
Typical Nonhydric Soil Pedon as Observed in the Field
Texture
0
l0 2.5 Y 5/4
A Fine Sandy Loam
20
2.5 Y 6/3 B I Sandy Clay Loam
30 2.5 Y 5/6 B2 Sandy Clay
40
50
Depth in inches
own by. CLF FIGURE
TYPICAL SOIL PROFILES
LLOYD RESTORATION SITE Date May 2006 X
Onslow County, North Carolina 11 ci v
05-021

U
c
d
E
0
c
w
[it 0

Ix
C
W
N
O
U
Eg
a
O
Nu
N
O
U
a?
w J
> (o
1v
m.
O II yy
mQI,
0 NJ,
_ Ca O)t G
om
m
'0
m II ° ° II = II If II E
Qn'maEO?aFzo
Y
L) Q6301M 3LLwcn

O

0
n
rv rv (3083) UOgen913
d
d rn
C o.. ..-'In m
II II
?
C
,?
O
r L
C'f ?p
15
(V
0, ? Om?a
co' '* II dvm?
E
? II II II = II II II

rn
ma eQz2
m
'S ILLw(D
03;

N C
0
U)
rv rv(1803) UO11en013 rv
v
0 °

O'
0
a
?
n
?
j
?OG?
p) 00 T
_
Q
7
fn 0? 0 II ?01? ?~
1
U, n° 1
= u II u E
x
?
L c
a
(
A
U Q03:1 LLWf
R ? n r n rv rv n rv rv rv
(1983) Uogen913
E

is

0
0 a LL
u c
0 o
N _
(n
Q
U
w
w
O
z
01 -1
_ m a 0
11 y 11
clot
t to
? t a
11 Ip?-E
II 10 Y II 11 H (0
in a`cOQ
Qo?Am3LL WCn
I
a
N 01
u O
O
U rv
(1083) UO11en813
C7
_ w
0 ?
CL
m
c
t 04 "2 04
t it II it
Q 4?Q
O
O
a rv
N
O N LL
c
m o
h ?
O
mr?o u;a c?rv ?omm??2
rv rv (1aa3) UOllen913
o
c o n 11
N W 04 N m ?(7 CL
Ohm'- r.H
N I10?OI p? 11 E
?a a Coo LLwin
d
t
r)
4 LL
0
o
N W.
.. ^N' .?
N N
O
U ,.
(1803) Uogen013
C
O O
fl c
=3 =
.lp
ocu a
2 O? 00 -
Ucu
?V
a. ?O cA 0.c
O C O
_ 0z
i
w
a 'Od
_o W)
!n II II II
N
o CL
v Q3o
0
o
a
N
a
O v
U c
W O
a to
O m
U
t
C
u
e
p
a
O
U
0
IL
c
u
d
N
O
U
?i
ov
? 0
U)
U)
z
0
t:z
00
Fn
0
ci U w
P U?
923
F
X
w
m
m
g ?
o o
U II II

0
z
w
2
LL
co
°o
N p
z z O
N
vii 0 a`
O
O
IL N
_ O
C
o
N
O
U
'.2 IF ?2
rv rv (1003) UO11en013 _
y
11 I?
o O
r
NO)?? Na CL
Of? OH
O
II Ix
II _II E
d
U)
Y
M.0 P
m?LLWin

I
m

0
Lam' 0
N

U
MMrvrvn'Rrvrvrvw
(1803) UOyen019
X
w
O?
rn
iz
(1003) UO11en913
m
I'm I n
?? ?? I yyp
.- P 'y O H
n
II 1 11 E
K? II 11 II
Ir, U 0 12) tai. w in
a
c
U)
rv (1003)rvU01jena13
a
c ?iww
O 6wc:j
II
0) it it
U

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I I
u

;
E
0
w
0
U
Z
0
D
W
w
0
Z
a?
a?
a?
1O
a c y a?
h d
o rnoo
w ? ,t of
? u u
0
U Q O

(Do
CLIP M =
00
t5 o"a?
o cl. o? Ucv
3U

_O of C O
0z
C
O
o
ECL
cu
U C
CL)
a?
a? cu
d
Z N
W
ILL
a
Z = o
°o
a Z
0
? o a
O
N
N
C
O
N
N d v
N
N 0
H
CI)
a' j y CV Lll
C Nwww II 11 O N
O
CON Ci a d
X Y 11 N II m ? O
U QC?I3m?LL W A O
a ? N
(1aa1) uogen013
o
z
o
c a° w w r U)
o p O V;Nh 1 N
U y ;: N UD ..
a N U) II II 11
rc o g
U QO CL
N?-
d C
O
o :F..
0 0 °o m m m m
(4001) uO13en313 (n
0 O
w O
co
a LL
U m m
N
O U)
o
IL
S m m .,,
(4001) uogena13 O
N
C)

a
UU
m
N
X

X
X /

o

o N
CID
O

Cl- ..
C `F_
?./ O ?
C ?- O M 0 N 0 N V M Q
O O O (A O 0 0 0 0 0
d cu CO
(1991) U0118AG13
0
0
N
O
N ?
?
11')
C
? C
O O O O O O O p p
CO ?t N O co CO d N c"o
(1901) uOIJBIS
I
N
r
LL
h
N
7
LL
•DUI '1e;U8WUO1IAU3 WOIXV o
-4-10HU"ONIUB
Nd 311S NOI1V?i01SMJ WVEI lUS U1 OdMld GA011
?d ?lIS T > m
SNOSb1M I VMJO2Jd 1N3W3ONVHN3 V431SAS003 Nd n
w m
3
iA9 038dV38d SNVId VNI-IMMO HibON o o u
:H11M N0113NnrN00 NI _
E8 O?
S 01pp+", . 1S aN1? NO1dW
d
33S
°
W
CO
,d 133H
co J N '
/
OWW
d U
Z
O
a? U-
(n o
zop
O a
a
N W
O
W
LL
I \ U7 w 1 I W Q F' / z
N CO mN / ZF-0
?W NW QW? ./ CIS
- or_
LO \
C14 W
Q? / / 0 W W U
WI M M OuwiN 1 ??\\
I 1 N CiIF Y'=I
\ C.)I w I 1
N IS
\ - - - ,
II
w Lo i N `moo., _ - I d
I C14 .;r cv) 04 C-4
W X C r N `- W W /p '
ZJJ Cif M F'/ N - - _ - _ _ - - \ W
0? m \ ~N v
,
0 LL
?zY \ m N N .- - '
Q U N
QUm- '
\ GIe
00
C) r
/
a
W rn / c _
-CD- - - " ` , m m ? O1 ? ! rn ° ? ?`or_- CIE
pJ l_ / >< F-
C6 m
-j < F- LIJ 01-
k--
LL
Zw° I Iv r
' '
z o w r- r E =L)
r r CI U U
=W= F- m mm °m
U U) U) r / - I I
00
v fit
\ M fD (D /it
V- /I i F- F-
IN W W I' l
l
\
I
M
ce)
t U ? I
m
I
/
N
\ F-
/ 1
1
?r
I 1
I
/
t/ U CO 1, I
M m
1 ?
71.
I ?
r
! a'/ ?I F• m II r
ml F-I I1 I \
c m(r \
\ ? 1 I 1
/b % m r J
?IQ' r ?r ZW
r li c)
;o o r I W2
F-1 r l
?? Y I
.m W
c U \1 ?
m
(D I m
m I 1f O
F- F-
9? ^W?
M C.
? \ I
J m \
m M
V ?. 1 n
\ Z
2. (' \ 4
WTI
`?. \ JI I w WQN
in w
` U) F--LU
\,
1
r rI \ ?
? I III III !, i ? ?
m I \ 11111 111 1 \
\ \ I III iill? - ? ? ?
° J r^\ ??? \ \ \ \
W
CL -J
ct d W 2 _ - - - - -
- - - - -4(n(nfn p \ ./
O
Q
Q
O
Q -? d a z
??? ?
C, Q CL O
ZD- ZDeq
m m~ZW1z
0
0
W
W
LL
o z
N w
J
Q
U
N
O
J
Q
W
N
W
J
m
Q W Q

Q m
J
V
Q W LL
J

.J _
LL
0
o
Q -j

Z J O W =
0 CL
= 0 N lL W
o I tL O
U ..
W W l
0 O 0 W
LL LL LL. O O
N LL LL
N M

U a F- F-
W W W W
W
W W W W W

U ? f? U U
W W W W W
w W W W W
W O W W W O
F-
o

Z r N M IT
w
U
F-
W
U
Z
W -
ZLL. J W
Z°U W
Lr_
C7 0 OZz
Q m a LL,
-j
CL Q F-
Q

uj
Q w

Q
Ix
W

L Z
Z Z
z'Z Q
> LiJ
?%
cnw- W
>
Z = ? _ O
o -?
a. z U)
LL
C)W 0
3:
? U °U U) O
W
J
O

u6P•lycd-fiP8-O,lO1l\u61
out ys;uewuoJinu3 woixy
-4JOHU3NONla9 KIS NOIIHLIOlSMI NVMUS A12l3dOZld (IAOII
-
1S N

m
SNOS?d l d 31
N V
Wb HOOHd 1N3W30NVHN3 W31SAS003 a. w 3
A8 038dV38d SNVId `dNIIOHVO HiUON < o
IH11, N0110Nf1f N )0 NI

o `,```panne /IIp

LL. ?¢ N Q _
U W W ('I
N N +

]? ? N ?IIII111 `
ti
co
s
C
z D O V) Z° -
EL 0,
-
J
M QF- ._ -- o
itJNZ wW W
/
wQF- Zow ? ?-_•'' I s? rz
ZF-O QWw ' LO
In LO
Qw?- 2W2
/
U U f4 m
N U W W
F! 0 w Z M G uO z 717
c7 J cn cn LO
Z F- r m '.n Lr)
wU W Nw O In
F- Z F- N 2 rn Lo w m
QWQ 0U) m F- q w ? \
O O U J co v F- m W co coti\
ioW w O o37n°sao -, Q ? v ,
F- F- WF- m m d' C\ mow= LO LO ll? Z W m to F- Cif F ' ' I F- M Ca
J Q w LA OJ nr
UcW f m U) Ln
6?' Oo
co V f N cr) q U) -
04 Lf) Lo LO
Cb LO
wm w of w
m
O
L
rn\? '/ /1
c CA-
N N I "t V ; ;a
N 1 ( x tD
l m z I F-
F- i m rn
pp
s st m m
F-
LU
C 436'170
Ok m C
N ' // O \ N D
O
Cf)
ZF-0 m w UJ Z ' J J
/ J m
W W m U NQ Z F
W.! W I\ G\? O , M 11 = Z Q m Q
Owe M I
J CO U) \ cc` 0: F- m N 3 W m W w ?- U
cC) 60 W U W U> J Q UI
1\ \' I v cr) / °co w w QWQ 0 U 0 Q
N N Q
\ M M I M f M F- (D C9 <L O
/ F- m m / .- F- F- O 04 U- J W
' LO I / J a F? LL 0
M Z W W
r' M F- m Q O 0 w rw
0- - Cl) LL LL O O
or) (Y) 04 C-4 LL U-
,` \ V
w OM / I J 6 LL N M
F- M 09 M M LO -m U) U CL F- F-
N / 'mew m W W W W W
/n O Of O F- w w W W w
y C,4 ? C415+0 0 w N w w
N F- F- w w w w w
O w ' - - ' \ W U) U) U) U) CO
O, N ,
U
rn o / Z N M ?t
O co ~ _ G
04 C-4 04
/
/
O OD
,i N c,4 C%4 U)
N W W of / Z F? w
m F- M W w J U
i? Z
y F' } U w _I W W
2 wZWOZ Q?w 0 ZY Z0U LL
- MQ-+i = OV OZZ W
y ui n- w J z Q F-
Jc/>>OW Qm w QF- ?
-' wM(L Q a < W W w
w w
o Z zZ > J U) w-' >
0
U 2 z ?
Z
LLI = = 0 c n U) o U C]U c OUwO
w
J
O
u6p•2 ysd-Mpa-OAOII\u6ise0\UOMG

jury ye;uewuo?inu3 Wo1xV am_ g ? w
.4d0HU"ONIVO ffd MIS NOll"O1SMI INVMUS AiU3d021d OA011 co
SNOS'Ut/d wya00?d 1N3W30NVHN3 V431SAS003 NV-1d ?lIS 0- W
w 3 u
I,18 03ddV3ad SNVId HNIIO2J fO H12JON a _
°NlIM N0110Nn N00 NI __ o o U
0
L
3
3
tp"jd
-
-
1- H3 0
00+
.
b'1S
N
N
N

/ H
DI V
O w
co J m N }
-
'? \ I
1
?
O ,
\ CO ?
,
I \
N ~ -
C14 \

_J

N 1
N
N N
a 4'
.. -Z
m ` m N iJ
'
? seol , \ CD W W

W O 0
C
1
F- `

l
D 0W=
11 fn U),
l
0-
0- - 1 04
OxO/} N /
1 !
`Z U)/
:R- O I N /
c„ M I" ! I
m w `
U) C14 N N LL1 I
04 N N rN d' 1 N
! Q3YOOS8o
m/ W LU
F- / JN /
1 Ln ,
/
' ! N i
I w / / ! !

I !
N rt I F- / I

I ti 0)\
N O w I III O
O N ELI
i
m m Of CIO
?-
`
i I
(O J
i
/ J I
COI I,- Ipp
W' U Q F-
W ~ 0
2 Y ti .- I ? I,
}/ m /Z w h ,

H U Lc)
W
/
,/
Q W W , anoseo
1 Om UW I
I ml - 2LU=/
I m / I 1 U0) CO

ra
1
pC d J c0 }q' I W. I

? .U
?
F- m of
\
` W
ZJJ
\
` th \
N \ O W J
OZE

` m
OQ ZZY
QQU
% 1
fs m

N N 1 mm
_
N
~
J

_j
W U

z

Z ILL _j w
zOC)
z w
LL
= o? Oz W
mJ Q >z=
w Z >
E z
O Z =Z
U > J

-I AW
Z O >
0
w r F-= O a O¢L.- 3:
o U O C..) .j cn U W o
w

U
Z
W W
zccOz
MCI?:W
WZa:W
cnD0I=
QOW-
Wma3:
i
c0
? W I
ml
1 1 U I
to ` ,a, r
? m ? II
/ I
VIII /
I
N
N ?0 /
? I II III m Fj / ,
I I t
III I !! ,
I I I I I I G, V i /
III , \
VIII oo+Q, ..
Ipl !11111 I I
11 I/ Illt/1 I
lI 1 \111 I I
11 11 1111 I I
ry i
- IIIII? I II
IIIN I
1 I
I?ilid Iry ?
I
l l It
_? UI II
_lul
/
0011
~ `¢ Npv
?u m W11
w
o z ?r ?
c4.+ ???/1111
N
0
(n z
z°
L ¢
LW
w
Of
w
J
CID

W
D Q J
0 O Q Q
?- W Uj F- U
Q J
LL 0
W 0
Q
J

Z
P
= 0 .? L
L
a F- LL 0
U

O
W O O
LL LL

F-
F- F- F- F- F-
W W W W W
W W W W w
_ = 2 2 =
? U U U U
W W W W W
W W w W w
W 0 w w w w
F-
0 ,-. ,-. ,-. ,-. ..
Z V- N 0 T

-oul,pluewuoJlnu3 WolxV _ o w
V -40HUANONIUB ffd RIS NOIl` WISM] V4VMJ1S ki'd3dObd OA011
Z
SNOSWd M119MId 1N3W30NVHN3 VY31SAS003 N`"1d ?11S m w
W 3 U
:AS 036dV38d SNVId VNIIO'dVO HIUON o o
:HlIM NOIl?NfIfNDO NI
o PI,, Q
N W ~ a 8j' a v
N 2`
W J J W W `Z LL J M ` 'nnu o
Z0U U- OW-
C) OY Ozz W ?U¢F--1 Z J ZQ 1= ¢m ? j0 0
CL ¢m W ¢F-(Z' >UwOw
J M J >- > z Q Z F- lJJ iJJ
w ¢ W < z ¢ 12 W f' z Lu m o z w x
z = z > -j U) u - > 0 0 w Cl) co
cn Q
o ,
Z U O EL O a 0 z a
z '0
U 0 U J co U w 0 ZO N
-j LLJ
/ \ -
W -J
I\\\\
Um-aW
con
U
r
OD
Y
2
U
F-
W ~
U U.
¢ `_
m 0'
ti
tt V"
F- >
ww
Q J
F-
mw
I
of
D
-j -j
WWo
Z
Zow
¢ W W
M W x
UtnU

Z
F'M
0 F- /- - 10 \
WW -j C1.4 _ ---
mQ '?r / Q y N N M M
U.) If) 04 If) LO
m
;T m >OW rF- / F- -\
- 9
/ 00 U w W
/
o \
I I wx L
? ,
J U) U) U) _ M LC)
L0 If) LO U)
19T 1 7, LO
co I
`r CAS \ 1 I WM
v rn z
i co
M lI G? i / Oc? Q
M/ QN x
w IF- F- >- , U
Zw ' ~ 0 W
W 0 - W V Z ij
----- 'I?I r ;)I?n\.\c X11 rl- I WZ / ?LLI Cc d2 W
-/ IIy-1 II ,'C7 \ ?m? F- 0 Wm I UU >2Z ?C
LLJ
a J V v vI \ J w?? Q- U F`
x W W Nom-- - \ N Co W U U) Lu
U Y p Z W I-/ ~ ? \ m m \ w, _ \ \\ Il CD z ? d 0 ZE zt
UQ ?`p Z/0 w J I- ? U Q W 111 ill I I?
LU W i co ??+0? wx HON
Om d d <
3: LU/= ix F-
L) U? U) LU F-
mco\tiv -M > W W LLI I I // N ?`
19T q / U 0 Q
~ O 00 ¢ J ¢
N ' } (L w LL v
'IT W ct O 0) J W J LL
I d M M J O LL Q' O
0 -j
O? 1 m w// W LL
w
\ O O CO Z N o x
O I CM qT F O \ I / - J/ N Z ' C' LL 4.
mmH I / W¢F= ¢ r N w
x ,
LO 0)
-j C-4 11 ~ l ' W 1 7?0F-
W // Z a,J 0
¢ F- ¢ W
QFr ' M tiM)U OOW Lli / O U- U. 0 ¢ O
.? JL >OU F- w ?m?/- ' JCcn r 0 ?a LL
?
U' W W I / KN N - r / } U LL , F- M
F-
'7S ` ! 0 Lu M I /o co CC) ?rCID U 0. N C/)
VS i J U) Cn o CD ? m CO m c? m M LO ce) ILQ W / - - / F- F- F- ~ F- F-
u_ co MMwIM m/ W' LLJ W W W
C? wmmrm 1r L/ / W W W 0 W W
O ODX P U ~ (107 ? IIn U) Q U) O U) J U)
/ W 1 / IW W I- W N W m W
8e•t? F- M cc+) I IM /--fn W W¢ WLL W¢ W
k, co Lo m M cc) ' w I w I w W cn U) 0 cn 13- fn F- CO
y m W F? m CO J M\ O
/ l I / \\
I., w N\s Z N M LO
OIM cci\
CO r"I l ?
00
N
It) \ y• \/r
Cf)
r im ?i / ?. I 03t1nJS?0
13?HS 333 00'0 +
Pt b1S 3N17 Ho1
b'?N
u6p-gysd-fip8-OAoj-I\u6c
I
U
C
C
E
0
E
IACO

z
O
F -
C)
w
w
J
U-
LL
J
Q
U
CL
OO°
0
o°
aLL

'C C C Co
O
Q. ip =3
00
oc(ua)
a o? U(o
?U
a 'pO Cl) O ?
Ow c O
pZ
z
O
J
0
O
a
w J
o Q
Nv_
EL
L
iw-
O C
z ?
z c
O
F h
U
7
Ir )
W LI
z
O o
u
w r
z
z
U
J
i z
z
Z
;U
)Z
: r=
LN
?w
W
J
lY
I°
I m
i ?
D

x ,
r
O
?a Z
t 3
0
i ?
? LL 8
w
°
W LL
?LL
J xa ?? i
LL
0 `
`
a ?' w
J
W
z z
Q
e
a
V o J

Q z
?m W
z
0 ' Z
EL CL
cr0 U
?cr ~ J
w Q
40 w snlova U
N U O a
Z W
O_-J
?LL
z0
W Ix
.a
50
P Uj
C/)Z
OX
a W
as
?w
z
u O
z U
z
N K
W N
z
c 1- p
UJ L)
u r
> 0
F-
o
u
1 LLJ a w
m co a z
a
' J =
I W -
z Q Z
w 0
a ?
O
w
Z
w
c?
0

o
N
i = o

Z
Q
?
N
o a
K
U O
a
W
?? yob J H W F- W
w ?c9m u_FN
O
0-
in
Jp M F
0 ua{?lm W PwU
3:
1 0- d p ` 37?yb >
lu p 0 0
¢

p w

8 z a z j m m LLA

g z- H in
0¢
N
r W "?>y
a O
a 0 02 W D O
LO
z U Z w zz = w z {yi a z
O
? C

0
LL WT
r¢ ou U
02
= N
U

n.
0
a
v
r-
rn
U-
a?
rn
LL

U)
Z
0
w
a
w
0
z
U
G
4
[it y
E
0

w
aw=
m(n
a
(7??
a0? o
z
D
?
z
7)
O
a
U,
a
0
U
w
m
F
ti
w
(7
Q
w
w
Ow
w
x
m
aL)z
?g
0-LU

w
N
IL
? o
a
? U
m W
U)
(n I
am
0 ag
vUi a
Ow
aw
U
z
O
w
W
O
z
O
O
O
U
N
0
a. 0 F
gQZw
a i
F m
mOz
waa
U
U-O
J
w
0
z
U)
U)
U
J
W
Z
z
U
>% CU
4-0
C C
O O
CL :p :3
00
ocu u)
a. o? L) cu
3U
o
a -p to O s
O C 0
J Q

O
z I?
Zza V
z

U rnl W

Y- u

? I

Z
r
ZI i
a
O
0
LL

U
p f
OZ Z Q
w
¢G.w
WZJ
?; cc
>F-O
0
z
a
0
a
CL
m
00
CL
w
O
U
VJ
U?
P EU
d
w
W
a (9 Z
U WT p = W
. Z
>
O CL,- C,
? JL)O
C?u
O,ui0
x
J
c9 W yaa
z m z O w LL
r = g x r
0m (L CD
a3
IL 0 -C r
i
a m w O
v?0¢r?m
0
O

m w
z
>
LLJ 4=,

0
GO
r -
a
00

z
a
(L

+I-4?
5,
ma
?
r?LLJX
w
z
a??X
uOiaC¢7uU)P
1
,. y 1
1

O
z
w LO
cr
0 t-
U-
0
<t N
Z = o
Q z°o
E
o a
LLI
Q\
v
O
J
Q

g
a
z
s
N
L'A t (

l 0 W
>
g
z

CJ O

O W W
>
r
W
LL

J
z w w [Y r z
w

? o

3 oa

zuri
z =
p wQ

UU

r

vi o

g

I
Y
z J
u0 wJ
Our` WW
ZW Ulx
Oz O
W O
J
O ? ma
w? m
N 04 .
2
z
m .
wa
?o ?Q

za 0-

o" Z ?

¢ W

t

Q
ga
Ua p
w aU
Wlr

LL
x
¢
w
z w
ww
x O,
u?0 m0
"r a0
¢a Y
z
m ?
z a7

M
0
LL
Q ?¢
LLu, ¢
m ¢
z z
F LL
O ?r
ZO Uz
69-) =rr
, O
J m
Z m j 00

W
N
-
V U
p
O
=
IL 2
WV M
Za-4
W 8
a
co
J
0 W
az
O
1
-.'.
W 2
X?
W N
O r
as ?
m
?LL
w ?
o-

m
W
O
O

I?j

U
l
_
wa
J
>
U
U
mZ
v=i0 w
uJ_-z
m O
r
U O
r
U O
CV
M y
?
???
J
? JW
2W O
W ?0
=m WM
Z? ??OV
(OjSJ ?
z a CC
Q (A
lt7
_ !/
\
i NJ
wLL aJ
>= (n 0
u?0 JZ
a? JF'
?3d C7
(h? w
c w
¢
c
Z¢Z
>¢ WZ
N
z ZO
>w rra
aW =_?
vOx O J
CL J
LL 'O
N

rn O0°
w
r Cl O
¢ O
aU
wx
r
(70
?x
w
aJ
:Ww
iL
0 a
L?LL
m¢ W
Z
¢>
w
>
<
z
N
y
z .- c?i 6 4 0 co r? ao U

I
m
i?

m
LL

w
a
m?
w
r
0 115 230 460 690 920
Feet
it 't
XP>
4
F '
Legend
al?
- - Conservation Easement = 24.36 acres
Proposed Channel
Hardwoods Community = 19.24 acres
k'
4 Streamside Assemblage = 3.89 acres
1 EM Property Boundaries
s
!! 1
t
Small Stream
Vayatatlon Swamp/Nonrhrerine Pet Stream-side
- Aooalatlon Hardwoods Assemble TOTAL
- E I Area acres 19.24 3.69 23.13
•?%>
Number Number
'•? I species planted' % of total planted" % of total Number planted
% ' Swamp chestnut oak 2916 20 1962
// !!!J Laurel oak 2818 20 1962
1
• c ;Try .Ik". Cherrybark oak 2916 20 •• •• 1982
American elm 2816 20 -- -• 1962
"- .-
•- --
- Green ash 918 7 654
&Cr • /t Sweetbay 918 7 854
Silky dogwood 785 8 3174 30 654
- Black willow 3174 30 1058
Buttonbush -- •- 2118 20 794
Elderberry •• •• 2118 20 794
TOTAL 13,081 100 10,580 100 23,881
Dvm. by. FIGURE
212'RowlandPmdDrive PLANTING PLAN Ct.F
NAllow Sphl i NC 27892
(9191218.199 LLOYD RESTORATION SITE °°"
19191 ut•J9J9 lax May 2006
Onslow County, North Carolina project, 16
05-021
{om Envkonmental, Mc.

0 120 240 480
? II Y
tl ,
G I Legend
Conservation Easement = 24.36 acres
11d a' at, .w r Proposed Channel
C3 Property Boundaries
N. , ® Potential Veg Plots (I Om x IOM)
* Benchmarks
?c
Y 4> a
'' , Aerial PhotolTopo Panels
0 Potential Photo Plots
Potential Groundwater Gauges
Wetland Restoration Areas
a - Riverine
"' - Nonriverine
Wetlands within 50 foot Buffer
will not count toward restoration acreage
D- by FIGURE
2128 Rowland Pond Drive MONITORING PLAN CLF
NAllow S NC 21992 17
[phone] .189g, LLOYD RESTORATION SITE 6w. May zoos
(919)3!1-0839fa1c
Onslow County, North Carolina ProjKl:
05
iom Environmental, inc. -021
t

Appendix B.
' Preconstruction Photographs

w
1

Appendix B: Preconstruction
Photographs
A ?
k;
Y
4, 4
all,
'Ap
;.!????Jt?1i?ic ?ir'"?Fr.!•fae?ii?..:c.' ,?
Looking across the
toward the main tributary
d channel
to the tree line.
Looking upstream on abandoned channel.
Looking downstream on abandoned channel from
Site infall.
Looking upstream on abandoned channel
at Site infall
Looking downstream on abandoned channel.

I

Appendix B: Preconstruction
Photographs (continued)

Y

Looking across the abandoned channel toward the area of Rains soils
proposed for nonriverine wetland restoration.
Looking towards the abandoned channel
near the location of the culverted crossing that will bisect the easement
Looking upstream towards the confluence of the main channel
and the existing eastern channel/roadside ditch

Natural Resources
Restoration & Consel'va11311
August 18, 2006
Mr. Brad Shaver
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
United States Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
2 n n P 1 3 4 6
'J
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide Permit 27 Authorization for the Implementation of the
Lloyd Site Stream Wetland Restoration Project in Onslow County
Mr. Shaver:
Please find attached to this letter the following items:
1) a completed Preconstruction Notification (PCN) form w?
2) Exhibit 1: project vicinity map p ('
3) Exhibit 2: conservation easement plat
4) Exhibits 3A-3C: figures from restoration plan AU G 2 1 2006
5) Detailed Wetland Restoration Plan
ur.ivK warER ci<;ALITr
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Project Purpose and Description
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information concerning the Lloyd Stream and
Wetland Restoration Site. The owner/applicant, Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), is proposing
stream and wetland restoration at the Site to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) in fulfilling its restoration goals. A copy of the Detailed Wetland Restoration
Plan for this Site is included in this permit application package. The Site is located
approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow
County in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak
River Basin (Exhibits 1-2). The Site is characterized by active pastureland, fallow fields, and
forest stands. Under existing conditions, Site streams are characterized by straightened, G-type
reaches. Site streams have been degraded by dredging, straightening, and rerouting of the stream
channels. Additional stream impacts include bank collapse and erosion, channel incision,
changes in stream power and sediment transport, and loss of characteristic riffle/pool complex
morphology. Site floodplains and wetlands have been impacted by deforestation, vegetation
maintenance, soil compaction by livestock, and groundwater draw-down from ditching and
stream channel downcutting. Land use within the upstream watershed is currently characterized
by agricultural land, pasture, forest land, and low-density residential development; less than five
percent of the upstream watershed is composed of impervious surface. Residential development
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
1
Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 2
becomes more concentrated south of the watershed in the direction of the City of Jacksonville
and north of the watershed in the direction of the Town of Richlands.
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions in the on-Site, upstream, and downstream
segments of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream
channels; 4) reestablishment of historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream. The proposed restoration plan is expected to
restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland, and restore a minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine
wetland within the Site boundaries. Primary activities proposed to accomplish the above include
restoration of Site stream channels on new location through 1) belt-width preparation and
grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation of channel plugs,
5) backfilling of the abandoned channel, 6) ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in-stream structures
and a Terracell drop structure at the Site outfall, and 8) construction of a piped channel crossing.
The project is also expected to entail restoration of riverine and nonriverine wetlands by 1)
filling an agricultural ditch, 2) the reestablishing historic water table elevations, 3) excavating
and grading elevated spoil and sediment embankments, 4) reestablishing hydrophytic vegetation,
and 5) reconstructing stream corridors. Restoration of native forest communities will occur
throughout the Site (see Exhibits 3A-3C).
Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two degraded and channelized, unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order
to return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. The main tributary is
a second-order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching, vegetative
clearing, hoof shear from cattle and horses, and erosive flows and is characterized by excessive
incision. A portion of this tributary has been relocated from its original floodplain position to a
linear ditch excavated along the edge of cleared pasture land. The eastern tributary is a first-
order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching, vegetative clearing,
hoof shear from cattle and horses, and incision and no longer receives natural stream flows. A
berm was placed near the eastern property/Site boundary to redirect stream flows into a linear
ditch that drains south along the eastern property boundary into roadside ditches along the
southern property boundary. The roadside ditch ties into the main tributary in the southwestern
portion of the Site.
Flow from these stream reaches will be diverted and redirected into stable, meandering streams
to be constructed/restored on new location that approximate the hydrodynamics, stream
geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. The old ditched stream
channels will be abandoned and backfilled. Impacts will occur on 4758 linear feet (1.1 acres) of
the degraded and channelized reaches, (see Exhibit 3A-3C). Portions of the Site underlain by
hydric soil have been impacted by channel incision; vegetative clearing; earth movement
associated with the dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site tributaries; ditching of
s
Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 3
agricultural fields; and compaction by livestock grazing; no impacts to wetlands will occur due
to restoration activities.
Justifications for Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Two degraded and channelized unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order
to return the Site to historic conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. These reaches were
previously channelized (dredged and straightened) and moved to the outer extents of the
floodplain to improve drainage for agricultural use and currently remain in these conditions. Site
restoration efforts will include the restoration of these two stream reaches by constructing
channels on new location within the historic floodplain that approximate the hydrodynamics,
stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. These activities
will impact a total of 4758 linear feet of degraded and channelized stream yet construct
approximately 5858 linear feet of stream. A total of 4750 linear feet of mitigation credit is
currently being submitted as part of this project due to sections of the constructed stream that
will occur outside of the conservation easement or beneath vehicular/livestock crossings.
Surface Water Analysis
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas has been analyzed to predict the feasibility of
manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or adjacent
properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses along with
provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and wetland restoration while reducing
potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year
storms under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities
have been implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak
flood flows for Site features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International)
program and regional regression equations. Once the flows are detennined, the river geometry
and cross-sections are digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are
adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once corrections to the geometry are
performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along Site features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-Site cross-
sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM.
Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the
computed water surface elevations will be calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS model has been completed for the proposed Site restoration; the study indicates
that the proposed stream and wetland restoration design will result in maintainence of a "no-rise"
Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 4
in the 100-year floodplain. Although the Site is located within a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodway, no FEMA cross-sections or detailed mapping occurs
within the Site; therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) are not expected to be necessary for this project.
Protected Species
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://nc-cs.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, 13 federally
protected species are listed for Onslow County. The following table lists the federally protected
species for Onslow County and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each.
Potential habitat may occur within the Site for American alligator; however, this species is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with another rare species, which does not occur in
North Carolina, and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. Detailed plant-by-plant surveys
were conducted for Cooley's meadowrue, golden sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife within Site
ditches during the optimal survey window for golden sedge and rough-leaved loosestrife on May
31, 2006 and for Cooley's meadowrue on June 19, 2006. Prior to conducting plant surveys
existing populations of each species were visited. Surveys within the Site resulted in no findings
of golden sedge, rough-leaved loosestrife, or Cooley's meadowrue; therefore, this project will
have no effect on these plant species (See attached letter from the FWS).
Federally Protected Species for Onslow Count
* Habitat Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Present
Within Site Conclusion
VPrtvhrntPc
American Alligator Threatened (S/A) Yes Not
alligator mississippiensis Applicable
Threatened
Bald eagle Ilaliaeetus (Proposed for No No Effect
leucocephalus delisting)
Eastern cougar Puma concolor Endangered No No Effect
couguar
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened No No Effect
Leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea Endangered No No Effect
turtle
Loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Threatened No No Effect
turtle
West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered No No Effect
manatee
Piping plover Characlrius melodus Threatened No No Effect

Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 5
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect
woodpecker
Vascular Plants
Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered Yes No Effect
meadowrue
Golden sedge Carex lutea Endangered Yes No Effect
Rough-leaved Lysimachia Endangered Yes No Effect
loosestrife asperulae olia
Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened No No Effect
amaranth
*Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A) = a
species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are
not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on June 16,
2005 and one known NCNHP element is documented within 2 miles of the Site. The element is
a Natural Bridge (Significant Natural Heritage Area) located approximately 1 mile southeast of
the Site adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the New River.
One designated unit of Critical Habitat for piping plover is located in Onslow County on the
Bogue Inlet, which is greater than 20 miles southeast/seaward of the Site (USFWS 2001).
Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR
60) and in consultation with the North. Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
A file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology on December 15, 2005 with
SHPO representative John Mintz to determine if any cultural resource investigations have been
conducted within the Site vicinity and to determine whether any significant cultural resources
have been documented within the area. Mapping documented no previously recorded
archaeological sites within or in the vicinity of the Lloyd Property. Therefore, this project will
have no effect on known archaeological resources.
Survey and Planning mapping of known historic resources was reviewed on December 15, 2005
with SHPO representative Jennifer Spivey. Mapping documented two surveyed structures within
the Lloyd Property (ON331 - Nathan Jones House and ON371 - Bill Mazingo House) adjacent
to Gum Branch Road. No further studies were conducted on either of the structures.
Construction of the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site will avoid these structures and
therefore, this project will have no effect on the Nathan Jones House or the Bill Mazingo House.
Mr. Brad Shaver
August 18, 2006
Page 6
CAMA
The proposed mitigation implementation will not impact Areas of Environmental Concern
(AECs) and, accordingly, will not require any authorization from the NC Division of Coastal
Management (See attached letter).
Your time and consideration in reviewing the enclosed material is greatly appreciated. Should
you have any questions about the project, please call me at (919-755-9490). Thank you.
Sincerely,
M -4dk*Ta11XN'
M. Randall Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
CC: Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetland Unit
Attachments: Exhibits 1-3C
Office Use Only' Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 6 1 3 4 6
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "loot Appiicame" or " N/A
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit 27
If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
1
II. Applicant Information *`? la
1. Owner/Applicant Information AUG 2 1 2006
Name: M. Randall Turner
WETLg1 c n WATER QUALITY
Mailing Address: Restoration Systems LLC _ D.. NDCrnp??.,._._
1101 Haynes Street
Raleigh North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: 919-755-9490 Fax Number: 919-755-9492
E-mail Address: randy(ycrestorationsystems com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: M. Randall Turner
Company Affiliation: Restoration Systems, LLC
Mailing Address: 1101 Haynes Street Suite 107, Raleigh North Carolina 27604
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: rand rg restorationsystems com
Updatcd 11/1/2005
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Lloyd Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): Not Applicable
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 444000684704 and 444000795550
4. Location
County: Onslow Nearest Town: Richlands
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Not Applicable
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From the Town of
Richlands travel south on Highway 24/258 for approximately 4 miles, turn left (head east) on
Northwest Bridge Road (labeled as Gum Branch Road in the 2003 North Carolina Atlas and
Gazateer) for approximately 2 miles. The Site will be on the left side (north side) of
Northwest Bridge Road (see Exhibit 1).
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.8614 °N 77.5106 °W
6. Property size (acres): - 24.4 acres (see Exhibit 2)
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Unnamed tributaries to the New River
8. River Basin: White Oak River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state,ne.us/admin/maps/.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the
time of this application: Site floodplains and wetlands have been impacted by deforestation,
vegetation maintenance soil compaction by livestock, and groundwater draw-down_ from
ditching and stream channel downcutting. The Site is characterized by active pastureland,
fallow fields and forest stands. Pastureland is currently grazed by livestock including cattle
and horses and livestock have access to the entire Site. The Site watershed, approximately
1.4 square miles at the Site outfall is characterized by agricultural land pasture, forest land,
and low-density residential development less than five percent of the upstream watershed is
composed of impervious surface Residential development becomes more concentrated
south of the watershed in the City of Jacksonville and north of the watershed in the Town_ of
Richlands.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The primary
goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream channel; 2)
enhancement of water quality functions in the on-Site upstream, and downstream segments
of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream channels; 4)
reestablislunent of historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream. The proposed restoration plan is expected
to restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site tributaries restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland and restore a minimum of 3.1. acres of jurisdictional
nonriverine wetland within the Site boundaries. Primary activities proposed to accomplish
the above include restoration of Site stream channels on new location through 1) belt-width
preparation and grading 2 floodplain bench excavation 3) channel excavation, 4)
installation of channel plugs 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel 6) ditch rerouting, 7)
installation of in-stream structures and a Terracell drop structure at the Site outfall, and 8)
construction of apiped channel crossing The project will also entail restoration of riverine
and nonriverine wetlands by 1 filling an agricultural ditch, 2) reestablishment of historic
water table elevations 3) excavating and grading elevated spoil and sediment embankments,
4) reestablishing hydrophytic vegetation and 5) reconstructing stream corridors. Restoration
with native forest communities will occur throughout the Site (see Exhibits 3A-3C).
Equipment that will be utilized to accomplish the above restoration plan may include, but is
not limited to a track hoe, front end loader, dump trucks, and bulldozers.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Restoration Systems is proposing stream _and
wetland restoration at the Lloyd Site as a full delivery project to assist the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program in fulfilling its restoration goals.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 3 of 9
list and describe pen-nits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. No previous permits have been obtained or requested for this job.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
A sediment and erosion control permit will be obtained from the Division of Land Quality prior
to construction No additional permit requests are anticipated for this Site in the future, however,
additional restoration opportunities may be pursued in areas adjacent to the Site which will
require additional, similar permit requests.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Two degraded and channelized
unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order to return the Site to historic
conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. The main tributary is a second-order, bank-to-
bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching vegetative clearing, hoof shear
from cattle and horses and erosive flows and is characterized by excessive incision. A
portion of this tributary has been relocated from its original floodplain position to a linear
ditch excavated along the ..edge of cleared pasture land. The eastern tributary is a first-order,
bank-to-bank stream system which has been impacted by ditching vegetative clearing, hoof
shear from cattle and horses and incision and no longer receives natural stream flows. A
berm was placed near the eastern property/Site boundary to redirect stream flows into a linear
ditch that drains south along, the eastern property boundary into roadside ditches along the
southern property boundary. The roadside ditch ties into the main tributary in the
southwestern portion of the Site.
Flow from these stream reaches will be diverted and redirected into stable meandering
stream constructed/restored on new location that approximate the hydrodynamics stream
g_eometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. The old ditched
stream channels will be abandoned and backfilled.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 4 of 9
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within
100-year Distance to
Nearest Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh,
Floodplain
Stream Impact (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) No impacts
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.5 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
trust be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermittent. Perennial t? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
acres
Exhibits 3A-3C Main Tributary Fill Perennial 10 2379 0.55
Exhibits 3A-3C Eastern Tributary Fill Perennial 10 2379 0.55
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 4758 1.1
Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, Impact
indicate on ma bay, ocean, etc.) (acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) No impacts
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 1.1
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 1.1
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 4758
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 9
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Not Applicable
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): Not Applicable
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): Not Applicable
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: Not Applicable
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Two degraded and channelized
unnamed tributaries to the New River will be impacted in order to return the Site to historic
conditions and accomplish restoration efforts. The proposed restoration plan is expected to
restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of
jurisdictional riverine wetland, and restore a minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine
wetland within the Site boundaries.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 9
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.eni.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes X No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
A CE document has been prepared per FHWA guidance (See attachment)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 9
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitifzation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. Not Applicable
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stortnwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. No impervious surface currently exists on the
Site and no impervious surface is proposed with the restoration activities. A sediment and
erosion control permit will be obtained from the Division of Land Quality prior to construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 9
Not Applicable
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2 o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Not Applicable
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 9

1?
' r1
I ? .fit. / -
i 1
,.....
' l
I , f?IJ?
?.a

7.
7' 1 . • ' ' • "FI W M"8 ^ ! U 4;'TA TwE F IC, H C S T
I e
^
__
i. < .w d I I l 4.ros n
L
W
-

? ? `fiC?EJ?f71fIN( I r i?'I D Y:7 ??Y?,f1, ,

STATJ

vel
.00
/
IF F()W ST:?
HOFMANN ti r leg
Reference
For
at
g
Xl?

I wr7rf... X
7?
` 4'4

'`
t.
?i11. M.. 4-74
Lloyd
!?
A
I
? I
Wv 4
???
Site Location
ass
6

>
'
*. ?}!
R
U-0.
I

1 mi. 0 1 ml. _ 4 ml., w`Y
I,
mo
mmi Was
1:150,000
r
li
S
2003 N
th C
Atl
77
tt
J "
d p
? ?
ou
ce:
aro
na
as an
or
m
wr, p.
.
.•
_ ?

nJ f
2?_U RwA
l Un
SITE LOCATION fJwn by
CLF
FIGUHE
a
ou
x
IR 19o)19l4J L n9,14C 59,-
919121
1 fiPJ9 V39 in. IP

LLOYD RESTORATION SITE

May Zoos
0HSIOw County, North Carolina
ndv,im?,nrvd,, .. V'tolori 05 -021

1?1 a L? a ??? l
ne?A?elA5?a6QcA?n9?$ 8?i?ls*?? «
Ali' 1 21

9

"' 59 99 55 93 93 59 93 's? 3# 93 43
rt
t°iI S
1111
- A 2
my
t `O
v ? yx J, `?y,'?? \

!i a
k?6 S ' A s
b
?r 1
a
W1
0
n
;! -- - --
NG
IxI I
C
IOmN
I
.Z'
d
Nc
IXI I
S
Q
??
??
6
10
J
__ ?
I
I
w
I?

mm
z
mo
< p
x
vz
u Z
m
it
om
a
p
o?
94
00
Xm
nr
c
m

i
i
i
mm
O D
C N
Ox
i?
V y(D) \ j NDO
X d 7 n
00 Z: 3 Z!
O ?
Z JJJ
mo_
`
0 0 y
D O
A
O
z
m?
mp
< H
Z, 2)
i0 ~
H
??????? 1111
g?i?te ? [ fi
s a
3
3
00
xm
D m '\
Z71
1
m
N O
0
m l7
3 =
v
3 c
o O

ro m z0 r 0 cot)
;o

57
S
a ° Z

s
O O
o
n
D '
o
C) m @
„
W c? -I
Z 80 0 CD z
X
z
0
Z
i ab_zrai 1?esourcc!,
'estoralion & ollse€'v".1.601
May 25, 2006
Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Section 401 Oversight
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
SUBJECT: Authorized Agent for Restoration Systems
Mrs. Karoly:
Please accept our designation of Mr. M. Randall Turner, AKA Randy Turner, as the duly
authorized agent for Restoration Systems, LLC in all matters related to regulatory issues.
Mr. Turner has our permission to perform signatory duties on permit applications,
permits and other documents related specifically to Clean Water Act regulatory actions,
as well as regulatory actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the NCDENR such as
Isolated Wetland Permits, Riparian Buffer Certificates, etc. If you agree with this
designation, please forward this letter to your field offices.
Restoration Systems has made this same designation to Ken Jolly for all future federal
regulatory actions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps. Thanks for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
George A. Howard, ice-President
cc: John Dorney, Program Development
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 107 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 23, 2006
Randall Turner
Restoration Systems, LLC
110114aynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Turner:
Thank you for your June 22, 2006 letter regarding the proposed Lloyd property stream and
wetland restoration project in Onslow County, North Carolina. This letter provides the U-8-
Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) response pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (16 US C. 1531 et seg.) (Act).
Based on the information provided, the Service concurs with your determination that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleya),
golden sedge (Carex lutea) or rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). We
believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for the opportunity Mr. this projec. If you have any questiom or
this office at (9 ? g560 is
regarding out response, please contact
Ext. 18 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
C
P Benjamin
Field Supervisor
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Restoration Systems, LLC O M (UM g V M February 10, 2006
C/O Randall Turner
1101 Haynes St., Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Turner: BY:--------------------
On February 9, 2006, 1 made a site visit to the Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project off Northwest Creek Rd. near Richlands. I determined that the project is not in a CAMA
Area of Environmental Concern. However, the project may require a consistency review by our
office. Pleas contact Stephen-Rynas on this matter at [phone]. If-=you have any
questions or any changes to the proposal please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
),Ryan Davenport
Coastal Management Representative
cc: Tere Barrett, District Manager
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

(available from the Division of Land Resources at the DENR Regional and Central Offices) shall
be designed, installed and maintained properly to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by
DWQ; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs in DWQ-classified
trout waters);
8. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed and
the original grade restored after the Division of Land Resources or delegated program has
released the project;
9. Any riprap shall be of such a size and density so as not to be able to be carried off by wave or
current action and consist of clean rock or masonry material free of debris or toxic pollutants.
Riprap shall not be installed in the streambed except in specific areas required for velocity
control and approved by the Division of Land Resources and Water Quality. However rock
vanes, wing deflectors, and similar structures for grade control and bank protection are
acceptable;
10. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
11. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding of
No Significant Impact or Record of Decision is issued by the State Clearinghouse;
12. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects, which require written
concurrence under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water
quality and effluent standards;
13. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire
three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or the notification sent to DWQ.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
STATE CONSISTENCY
Consistent.
Citations:
2002 Nationwide Permits - Federal Register Notice 15 Jan 2002
2002 Nationwide Permits Corrections - Federal Register Notice 13 Feb 2002
2002 Regional Conditions - Authorized 17 May 2002
23
4 `
FEB 0 3 2006
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources -
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandlxck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Sceretaty
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 31, 2006
Randall 'T'urner
Restoration Systems, LLC
Pilot Mill
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604
Office of Archives and Ilistory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration, Onslow County, FR 06-0072
Dear Mr. Turner:
Thank you for your letter of January 4, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
eter Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Italeigh NC: 4617 Mail Seim,- Ccntcr, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 019)733-4763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N Blount Street, Italeigh NC 4617 Mail Scrvicc Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Itakigh, NC 4617 Mail Scrcac (:cmcr, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project In formation

Project ame: Lloyd Property Strum and Wetland Restoration situ
Count Name: onslow County
EEP Number: D06003-1
Pro ect Sponsor: RestorationSystems, LLC
Proj ect Contact Name: Paul Parker
Proj ect Contact Address: 1101 Hayncs Street, suite 107, Raleigh, NC 27604
Proj ect Contact E-mail: Paul (q?restorationsystems.eom
EEP Project Mana er: JcffJurck
Project Descriptio n
The Lloyd Restoration Site encompasses a pproxinlately 25 acres of kind that is cleared for livestock pasture. Site sucenls have been relocated Nona Ili ell historic
Iloodplaln position and have been Illlpacted by ditching, vegetative clcal'ing, hoof shear, and lllclsloll. 'I lie pl'inlal'y g/mis Ill the restoration plan include 1) Construction or
it stable, riffle-pool stream channel, 2) enhancement of waler quality runcIions, 3) creation of a nauu'al vegetation bullet along Site sucanis, 4) restoration of wildlife
habiuu, 5) restoration of,prisdictioaal wetland hydrology to the adjacent floodplain, and 6) establishm ent of a conservation casement. The restoration concept is expected
to restore approximately 4750 linear feet ol'sueam. 3.3 acres of rives ne wetland, and 3.1 acres of nonr iverine wetland.
For Official Use On ly
Reviewed By:
3^9_oG
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:

Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Check this box if there are outstanding Issues
;`e?- SIacU:es sehi?ey s
Final Approval By:

Date 5__ a For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4. 8118/05
los"y'stelln
I?F:?.l?.rP r4tYI
August 18, 2006
Restoration Systems, LLC
Attn: David Schiller
1 101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Lloyd Site Steam and Wetland Restoration Plan
White Oak River Basin - Cataloging Unit 03030001
Onslow County, North Carolina
Contract # D06003-1
Dear Mr. Schiller:
In July 2006, Restoration Systems, I,LC submitted a Restoration Plan for the Lloyd Site Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project.. The project is located approximately one mile northwest of the town of
Jacksonville, in Onslow County, and is in the White Oak Itiver Basin (Cataloging Unit 03030001). The
Plan proposes to restore historic stream and wetland functions to a channelized stream and degraded non-
jurisdictional wetlands. Restoration activities will include removal of spoil from past dredging activities
and improving the streams access to a floodplain, and restoring degraded, currently non jurisdictional
wetlands. These activities will improve floodplain function, reduce sediment and nutrient inputs, and
improve both aquatic and riparian habitat.
An approximately 24.4 acre permanent conservation easement has been placed on the site. As a result of
this restoration project, approximately 4750 Steam Mitigation Units, 3.3 Riverine Wetland Mitigation
Units and 3.1 Non-Riverine Wetland Mitigation ]Units will be generated to provide compensatory
mitigation For permitted unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands in North Carolina.
The Lcosystem Enhancement Program has reviewed the plan and has no additional comments at this time.
Please proceed with acquiring all necessary permits and/or certifications and complete the implementation
of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project ('Cask 4). A copy of this letter should be included with
your 401/404 permit applications.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at [phone] or
email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
(-D
Guy C. Pea ce
LEI' Full Delivery Program Supervisor
???a ?o
AUG 2 1 20U6
cc: Files
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STOP,MAWAT?R BRANCH
A,
t MC®IfMNR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919..715-0476 / www.nceepmet
e
i
RESTORATION PLAN
LLOYD SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Contract #16-D06003-1)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
IN THE CAPE FEAR/WHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030001
Prepared for:
r~
Fcosystem
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
And
Axiom Envimn-tal, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Spring, North Carolina 27592
June 2006

t
F
'L?

t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site), located approximately 1 mile southeast
of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County, will provide a minimum of
4750 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.3 acres of riverine wetland restoration, and 3.1 acres of
nonriverine wetland restoration. The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ]
Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit HU
03030001. This subbasin of the White Oak River Basin is entirely contained within Onslow
County and consists of the New River and its tributaries, several small Coastal Plain streams,
and the Intracoastal Waterway.
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities on the Site. A 24.4-
acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities.
The Site contains 24.4 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River,
riparian buffer, and upland slopes. An undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch, approximately 25
miles northwest of the Site in Duplin County, was utilized as the reference reach.
The two UTs to the New River and adjacent floodplain represent the primary hydrologic features
of the Site. The drainage basin size is approximately 1.4 square miles at the Site outfall. The
Site watershed is characterized by agricultural land, pasture, forest land, and low-density
residential development; less than five percent of the upstream watershed is composed of
impervious surface. Residential development becomes more concentrated south of the
watershed in the City of Jacksonville and north of the watershed in the Town of Richlands. The
Site is characterized by active pastureland, fallow fields, and forest stands. Pastureland is
currently grazed by livestock including cattle and horses, and livestock have access to the entire
Site. No exclusionary barriers occur adjacent to on-Site streams or wetlands and livestock have
degraded stream banks and compacted hydric soils.
Under existing conditions, Site streams are characterized by straightened, G-type reaches. Site
streams have been degraded by dredging, straightening, and rerouting of the stream channels.
Additional stream impacts include bank collapse and erosion, channel incision, changes in
stream power and sediment transport, and loss of characteristic riffle/pool complex. morphology.
Site floodplains and wetlands have been impacted by deforestation, vegetation maintenance,
soil compaction by livestock, and groundwater draw-down from ditching and stream channel
downcutting.
Restoration activities will restore historic stream and wetland functions, which existed on-Site
c prior to channel straightening and rerouting, livestock impacts, and vegetation removal. Stream
construction of meandering, E-type stream channel will result in a minimum of 4750 linear feet
of stream restoration. Wetland restoration will occur within sections of the Site floodplains
(riverine wetlands) and interstream divide (nonriverine wetlands) underlain by hydric soils and
'u will result in the restoration of a minimum of 3.3 acres or riverine wetland and 3.1 acres of
nonriverine wetland. Restoration activities include removal of spoil castings from channel
dredging/straightening activities, filling and redirecting of existing on-Site downcutting reaches,
filling of a drainage ditch within the interstream divide, and revegetation with woody vegetation.
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page 1
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
?C
r,
?1
' Characteristic wetland soil features, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation communities
are expected to develop in areas adjacent to the constructed channel. The existing, degraded
channel will be abandoned and backfilled. Reestablishment of stream-side and hardwood forest
' communities will be undertaken throughout floodplain reaches bordering the restored stream
channel to further protect water quality and enhance opportunities for wildlife.
' A Monitoring Plan will be prepared that entails a detailed analysis of stream geomorphology,
wetland hydrology, and Site vegetation. Monitoring of the project will be conducted as set forth
under the multi-agency Stream Mitigation Guidelines dated April 2003. Success will be based
' on the criteria described under each of the monitored parameters outlined in this document.
Detailed Restoration Plan Executive Summary page 2
I Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ ......................................1
2.0 METHODS ................................................................................. ......................................3
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................... ......................................3
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ........................ ......................................3
3.2 Soils .................................................................................. ......................................4
3.3 Plant Communities ............................................................. ......................................6
3.4 Hydrology .......................................................................... ......................................
3.4.1 Drainage Area ................................................................. ......................................
3.4.2 Discharge ........................................................................ ......................................7
3.5 Stream Characterization .................................................... ......................................
3.5.1 Stream Geometry and Substrate ..................................... ......................................9
3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold ........ ....................................10
3.6.1 Stream Power .................................................................. .................................... 10
3.6.2 Shear Stress .................................................................... .................................... 10
3.63 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results .... ....................................11
3.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................................... ....................................13
3.7.1 Groundwater Modeling ..................................................... ....................................13
3.7.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions .............................. ....................................13
3.7.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications .......................... ....................................14
3.7.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results ................................. ....................................16
4.0 CONSTRAINT EVALUATION ..................................................... ....................................19
4.1 Surface Water Analysis and Hydrologic Trespass .............. ....................................19
4.2 Protected Species .............................................................. ....................................20
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES ............................................................. ....................................21
5.1 Reference Channel ............................................................ ....................................22
5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems ........................................... ....................................23
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN ............................................................... ....................................24
6.1 Stream Restoration ............................................................ ....................................25
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location ..................................... ....................................25
6.1.2 In-Stream Structures ........................................................ ....................................27
6.1.3 Piped Channel Crossing .................................................. ....................................28
6.2 Wetland Restoration .......................................................... ....................................28
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification ............................................... ....................................29
6.4 Plant Community Restoration ............................................ ....................................30
6.5 Planting Plan .....................................................................
3
....................................
7.0 MONITORING PLAN .................................................................. ....................................32
7.1 Stream Monitoring ............................................................. ....................................32
7.2 Stream Success Criteria .................................................... ....................................32
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring ......................................................... .................................... 33
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria ................................................ .................................... 33
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................ .................................... 33
7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria ............................................... ....................................34
7.7 Contingency ....................................................................... .................................... 34
8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................... ....................................36
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page i
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
APPENDIX A TABLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND
FIGURES
APPENDIX B PRECONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPHS
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Map
'
Figure 3 Reference Stream Reach Location
Figure 4 Site Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 5 Drainage Area Land Use
'
Figure 6 Existing Conditions
Figure 7 USDA-SCS Soils Map
' Figure 8 Typical Soil Profiles
Figures 9 Existing Conditions Dimension
Figure 10 Existing Conditions Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
' Figure 11 Proposed Conditions Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
Figures 1 2 Reference Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures PL 1-4 Restoration Plan Sheets
' Figure 14 Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figure 15 Typical Structures
Figure 16 Planting Plan
' Figure 17 Monitoring Plan
I List of Tables
Table 1. USDA Soils Mapped within the Site ....................................................................... .......5
'
Table 2. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis ...................................................... .......8
Table 3. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (c) Values .................................................... .....12
Table 4. DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod ............................... .....17
Table 5. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss ............................................. .....18
Table 6. Federally Protected Species for Onslow County .................................................... .....21
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecosystem ................................................................................ .....24
Table 8. Planting Plan ......................................................................................................... .....31
Detailed Restoration Plan Table of Contents page ii
' Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
LLOYD PROPERTY
DETAILED RESTORATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems is currently developing stream and wetland restoration at the Lloyd Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (Site) located approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5
miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03030001010030 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-05-02) of
the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit HU 03030001 (Figure 2, Appendix
A) (USGS 1974). This subbasin of the White Oak River Basin is entirely contained within
Onslow County and consists of the New River and its tributaries, several small Coastal Plain
streams, and the Intracoastal Waterway (NCDWQ 2001).
This document details planned stream and wetland restoration activities on the Site. A 24.36-
acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities.
The Site contains 24.36 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River,
riparian buffer, and upland slopes. An undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch approximately 25
miles northwest of the Site in Duplin County was utilized as the reference reach (Figure 3,
Appendix A).
The two UTs to the New River and adjacent floodplain represent the primary hydrologic features
of the Site. The drainage basin size is approximately 1.4 square mile at the Site outfall (Figure
4, Appendix A). The Site watershed is characterized by agricultural land, pasture, forest land,
and low-density residential development; less than five percent of the upstream watershed is
composed of impervious surface (Figure 5, Appendix A). Residential development becomes
more concentrated south of the watershed in the Town of Jacksonville and north of the
watershed in the Town of Richlands. The Site is characterized by active pasture, fallow fields,
and forest stands (Figure 6, Appendix A). Pasture is currently grazed by livestock including
cattle and horses, and livestock have access to the entire Site. No exclusionary barriers occur
adjacent to on-Site streams or wetlands and livestock have degraded stream banks and
compacted hydric soils.
Site land use, including livestock grazing, removal of riparian vegetation, and straightening and
rerouting of stream channels, has resulted in degraded water quality, unstable channel
characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank collapse), and decreased wetland
function.
The purpose of this plan is to outline a detailed restoration plan for stream and wetland
restoration activities. The objectives of this study include the following.
• Classify on-Site streams based on fluvial geomorphic principles.
• Identify jurisdictional wetlands and/or hydric soils within the Site boundaries.
• Identify a suitable reference forest, stream, and wetland to model Site restoration
attributes.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 1 I
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
t
• Develop a detailed plan of stream restoration and wetland restoration activities within the
24.4-acre conservation easement boundary.
• Establish success criteria and a method of monitoring the Site upon completion of
¦ restoration construction.
Site restoration efforts will result in the following.
• Restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of stream within two UTs to the New River.
• Restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and restore a minimum
of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional non-riverine wetland.
• Reforest approximately 23.1 acres of floodplain and interstream divide with native forest
species.
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focus on improving water
quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and will be
accomplished by:
• Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including
a) removal of livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) cessation of
broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to
Site streams and wetlands; and c) provide a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and
wetlands to treat surface runoff.
• Reducing sedimentation within on-Site and downstream receiving waters through a) a
reduction of bank erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and
agricultural plowing to Site streams and b) providing a forested vegetative buffer
adjacent to Site streams and wetlands.
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and
sediment loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation through a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby
reducing floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins; c) restoring depressional
floodplain wetlands and increasing storage capacity for floodwaters within the Site; and
d) revegetating Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing
Site floodplains.
• Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability.
• Providing wildlife habitat including a forested riparian corridor within a region of the state
highly dissected by agricultural land use.
This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed within the
Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and
forest studies; 3) restoration plans; and 4) Site monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval
of this plan by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), engineering
construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented as outlined. Proposed
restoration activities may be modified during the civil design stage due to constraints such as
access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints), or
other design considerations.
i
Detailed Restoration Plan
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 2
1
1
2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information was obtained from available sources including USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Catherine Lake, North Carolina), United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) soils mapping for Onslow County (USDA 1992), and recent Onslow County aerial
photography to evaluate existing landscape, stream, and soil information prior to on-Site
inspection.
A reach of Bullard Creek located approximately 25 miles northwest of the Site (Figure 3,
Appendix A) and other off-Site streams were utilized to obtain reference data. Reference
stream and floodplain systems were identified and measured in the field to quantify stream
geometry, substrate, and hydrodynamics to orient the channel reconstruction design. Stream
pattern, dimension, and profile under stable environmental conditions were measured along
reference stream reaches and applied to degraded reaches within the Site. Reconstructed
stream channels and hydraulic geometry relationships have been designed to mimic stable
channels identified and evaluated in the region. Stream characteristics and detailed restoration
plans were developed according to constructs outlined in Rosgen (1996), Dunne and Leopold
(1978), Harrelson et al. (1994), Chang (1988), and State of North Carolina Interagency Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003).
Characteristic and target natural community patterns were classified according to Schafale and
Weakley's, Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990). Plant
communities were delineated and described by structure and composition.
Detailed field investigations were conducted between January and April 2006, including
generation of Site channel cross-sections, profiles, and plan-views; valley cross-sections;
detailed soil mapping; and mapping of on-Site resources. Hydrology, vegetation, and soil
attributes were analyzed to determine the status of jurisdictional areas.
SCS soil mapping and soil map units were ground truthed by a licensed soil scientist to verify
existing soil mapping units and to map inclusions within soil map units. Adjustments to hydric
soil boundaries were delineated using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology with
reported submeter accuracy. Recent (1998) aerial photography was evaluated to determine
primary hydrologic features and to map relevant environmental features.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Lloyd Site is located approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of
Jacksonville, in Onslow County (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site is located in the Middle
Atlantic Coastal Plain, Carolina Flatwoods ecoregion of North Carolina within USGS 14-digit HU
03030001010030 (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service
USGS 8-digit HU 03030001 (Figure 2, Appendix A) (USGS 1974). Regional physiography is
characterized by flat plains on lightly dissected marine terraces. The ecoregion is characterized
by Carolina bays, swamps, and low-gradient streams with silty or sandy substrate (Griffith
Detailed Restoration Plan page 3
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1
1
t
1
[1
t

t

I
2002). This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation
averaging approximately 56 inches per year (USDA 1992).
The Site encompasses two UTs to the New River (main and eastern tributaries) as well as the
adjacent floodplain and hydric soils. The tributaries converge on the Site and drain an
approximately 1.4-square mile watershed at the Site outfall (Figure 4, Appendix A). The main
tributary is a second-order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by ditching,
vegetative clearing, hoof shear from cattle and horses, and erosive flows and is characterized
by excessive incision. A portion of this tributary appears to have been relocated from its original
floodplain position to a linear ditch excavated along the edge of cleared pasture land. The
eastern tributary is a first-order, bank-to-bank stream system, which has been impacted by
ditching, vegetative clearing, hoof shear from cattle and horses, and incision and no longer
receives natural stream flows. A berm was placed near the eastern property/Site boundary to
redirect stream flows into a linear ditch that drains south along the eastern property boundary
into roadside ditches along the southern property boundary. The roadside ditch ties into the
main tributary in the southwestern portion of the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A). Site tributaries
flow through a relatively broad, gently sloping (approximately 0.003 to 0.004 rise/run) alluvial
valley (Valley Type VIII) with a floodplain width ranging from 150 to 250 feet.
The upstream drainage basin is characterized mainly by agricultural and forest land with
interspersed low-density residential development; impervious surfaces appear to account for
less than 5 percent of the drainage basin area (Figures 4 and 5, Appendix A). Residential
development becomes more concentrated south of the watershed in the City of Jacksonville and
north of the watershed in the Town of Richlands. The Site is characterized by active pasture,
fallow fields, and forest stands (Figure 6, Appendix A). Pasture is currently grazed by livestock,
which have access the entire Site.
3.2 Soils
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina
are depicted in Figure 7 (Appendix A) and described in Table 1 (USDA 1992). On-Site
verification and ground-truthing of SCS map units were conducted in January 2006 by a
licensed soil scientist to refine soil map units and to locate inclusions. Refined soil mapping
units are depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A). Systematic transects were established and
sampled to ensure proper coverage. Soils were sampled for color, texture, consistency, and
depth at each documented horizon.
Detailed soil mapping for the Site has been prepared based on landscape position and hydric
verses nonhydric characteristics. Hydric soils were further distinguished as riverine or
nonriverine for purposes of wetland restoration planning.
three revised soil map units were identified: 1) hydric
interstream soils (nonriverine), and 3) nonhydric soils.
Detailed Restoration Plan
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
As depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A),
floodplain soils (riverine), 2) hydric
page 4
Table 1. US DA Soils Ma ed within the S ite
Soil Series Hydric Family Description
Status
This series consists of moderately well-drained, slowly
permeable soils on slightly convex divides near large
Aquic drainageways in uplands. Slopes are generally between
Craven Nonhydric Hapludults 1 and 4 percent. Depth to the seasonal high water table
occurs at 2 to 3 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of
more than 60 inches.
This series consists of moderately well-drained,
moderately permeable soils on uplands. Slopes are
Goldsboro Nonhydric Aqui c generally between 0 and 2 percent. Depth to the
Paleudults seasonal high water table occurs at 2 to 3 feet. Soft
bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils in shallow depressions on
Grifton Class A uplands. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs
Och aqualfs at 0.5 to 1 foot. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more
than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly
drained, slowly permeable soils in interstream areas in
Lenoir Class B Aeric uplands. Depth to the seasonal high water table occurs
Paleaquults at 1 to 2.5 feet. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more
than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
Typic moderately permeable soils of floodplains. Depth to the
Muckalee Class A Fluvaquents seasonal high water table occurs at 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Soft
bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60 inches.
This series consists of nearly level, poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils in interstream areas. Depth

Rains
Class A Typic
to the seasonal high.water table occurs at or near the
Paleaquults surface. Soft bedrock occurs at a depth of more than 60
inches.
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (Environmental
Laboratory 1987). Based on SCS mapping, hydric soils underlying the Site stream channels,
immediate floodplain, and interstream divide include soils of the Muckalee and Rains series.
Detailed soil mapping of the Site indicates that hydric soils of the Muckalee series encompass
approximately 19.2 acres (79 percent of the Site) adjacent to Site stream channels targeted for
restoration and extend into the immediate floodplain (Figure 6, Appendix A). Soils of the
Muckalee series are characterized by light gray to dark gray or gley colored matrix with mottles
consisting of sandy loam textured surface soils underlain by sandy clay loam or sandy clay
textured soils (Figure 8, Appendix A). In general, areas of hydric soils of the Muckalee series
Detailed Restoration Plan
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 5
t
t
' have been disturbed by stream alterations including dredging, straightening, rerouting, and
downcutting of streams; floodplain ditching; deforestation; and soil compaction due to livestock
grazing. Based on preliminary studies, on-Site soils of the Muckalee series appear to have
historically supported jurisdictional riverine wetlands that were intermittently flooded by over-
bank stream flows, upland runoff, groundwater migration into the Site, and, to a lesser extent,
direct precipitation.
Detailed soil mapping of the Site indicates that hydric soils of the Rains series encompass
approximately 3.3 acres (14 percent of the Site) within the interstream divide between Site
streams (Figure 6, Appendix A). Soils of the Rains series are characterized by mottled light
t gray or gley colored sandy loams underlain by sandy clay (Figure 8, Appendix A). In general,
areas of hydric soils of the Rains series have been disturbed by ditching, deforestation, and soil
compaction due to livestock grazing. Based on preliminary studies, on-Site soils of the Rains
series appear to have historically supported jurisdictional nonriverine wetlands with groundwater
hydrology driven primarily by precipitation.
Restoration of wetland hydrology and replanting with native hydrophytic vegetation will be
performed in the areas of hydric soils including both the Muckalee (riverine wetlands) and Rains
(nonriverine wetlands) series. See Section 6.2 for detailed wetland restoration information.
Nonhydric Soils
Based on SCS mapping and field observations, nonhydric soils underlying the Site are mapped
as Craven fine sandy loam, Goldsboro fine sandy loam, and Lenoir loam.
Nonhydric soils mapped at the Site occur on upland margins of the Site floodplain and
q interstream divide, encompassing approximately 1.81 acres (7 percent) of the Site (Figure 6,
Appendix A). Nonhydric floodplain soils are generally located on gentle rises in the Site and are
characterized by dark grayish-brown to grayish-brown colored sandy loam or dark gray colored
loam underlain by sandy clay (Figure 8, Appendix A). These soils may be subject to occasional
flooding; however, aerobic features in the soil profile suggest that the landscape position and
soil permeability are sufficient to maintain nonhydric soil characteristics.
r!i - 3.3 Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
s topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Two plant communities
have been identified on the Site: 1) pasture/fallow fields and 2) forest (Figure 6, Appendix A).
Pastureland maintains little vegetative diversity, and is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.)
planted for grazing. Occasional opportunistic weeds are encountered and various shrubs and
vines occur along ditch and stream banks such as greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and rushes (Juncus spp.).
Forested areas occur within a small portion of the Site (Figure 6, Appendix A). This community
is characterized by a canopy layer consisting of sweetgum (L iquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), American
holly (Ilex opaca), white oak (Quercus alba), water oak (Quercus nigra), loblolly pine (Pinus
ti
Detailed Restoration Plan page 6
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
t
i
taeda), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The understory is sparse and consists of
species listed above as well as sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, Chinese privet, and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida).
3.4 Hydrology
Hydrology within riverine areas of the Site is defined by the presence of surface water flows,
groundwater migration into open water conveyances, groundwater seepage onto floodplain
surfaces, and, to a lesser extent, precipitation. Surface water flows result primarily from
upstream drainage basin catchment, discharge into upstream feeder tributaries, and surface
water flows into and through the Site. r'
Hydrology within nonriverine areas of the Site are defined by high water tables, poor drainage
resulting in surface ponding, sheet flow from adjacent areas, and precipitation.
3.4.1 Drainage Area
This hydrophysiographic region is considered characteristic of the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The region is characterized by Carolina bays, swamps, and low-gradient streams
with silty or sandy substrate (Griffith 2002). This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by
moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging approximately 56 inches per year (USDA 1992).
The Site occurs within USGS 14-digit HU 03030001010030 (NCDWQ Subbasin 03-05-02) of
the White Oak River Basin (Figure 2, Appendix A) (USGS 1974).
The Site drainage area encompasses approximately 1.4 square miles at the downstream Site
outfall (Figure 4, Appendix A). The drainage area is characterized by agricultural land, forest,
and low-density residential development (Figure 5, Appendix A). The two Site UTs to the New
River ultimately drain to a section of the New River which has been assigned Stream Index
Number 19-(1) and a Best Usage Classification of C NSW (NCDWQ 2005).
3.4.2 Discharge
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the
channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon
et al. 1992). Current research also estimates a bankfull discharge of 11.4 cubic feet per second
(cfs) would be expected to occur approximately every 0.1 to 0.3 years (Geratz et al. 2003). This
is much shorter than previous state and nationwide estimates in other ecoregions of
approximately every 1.3 to 1.5 years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994). The shortened recurrence
interval may be attributed to precipitation inputs onto wide, nearly level land with a large surface
storage capacity, an elevated water table, and slow flushing rates (Geratz et al. 2003).
The Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic province; therefore, regional curves for
the Coastal Plain (Geratz et al. 2003) were utilized and verified by regional regression
equations, Cowan's roughness equation method, and reference stream data.
Based on available Coastal Plain regional curves, the bankfull discharge for the reference reach
averages approximately 11.0 cubic feet per second (Geratz et al. 2003). The USGS regional
regression equation for the Coastal Plain region indicates that bankfull discharge for the
t

Detailed Restoration Plan page 7
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site I
t

1
reference reach at a 0.1 to 0.3 year return interval averages approximately 4.5 to 12.0 cfs
(USGS 2001). In addition, a stream roughness coefficient (n) was estimated using a version of
Arcement and Schneider's (1989) weighted method for Cowan's (1956) roughness component
values and applied to the following equation (Manning 1891) to obtain a bankfull discharge
estimate.
Qbkf = [1.486/n] * [A*R213*Sv2]

where, A equals bankfull area, R equals bankfull hydraulic radius, and S equals average water
surface slope. The Manning's "n" method indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference
reach averages approximately 20.6 cubic feet per second. Field indicators of bankfull and riffle
cross-sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross-sectional area for the reference
reach. The Coastal Plain regional curves were then utilized to plot the watershed area and
discharge for the reference reach cross-sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull approximate
an average discharge of 11.4 cfs for the reference reach.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions
at the Site will be based on bankfull indicators found on the reference reach and Coastal Plain
regional curves. Table 2 summarizes all methods analyzed for estimating bankfull discharge.
To verify regional curves and USGS regression models, gauged streams are generally analyzed
to determine a return interval for momentary peak discharges. Momentary peak discharges
(return interval between 0.1 to 0.3 years) would be calculated from the USGS gauge data
collected monthly and plotted against the regional curve. However, data for stations within
close proximity to the Site and of a similar drainage area were not available. The limited
number of available stations within Onslow and surrounding counties occurred on large rivers
with drainage areas ranging from 94 square miles to greater than 500 square miles. Therefore,
data from such gauges is not applicable to the Site, which ranges from 0.5 square mile to 1.4
square miles at the Site outfall.
I axle Z. Reterence Reach Bankfull Disc har a Analysis
Watershed Area Return Interval Discharge
Method (square miles ears cfs
Coastal Plain Regional Curves
Geratz et al. 2003 1.27 0.1-0.3 11.0
Coastal Plain Regional Regression Model
USGS 2001 1.27 0.1-0.3 4.5-12.0
Mannin 's "n" using Cowan's Method 1956 1.27 NA 20.6
Field Indicators of Bankfull (Coastal Plain Regional
Curves, Geratz at al. 2003 1.32 0.1-0.3 11.4
3.5 Stream Characterization
Stream characterization is intended to orient stream restoration based on a classification
utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies streams into
comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate characteristics. Primary
components of the classification include degree of entrenchment, width-to-depth ratio, sinuosity,
Detailed Restoration Plan page 8
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
channel slope, and stream substrate composition. Existing Site reaches are classified as G-
type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio) streams. Each stream type is modified by a number
1 through 6 (e. g., E5), denoting a stream type which supports a substrate dominated by 1)
bedrock, 2) boulders, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6) silt/clay.
3.5.1 Stream Geometry and Substrate
Locations of existing stream reaches and cross-sections are depicted in Figure 6 (Appendix A).
Stream geometry measurements under existing conditions are summarized in Figure 9 and the
Morphological Stream Characteristics Table in Appendix A. The Site is characterized by
dredged and straightened, G-type streams. The reference reach exhibits a sinuous, E-type
channel and is discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.
G-type (entrenched, low width-to-depth ratio) streams are generally in a mode of degradation
derived from near continuous channel adjustments resulting from very high bank erosion. Bed
and bank erosion typically leads to channel downcutting and evolution from a stable E-type
channel into a G-type (gully) channel. Continued erosion eventually results in lateral extension
of the G-type channel into an F-type (widened gully) channel. The F-type channel will continue
to widen laterally until the channel is wide enough to support a stable C-type or E-type channel
at a lower elevation so that the original floodplain is no longer subject to regular flooding.
Existing stream characteristics are summarized below.
Dredged and Straightened G-type Reach
Dimension: Site streams have been dredged and straightened and are classified as G-
type reaches. Cross-sectional areas of the channel currently range from 41.7 to 94.2 square
feet (compared to 6.1 to 7.2 square feet predicted by this study). Incision of the channels is
indicated by bank-height ratios ranging from 5.1 to 6.4. The channels are currently
characterized by eroding banks as the channels attempt to enlarge to a stable cross-sectional
area as described in the evolutionary process outlined above.
Pattern: Straightening of the channels have resulted in a loss of pattern variables such
as belt-width, meander wavelength, pool-to-pool spacing, and radius of curvature. The channel
is currently characterized by a low sinuosity of 1.02 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance) and
no distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools is present.
Profile: The average water surface slope for the dredged and straightened reaches
measures 0.0032 for the main tributary and 0.0043 for the eastern tributary (rise/run). These
values are nearly equal to the valley slopes (0.0033 and 0.0044, respectively) resulting in a
sinuosity of 1.02. Typically, dredging and straightening will oversteepen a channel reducing
channel length over a particular drop in valley slope, as is depicted in this case. In addition,
dredging and straightening channels disturbs perpendicular flow vectors that maintain riffles and
pools, resulting in headcuts, oversteepened riffles, and loss of pools.
Substrate: Channel substrate is characterized by silt- and sand-sized particles typical of
this region of North Carolina.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 9
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
t

3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold
3.6.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing water and sediment load.
One form of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to
aggradation, or deposition of sediment onto the stream bed. Conversely, when the ability of the
stream to transport sediment exceeds the availability of sediments entering a reach, and/or
stability thresholds for materials forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or
degradation occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream
power can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment
transport of streams. Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream
power) or per unit of channel bed area. The total stream power equation is defined as:
It
0 = pgQs
where Q = total stream power (ft-Ib/s-ft), p = density of water (lb/ft3), g = gravitational
acceleration (ft/sz), Q = discharge (ft3/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of
water (y = 62.4 Ib/ft) is equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg.
A general evaluation of power for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge
and water surface slope for the reach. As slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase,
stream power increases and more energy is available for reworking channel materials.
Straightening and clearing channels increases slope and velocity and thus stream power.
Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power. In particular, over-
widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This process will
decrease stream power, allowing sediment to fall out of the water column, possibly leading to
aggradation of the stream bed.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream
power. Streams that remain within their banks at high flows tend to have higher stream power
and relatively coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood over their banks onto
adjacent floodplains have lower stream power, transport finer sediments, and are more stable.
Stream power assessments can be useful in evaluating sediment discharge within a stream and
the deposition or erosion of sediments from the stream bed.
3.6.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing
water exerts on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment
supply (size and amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the
stream bed and bank on water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the
ability of a stream to efficiently transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For flow that is steady and uniform, the average boundary shear stress exerted by water on the
bed is defined as follows:
ti
Detailed Restoration Plan page 10
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
=7Rs
where = shear stress (lb/ft), y = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the
energy slope (ft/ft). Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not
necessarily provide a good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to
account for local variability and instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied
based on channel form and irregularity. For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can
be assumed from the following equation:
timax = 1.5i
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
ti max = 2.65T (Rc /\/Vbkf) o.5
where R, = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope,
dimension, and pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity
increase to maintain adequate shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have
higher shear stress values than required for bedload transport will scour bed and bank
materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with lower shear stress values than
needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the
available power divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and
vegetation. The stream power equation can thus be written as follows:
w = pgQs = iv
where w = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft), = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
(A = Q/Wbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces exceed or do not approach
the resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a function of
relative magnitude of these forces over time. The interaction of flow within the boundary of
open channels is only imperfectly understood. Adequate analytical expressions describing this
interaction have yet to be developed for conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of
characterizing these processes rely heavily upon empirical formulas.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 11
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1
t
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories: 1)
maximum permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The
' former is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream
power cannot be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters.
However, stream power and shear stress are generally better measures of fluid force on the
channel boundary than velocity.
Using these equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged
and straightened, G-type reaches, 2) the reference reach, and 3) proposed on-Site conditions.
Important input values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit
shear power and shear stress) are presented in Table 3. Average stream velocity and
discharge values were calculated for the existing on-Site stream reaches, the reference reach,
and proposed conditions.
In order to maintain sediment transport functions of a stable stream system, the proposed
channel should exhibit stream power and shear stress values so that the channel is neither
aggrading nor degrading. Results of the analysis indicate that the proposed channel reaches
are expected to maintain stream power as a function of width values of approximately 0.20 and
shear stress values of approximately 0.17 (slightly lower than that of the reference reach and
t existing degrading reaches).
Table 3. Stream Power (0) and Shear Stress (ti) Values
Water Total Shear
Discharge surface Stream Hydraulic Stress Velocity
ft% Slope ft/ft Power 0 Q/W Radius M T V TMOX
Existing Conditions
G-type* I 12.0 I 6.0039 2.92 0.32 I 1.03 I 0.25 1.00 1-6.25-16.36-
Reference Reach 11.0 0.0040 2.75 0.30 0.99 0.25 0.95 0.23 0.37
Proposed Conditions_
E-type* 12.0 0.0029
2.17 0.20 I 0.92 0.17 0.99 10.16 1 0.25
T
* At the Site outfall
it,

r
Stream power and shear stress values are higher for the dredged and straightened, G-type
reach, than for proposed E-type channels. Existing reaches are degrading as evidenced by
bank erosion, channel incision, low width-depth ratios, and bank-height ratios greater than 5;
degradation has resulted from a combination of water surface slopes that have been steepened,
channel straightening, dredging, and trampling by livestock. Stream power and shear stress
values for the proposed channels should be lower than for existing channels to effectively
transport sediment through the Site without eroding and downcutting, resulting in stable channel
characteristics.
Reference reach values for stream power and shear stress are slightly higher than for the
proposed channels; however, the valley and water surface slopes are slightly higher for the
reference reach resulting in higher stream power and shear stress values. The reference reach
is characterized by fully forested riparian fringes and is therefore able to resist stream power
Detailed Restoration Plan page 12
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
and shear stress of these magnitudes. However, the proposed channels will be devoid of deep
rooted vegetation; therefore, proposed targets for stream power and shear stress values should
be slightly less than predicted for the reference reach.
3.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual,
the presence of three clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology) are required for a wetland jurisdictional determination.
Hydric soil limits were mapped in the field during January 2006. Based on field surveys and
groundwater models discussed below, jurisdictional wetlands do not currently occur within the
Site with the exception of an approximately 0.5 acre area located near the Site outfall (Figure
10, Appendix A). Areas within the Site which may have historically contained jurisdictional
wetlands have been significantly disturbed by compaction due to livestock grazing; relocation,
dredging, straightening, and rerouting of on-Site streams; ditching of fields; and removal of
vegetation and are currently effectively drained below jurisdictional wetland hydrology
thresholds.
Historically, on-Site wetlands may have supported communities similar to a Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp and a Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) communities typically occur on
alluvial floodplains of small blackwater streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally
flooded. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests are typically located on poorly drained interstream
flats not associated with a stream. Despite the landscape position difference between the
riverine and nonriverine areas of the Site, vegetative communities are similar and historically
may have been dominated by species contained within the reference forest located upstream of
the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A) such as sweetgum, cherrybark oak, tulip poplar, ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and American holly within an understory
of sweetbay, fetterbush, highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and giant cane. On-Site
impacts may have reduced hydrologic functions, biogeochemical functions, and plant and
animal habitat interactions of these communities.
3.7.1 Groundwater Modeling
Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize water table elevations under historic
(reference), existing, and post-restoration conditions. Specifically, the study compared the
output of two models (the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD) to estimate the lateral effect
of agricultural drainage ditches and downcutting stream channels within the Site on the depth to
the groundwater table.
3.7.1.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions
Boussinesq Equation
The Boussinesq Equation represents a two-dimensional general flow equation for unconfined
aquifers. The equation has been applied in the past to predict the decline in elevation of the
water table near a pumping well as time progresses. The equation is based primarily on
Detailed Restoration Plan page 13
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

hydraulic conductivity, drainable porosity, and the saturated thickness of the aquifer. One form
of the equation is as follows:
X = (K ho t/f)'"'/ F(D,H)
where K = hydraulic conductivity (in/hr); ho = depth to aquiclude (in); t = duration (hours); f =
drainable porosity (dimensionless ratio); F(D,H) = profiles (graphs) relating ditch depth, water
table depth, and depth to the aquiclude(ho); and X = wetland impact distance (in).
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was originally developed to simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and
water table control systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD predicts
water balances in the soil-water regime at the midpoint between two drains of equal elevation.
The model is capable of calculating hourly values for water table depth, surface runoff,
subsurface drainage, infiltration, and actual evapotranspiration over long periods referenced to
measured climatological data. The reliability of DRAINMOD has been tested for a wide range of
soil, crop, and climatological conditions. Results of tests in North Carolina (Skaggs, 1982), Ohio
(Skaggs et al. 1981), Louisiana (Gayle et al. 1985; Fouss et al. 1987), Florida (Rogers 1985),
Michigan (Belcher and Merva 1987), and Belgium (Susanto et al. 1987) indicate that the model
can be used to reliably predict water table elevations and drain flow rates. DRAINMOD has also
been used to evaluate wetland hydrology by Skaggs et al. (1993). Methods for evaluating water
balance equations and equation variables are discussed in detail in Skaggs (1980).
DRAINMOD was modified for application in wetland studies by adding a counter that
accumulates the number of events wherein the water table rises above a specified depth and
remains above that threshold depth for a given duration during the growing season. Important
inputs into the DRAINMOD model include rainfall data, soil and surface storage parameters,
evapotranspiration rates, ditch depth and spacing, and hydraulic conductivity values.
3.7.1.2 Groundwater Modeling Applications
Boussinesa Equation
In this study, the Boussinesq Equation was applied to agricultural field ditches and entrenched
stream channels to predict where the linear distance of a drawdown in the groundwater exceeds
1 foot for 5 percent of the growing season. This percentage was selected based upon reference
wetland groundwater modeling described below and guidance from the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The equation is solved for the
wetland impact distance with data for the following variables 1) equivalent hydraulic
conductivity, 2) drainable porosity, 3) an estimated depth to the impermeable layer or aquiclude,
4) the time duration of the drawdown, 5) target water table depth (1 foot below the soil surface),
and 6) minimum ditch depth.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) values were estimated using published conductivity data in the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Skaggs et al. 2002) and the Onslow County soil survey (USDA
1992). The soil layer depths were obtained from descriptions in the Onslow County soil survey
and were verified in the field. Drainable porosity was determined using published data (Skaggs
et al. 1986) and records maintained by the USDA-NRCS National STATSGO database (Map
Detailed Restoration Plan page 14
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Unit User File [MUUF] computer program). The depth to aquiclude was obtained from
published values for both the Rains and Muckalee series (Skaggs et al. 1986).
The time variable, t, is based on 5 percent of the Onslow County growing season or 11 days.
For the purpose of this study, the growing season is defined as the period between April 8 and
November 5 (USDA 1992). Values for the function F(D,H), defined as a function of ditch depth,
water table depth, and depth to the aquiclude, were taken from plotted numerical solutions to
the Boussinesq Equation (Figure 2j, Skaggs 1976), where D = d/h0 and H = h/h0. The variable
d is defined as the ditch elevation above the aquiclude. The variable h0 is the distance from the
surface to the aquiclude. The variable h is equal to the height after drawdown for the water
above the aquiclude at distance X from the ditch. For the purposes of this analysis, h was
defined as the distance between the aquiclude and a point 1 foot below the surface. Minimum
ditch depths were determined during cross-sectional analysis of agricultural field ditches.
DRAINMOD
DRAINMOD was used to model the zone of wetland loss resulting from the addition of the
agricultural field ditches and channel incision. This zone was estimated by determining the
threshold drain spacing of parallel ditches that would result in the area adjacent to the ditches
meeting the wetland hydrology criterion in just over one-half of the years simulated. Ditches
spaced any closer than this threshold distance would result in the entire area between the
ditches experiencing a loss of wetland hydrology. If ditches were spaced further apart than the
threshold distance, there would be a strip between the ditches which would still meet wetland
hydrology criteria. One-half of this threshold spacing provides an estimate of the drainage effect
on each side of a single agricultural field ditch. This application of the model recognizes that the
water table midway between two ditches spaced at the threshold spacing will be lower (i.e., the
soil at that point will be drier) than would be the case at the same distance from a single ditch
(i.e., at a distance of one-half the threshold spacing from a single ditch). This results in a
conservative estimate of drainage impacts for a single ditch to the adjacent groundwater table.
A second ditch parallel to the first ditch at the threshold distance would cut off seepage from the
zone beyond the threshold distance and permit greater groundwater table drawdowh at the
midpoint than would occur if this second ditch were not present. Therefore, the width of the strip
of land that would experience hydrologic conversion from wetland to upland hydraulic conditions
would be less than a distance equal to one-half the threshold spacings.
Wetland hydrology is defined for DRAINMOD as groundwater within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 11 consecutive days during the growing season in Onslow County (USDA 1992).
Wetland hydrology is achieved in the model if target hydroperiods are met for one-half of the
years modeled (i.e. 21 out of 42 years).
Additional inputs for soil parameters and relationships derived from soil water characteristic data
such as the groundwater table depth/volume drained/upflux relationship, Green-ampt
parameters, and the water content/matric suction relationship were obtained from published
values (Skaggs et al. 1986). Hydraulic conductivities and ditch depths were calculated as
described above. Surface depressional storage was estimated from published ranges (Skaggs
et al. 1994 and Skaggs 1980) after visiting the Site. Drainage coefficients for the ditches were
calculated based on formulas provided with DRAINMOD.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 15
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
L

Weather data for a 42-year period was obtained for North Wilmington, North Carolina in New
Hanover County. Potential evapotranspiration rates were calculated based on Thornthwaite's
method and adjusted using monthly factors derived from more reliable average values for crop
evapotranspiration for the Coastal Plain known from New Hanover County. The DRAINMOD
simulation was conducted for the time period from 1949 through 1991.
t 3.7.1.3 Groundwater Modeling Results
Reference Wetland Model
For development of reference wetland standards, modeling was performed to predict historic
wetland hydroperiods (as a percentage of the growing season) in various undrained conditions.
The reference model was developed by effectively eliminating the influence of ditching and
forecasting the average hydroperiod over the number of years modeled. Two iterations were
performed to evaluate changes in wetland hydroperiod between 1) old field (post-farmland)
stages of wetland development and 2) forested stages of wetland development.
Old field stages of wetland development were simulated by modifying soil drainage
characteristics such as rooting functions in proximity to the B (clay) horizon, A horizon (plow
layer) hydraulic conductivity, and water storage capacity within the plow layer. The old field
model provides a hypothetical approximation of the potential hydroperiod exhibited immediately
after channel restoration is conducted and drainage networks are removed.
Forested stages were modeled to predict wetland hydroperiods that may occur within reference
(relatively undisturbed) wetlands in the region. The reference forest model is expected to
provide a projection of wetland hydroperiods and associated functions that may be achieved
over the long term (10 or more years) as a result of wetland restoration activities and steady
state forest conditions. The steady state model application assumes increases in rooting
functions, organic matter content, and water storage capacity relative to post-farmland periods.
The reference model predicts that, in Rains and Muckalee soils, old field stages of wetland
development exhibit an average wetfand hydroperiod encompassing 10 and 8 percent of the
growing season, respectively, over the years modeled (Table 4). This average hydroperiod
translates to free water within 1 foot of the soil surface for an 11 day period. During the 42-year
modeling period, reference wetland hydroperiods exhibited a range extending from less than 2
percent (38 out of 42 years) to more than 20 percent (2 out of 42 years) of the growing season,
dependent upon rainfall patterns (Table 4).
r
Detailed Restoration Plan page 16
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table 4 DRAINMOD Results for the Reference Wetland Hydroperiod
Number of Years Wetland H dro lo Achieved (42-year eriod
Duration of the Growing'Season Rai ns Muckalee
Wetland Hydrology Achieved Old Field
Stage* Forested
tale" Old Field
Sta e* Forested
Stage"
2% 4 days 38 41 34 37
4% 8 days 35 36 30 34
6% 12 days 32 36 28 33
8% 16 da s 27 36 19 31
10% 22 days 19 31 8 25
12% 26 days 13 28 3 21
14% 30 days 7 26 2 19
16% 34 days 7 24 1 16
18% 38 days 3 21 0 14
20% 42 days 2 16 0 11
22% 46 days 0 16 0 9
24% 50 days 0 10 0 5
26% 54 da s 0 7 0
11 5
28 % 60 days 0 3 0 2
30 % 64 da s 0 3 0 2
Old Field Stage - immediately after backfilling and plugging ditches; relatively low surface water storage
"" Forested Stage -10 or more years after restoration; relatively high surface water storage
As surface topography, rooting, roughness, and storage variables increase during successional
phases, the model predicts that hydroperiods will increase to steady state forest conditions with
an average wetland hydroperiod of 18 percent in Rains soils and 12 percent in Muckalee soils
over the 42 years modeled (Table 4). The average hydroperiod translates to free water within 1
foot of the soil surface for a 38-day period in Rains soils and a 26-day period in Muckalee soils.
Again, the hydroperiod ranges from less than 12 percent (1 year) to more than 30 percent (3
years) during the 42 year period dependent upon rainfall patterns. Therefore, the reference
model suggests that groundwater fluctuations must be tracked within a reference wetland site to
accurately assess a target hydroperiod for any given year.
As described above, the average wetland hydroperiod in Rains and Muckalee soils is forecast to
exhibit a gradual increase from less than 10 percent of the growing season immediately after
Site implementation to as much as 18 percent in Rains and 12 percent in Muckalee under
steady state forest conditions. A gradual increase in hydroperiods may suggest that water
storage capacity (rooting functions, organic materials/debris accumulation, microtopography,
etc.) exhibits a significant effect on maintenance of wetland hydrology in on-Site wetlands. In
old field stages of succession, accelerated runoff may occur within the compacted soil surfaces.
For purposes of this preliminary model, runoff is assumed to occur at accelerated rates which
reduce the influence of evapotranspiration on wetland hydrodynamics. This accelerated
drainage would be expected to decrease as successional vegetation colonizes the Site.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 17
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
r
Because wetland hydroperiods during old field stages of wetland development are projected to
extend for less than 12.5 percent of the growing season, wetland monitoring plans that extend
for a five-year period after restoration should utilize a minimum 5 percent wetland hydrology
criteria to substantiate restoration success. Alternatively, hydroperiods within the restored
wetland area may be compared to the reference wetland, with success criteria stipulating that
restored wetland hydroperiods must exceed 75 percent of the wetland hydroperiod exhibited by
.. reference.
Methods may be employed to increase complexity in the soil surface (A-horizon plow layer)
during restoration activities. These modifications, including woody debris deposition and soil
scarification, may increase water storage capacity across the surface of relatively impermeable
layers (B-horizon surface). If water storage is not adequately established during early stages of
wetland development, marginal or non-wetland conditions may occur in elevated areas of the
Site. Invariably, rooting influences on water storage capacity will require an extended period of
forest development to establish (assumed at greater than 10 years).
Existing Site Conditions
Groundwater models were utilized to forecast the maximum zone of ditch and incised stream
influence on jurisdictional wetland hydroperiods. The maximum zone of influence may be used
to predict the area of wetland hydrological restoration that may result due to Site
implementation. In addition, the model provides an estimate of the area that may continue to be
degraded in perpetuity by remaining ditches used to drain adjacent pastureland. Ditch depths
and spacing were varied in the model until wetland hydroperiods were reduced relative to the
reference groundwater model predictions.
Both the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD have an ability to support different ditch
morphology and features, suggesting that use of these methods in evaluation of drainage
impacts from agricultural field ditches and stream channel incision is applicable with proper data
inputs. Performing a comparison of output from both models is recommended due to output
predictions typically within the lower limits (Boussinesq Equation) and upper limits (DRAINMOD)
of the range of drainage influence likely to occur in real world conditions. Groundwater model
results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Results for the Zone of Influence and Wetland Loss
` Zone of Influence feet
Ditch Depth
i3ousslnesq Equation DRAINMOD Model" Drainage Impact Used for
(feet) this Stud
Rains Muckalee Rains Muckalee Rains Muckalee
1 10 9 82 55 46 32
3 106 86 222 138 164 112
5 132 104 275 188
"Zone of influence equal to half of the modeled ditch s
acin 204 146
p
g.
The Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD model predict a range of influence on the
jurisdictional wetland hydroperiod (5 percent of growing season) of 86 to 222 feet of lateral zone
of influence for a 3-foot ditch, dependent upon soil type (Table 5) . The Boussinesq Equation
1

Detailed Restoration Plan page 18
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
value is expected to be at the low end of the drainage impact and the DRAINMOD model value
is expected to be at the high end of the drainage impact. Therefore, an average value for
drainage impact was calculated from the Boussinesq Equation and DRAINMOD results. Figure
10 (Appendix A) provides a depiction of modeled wetland hydroperiods based on ditch depths
and spacing under existing conditions. As the Site succeeds towards steady state forest
conditions, the zone of potential wetland loss is expected to be reduced due to projected, lower
infiltration and runoff rates.
Groundwater model simulations for existing conditions indicate that all hydric Rains soils (3.29
acres) and approximately 18.66 acres of hydric Muckalee soils within the Site are below
jurisdictional wetland hydrology criteria and are considered effectively drained due to the
groundwater drawdown from relocation, dredging, straightening, and rerouting of on-Site
streams; ditching of fields; livestock grazing; and removal of vegetation (Table 5 and Figure 10,
Appendix A). Of these effectively drained areas, groundwater model simulations indicate that
jurisidictional wetland hydrology will be restored as the result of Site restoration activities within
approximately 6.98 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and approximately 3.29 acres of
jurisdictional nonriverine wetland (Figure 11, Appendix A). However, a portion of the area
restored according to the groundwater model simulations is located within the restored stream
channel's 50 foot riparian buffer and therefore, will not count toward the Site wetland restoration
acreages; Site construction activities will result in a minimum of 3.3 acres of riverine wetland
restoration and a minimum of 3.1 acres of nonriverine wetland restoration.
4.0 CONSTRAINT EVALUATION
4.1 Surface Water Analysis and Hydrologic Trespass
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to
predict the feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects
to the Site or adjacent properties. The following presents a summary of hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses along with provisions designed to maximize groundwater recharge and
wetland restoration while reducing potential for impacts to adjacent properties.
The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year
storms under existing and proposed conditions after stream and wetland restoration activities
have been implemented. The comparative flood elevations are evaluated by simulating peak
flood flows for Site features using the WMS (Watershed Modeling System, BOSS International)
program and regional regression equations. Once the flows are determined, the river geometry
and cross-sections are digitized from a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) surface (prepared by a
professional surveyor) using the HEC-GeoRAS component of ArcView. The cross-sections are
adjusted as needed based on field-collected data. Once corrections to the geometry are
performed, the data is imported into HEC-RAS.
Watersheds and land use estimations were measured from existing DEM (Digital Elevation
Model) data and an aerial photograph. Field surveyed cross-sections and water surfaces were
obtained along Site features. Valley cross-sections were obtained from both on-Site cross-
sections and detailed topographic mapping to 1-foot contour intervals using the available DTM.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 19
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
t
Observations of existing hydraulic characteristics will be incorporated into the model and the
computed water surface elevations will be calibrated using engineering judgment.
The HEC-RAS will be completed prior to completion of detailed construction plans for Site
restoration activities. A primary objective of the stream and wetland restoration design is
maintenance of a no-rise in the 100-year floodplain. Although the Site is located within a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway, no FEMA cross-sections or
detailed mapping occurs within the Site; therefore, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) are not expected to be necessary at this time.
However, coordination with FEMA will be conducted, if necessary, prior to initiating Site
construction activities.
4.2 Protected Species
Federal Species
Species with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened species" Is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Based on the most recently updated county-by-county database of federally listed species in
North Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html, 13 federally
t protected species are listed for Onslow County. Table 6 lists the federally protected species for
,,. Onslow County and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each.
Potential habitat may occur within the Site for American alligator; however, this species is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with another rare species, which does not occur in
North Carolina, and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. In addition, potential habitat may
occur within the Site for Cooley's meadowrue, golden sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife in the
form of wet, maintained ditches. Plant-by-plant surveys within suitable habitat were completed
during the optimal survey window for golden sedge and rough-leaved loosestrife on May 31,
2006 and for Cooley's meadowrue on June 19, 2006. Prior to conducting plant surveys existing
populations of each species were visited. Surveys within the Site resulted in no findings of
golden sedge, rough-leaved loosestrife, or Cooley's meadowrue; therefore, this project will have
no effect on these plant species.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on June 16, 2005
and one known NCNHP element is documented within 2 miles of the Site. The element is a
Natural Bridge (Significant Natural Heritage Area) located approximately 1 mile southeast of the
(. Site adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the New River.
One designated unit of Critical Habitat for piping plover is located in Onslow County on the
Bogue Inlet, which is greater than 20 miles southeast/seaward of the Site (USFWS 2001)
11,
Detailed Restoration Plan page 20
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table 6. Federally Protected Species for Onslow C
Habitat Present I Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Within Site Conclusion
American alligator Alli atormississi iensis Threatened S/A Yes Not Applicable

Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
No
No Effect
Eastern cougar Puma concolor cou uar Endangered No No Effect
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das Threatened No No Effect
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coriacea Endangered No No Effect
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered No No Effect
Piping lover Charadrius melodus Threatened No No Effect
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No No Effect

Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum coole i Endangered Yes No Effect
Golden sedge Carex lutea Endangered Yes No Effect

Rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered Yes No Effect
loosestrife
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus Threatened No No Effect
* c...J....,.,.. 4 - - #-- °i. . A- -, of nAinrfinn thmnahnld Ail or a significant portion of i ts range"; Threatened = a taxon "likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"; Threatened (S/A) = a species
that Is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection; these species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina State list as Endangered,
Threatened, Special Concern, Candidate, Significantly Rare, or Proposed (Amoroso 2002,
LeGrand and Hall 2001) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.
106-202 et seq.). Based on NCNHP records, no state listed species are documented within 2.0
miles of the Site.
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
A fundamental concept of stream classification entails the development and application of
regional reference curves to stream reconstruction and enhancement. Regional reference
curves can be utilized to predict bankfuil stream geometry, discharge, and other parameters in
altered systems. Development of regional reference curves for North Carolina was initiated in
1995. The curves characterize a broad range of streams within the Piedmont physiographic
province. Small watersheds or deviations in valley slope, land use, or geologic substrates may
not be accurately described by the curves; therefore, verification of individual watersheds may
be necessary. Reference reaches have been utilized in conjunction with regional curves for
detailed planning and characterization of this restoration project.
A relatively undisturbed reach of Bullard Branch approximately 25 miles northwest of the Site in
Duplin County was utilized as the reference reach. This reference reach is characterized by an
Detailed Restoration Plan page 21
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1
E-type channel. Distinct bankfull variables were identifiable in the reach and pattern/profile
characteristics appear to have not been degraded, allowing for assistance with channel design.
The Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics and Figure 12 in Appendix A include a
summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for the reference reach used to establish
reconstruction parameters. Channel cross-sections were measured at systematic locations and
stream profiles were developed via total station.
5.1 Reference Channel
The approximately 230-linear foot reference reach was visited and classified by stream type
(Rosgen 1996). The reference reach is characterized as an E-type, sinuous (1.37) channel with
a silt dominated substrate. E-type streams are characterized as slightly entrenched, riffle-pool
channels exhibiting high sinuosity (1.3 to greater than 1.5). E-type streams typically exhibit a
sequence of riffles and pools associated with a sinuous flow pattern. In North Carolina, E-type
streams often occur in narrow to wide valleys with well-developed alluvial floodplains (Valley
Type VIII). E-type channels are typically considered stable; however, these streams are
sensitive to upstream drainage basin changes and/or channel disturbance, and may rapidly
convert to other stream types.
Dimension: Data collected at the reference reach indicates a bankfull cross-sectional
area of 11.6 square feet, a bankfull width of 9.3 feet, a bankfull depth of 1.2 feet, and a width-to-
depth ratio of 7.4 (Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics, Appendix A). Regional
curves predict that the stream should exhibit a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately
11.3 square feet for the approximate 1.27-square mile watershed (Geratz et al. 2003), slightly
below the 11.6-square feet displayed by channel bankfull indicators identified in the field.
However, the 11.6-square feet cross-sectional area is within the range of statistical error for
present Coastal Plain regional curves. For a more detailed discussion on bankfull discharge
see Section 3.4.2 (Discharge).
is Figure 12 (Appendix A) provides a plan view and cross-sectional data for the reference reach
and depicts the bankfull channel and floodprone area. The reference reach exhibits a bank-
height ratio of 1.0, which is representative of a stable E-type channel. In addition, the width of
the floodprone area ranges from 150 to 250 feet giving the channel an entrenchment ratio of
16.1 to 26.9, typical of a stable E-type channel.
Pattern: In-field measurements of the reference reach have yielded an average sinuosity
of 1.37 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The valley slope of the reference channel
(0.0055) is slightly steeper than, but similar to that of the Site. Accompanying this sinuosity are
several channel attributes which are slightly lower than typical for E-type streams in the region.
These include an average pool-to-pool spacing ratio (LP_PNVbkf) of 4.6, a meander wavelength
ratio (LmNVbkf) of 3.7, and a radius of curvature ratio (R,NVbkf) of 1.7. Meander geometry values
for this reference reach are slightly low for E-type channels within this region; however, the
values are acceptable. These variables were measured within a stable reach which did not
exhibit any indications of pattern instability such as shoot cutoffs, abandoned channels, or
oxbows.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 22
f
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1
Profile: Based on elevational profile surveys, the reference reach is characterized by a
valley slope of 0.0055 (rise/run). Ratios of the reference reach riffle, run, pool, and glide slopes
to average water surface slope are 3.2, 0.2, 0.7, and 0.6, respectively. Riffle slopes are steeper
than typical for this valley type, and run slopes are flatter than typical for this valley type.
Steeper riffle slopes in conjunction with shorter riffle lengths account for the moderate valley
slope and allow for more moderate run slopes resulting in a channel which is neither aggrading
nor degrading.
Substrate: The channel is characterized by a channel substrate dominated by silt-sized
particles.
5.2 Reference Forest Ecosystems
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MIST) guidelines (USEPA 1990), a Reference Forest
Ecosystem (RFE) must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas on which
to model restoration efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs
should be ecologically stable climax communities and should represent believed historical (pre-
disturbance) conditions of the restoration site. Quantitative data describing plant community
composition and structure are collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference
data for design of the restoration Site planting scheme.
The RFE for this project is located immediately upstream of the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts will
attempt to emulate. Four circular, 0.1-acre plots were randomly established within the reference
area. Data collected within each plot include 1) tree species composition; 2) number of stems
for each tree species; 3) diameter at breast height (DBH) for each tree species; and 4) a list of
understory species. Field data (Table 7) indicates importance values of dominant tree species
calculated based on relative density, dominance, and frequency of tree species composition
(Smith 1980). Hydrology, surface topography, and habitat features were also evaluated.
Four 0.1-acre plots were established which best characterize expected steady-state forest
composition. Forest vegetation was dominated by ironwood, sweetgum, and cherrybark oak.
Understory species within the RFE- include canopy species as well as fetterbush, sweetbay,
giant cane, Chinese privet, highbush blueberry, and Japanese honeysuckle.
t
Detailed Restoration Plan page 23
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 7. Reference Forest Ecos stem _

Number of Relative
Frequency Relative
Basal Area Relative
Importance
Tree Species Individuals Density (%) Frequency (ftz /acre) Basal Area Value
(°)
/° (%) (%)
Red maple
1
1.6
25
3.7
2.0
2.0
0.02
(Acer rubrum)
Ironwood
12 19.0 100 14.8 3.8 3.7 0.13
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Pignut hickory
4 6.3 50 7.4 8.1 7.9 0.07
(Carya glabra)
Dogwood 2 3.2 25 3.7 0.8 0.8 0.03
(Comus sp.)
Ash
2 3.2 25 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.03
(Fraxinus sp.)
American holly
4 6.3 50 7.4 2.2 2.1 0.05
(Ilex opaca)
Sweetgum
15 23.8 100 14.8 16.1 15.7 0.18
(Liquidambar styraciflua)
Yellow poplar
5 7.9 75 11.1 17.0 16.6 0.12
(Linodendron tulipifera)
White oak
3 4.8 50 7.4 9.6 9.4 0.07
(Quercus alba)
Water oak
2 3.2 25 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.03
(Quercus nigra)
Laurel oak
2 3.2 50 7.4 15.1 14.7 0.08
(Quercus laurifolia)
Swamp chestnut oak
1 1.6 25 3.7 3.5 3.4 0.03
(Quercus michauxii)
..........
Cherrybark oak
10 15.9 75 11.1 22.2 21.7 0.16
(Quercus pagoda)
TOTALS 63 100 675 100 102.4 100 1.00
Sum of four 0.1-acre plots
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of this restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions in the on-Site, upstream, and downstream
segments of the channel; 3) creation of a natural vegetation buffer along restored stream
channels; 4) reestablishment of historic wetland function; and 5) restoration of wildlife functions
associated with a riparian corridor/stable stream.
The complete restoration plan is depicted in Figures PL 1 through PL 4 (Appendix A). The
proposed restoration plan is expected to restore a minimum of 4750 linear feet of Site
Detailed Restoration Plan page 24
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
tributaries, restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland, and restore a
minimum of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine wetland within the Site boundaries.
Components of this plan may be modified based on construction or access constraints.
Primary activities proposed at the Site include 1) stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration, 3)
soil scarification, and 4) plant community restoration. A monitoring plan and contingency plan
are outlined in Section 7 of this document.
6.1 Stream Restoration
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable, meandering stream on new
location that approximates hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative
to reference conditions. Geometric attributes for the existing, degraded channel and the
proposed, stable channel are listed in Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics and are
depicted in Figures 9, 12, and 14 in Appendix A.
An erosion control plan and construction/transportation plan are expected to be developed
during the next phase of this project. Erosion control will be performed locally throughout the
Site and will be incorporated into construction sequencing. Exposed surficial soils at the Site
are unconsolidated, alluvial sediments, which do not revegetate rapidly after disturbance;
therefore, seeding with appropriate grasses and immediate planting with disturbance-adapted
shrubs will be employed following the earth-moving process. In addition, on-Site root mats
(seed banks) and vegetation will be stockpiled and redistributed after disturbance.
A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed
to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the extent feasible. The number of
transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long
distances through the Site's interior.
6.1.1 Reconstruction on New Location
The entire Site is located within a floodplain suitable for design channel excavation on new
location. The stream will be constructed on new location and the old, dredged and straightened
channel will be abandoned and backfilled. Primary activities designed to restore the channel on
new location include 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2) floodplain bench excavation, 3)
channel excavation, 4) installation of channel plugs, 5) backfilling of the abandoned channel, 6)
ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in-stream structures and a Terracell drop structure at the Site
outfall, and 8) construction of a piped channel crossing.
Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-
width corridor which may provide design channel stability. Material excavated during grading
will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to channel segments to be abandoned and backfilled.
These segments will be backfilled after stream diversion is completed.
Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads and to minimize compaction
of the underlying floodplain. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon
completion of construction activities.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 25
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

I After preparation of the corridor, the design channel and updated profile survey will be
' developed and the location of each meander wavelength plotted and staked along the profile.
Pool locations and relative frequency configurations may be modified in the field based on local
variations in the floodplain profile.
I Floodplain Bench Excavation
The creation of a bankfull, floodplain bench is expected to 1) remove the eroding material and
' collapsing banks, 2) promote overbank flooding during bankfull flood events, 3) reduce the
erosive potential of flood waters, and 4) increase the width of the active floodplain. Bankfull
benches may be created by excavating the adjacent floodplain to bankfull elevations or filling
eroded/abandoned channel areas with suitable material. After excavation, or filling of the
bench, a relatively level floodplain surface is expected to be stabilized with suitable erosion
control measures. Planting of the bench with native floodplain vegetation is expected to reduce
' erosion of bench sediments, reduce flow velocities in flood waters, filter pollutants, and provide
wildlife habitat.
Channel Excavation
The channel will be constructed within the range of values depicted in Table of Morphological
Stream Characteristics in Appendix A. Figure 14 (Appendix A) provides proposed cross-
sections, plan views, and profiles for the constructed channel.
The stream banks and local belt-width area of constructed channels will be immediately planted
' with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Deposition of shrub and woody debris into and/or
overhanging the constructed channel is encouraged.
Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and root growth along the
outer bends of each stream meander. Live willow stake revetments, available root mats, and/or
biodegradable, erosion-control matting may be embedded into the break-in-slope to promote
' more rapid development of an overhanging bank. Willow stakes will be purchased and/or
collected on-Site and inserted through the root/erosion mat into the underlying soil.
Certain low slope portions of the design channel may be expected to form braided, multistem
channel characteristics similar to undisturbed, Muckalee stream complexes in the vicinity of the
' Site. These stream reaches are expected to reduce the total design channel length due to a
reduction in channel sinuosity from 1.3 to 1.0. The minimum stream restoration length of 4750
linear feet has accounted for the reduced sinuosity in these low slope portions of the Site.
' Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along abandoned channel segments. The plugs will consist
of low-permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to
withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events across the Site. Dense clays may be
imported from off-site or existing material, compacted within the channel, may be suitable for
' plug construction. The plug will be of sufficient width and depth to form an imbedded overlap in
the existing banks and channel bed.
' Detailed Restoration Plan page 26
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Channel Backfillinq
After impermeable plugs are installed, the abandoned channel will be backfilled. Backfilling will
be performed primarily by pushing stockpiled materials into the channel. The channel will be
filled to the extent that on-Site material is available and compacted to maximize
microtopographic variability, including ruts, ephemeral pools, and hummocks in the vicinity of
the backfilled channel.
A deficit of fill material for channel backfill may occur. If so, a series of closed, linear
depressions may be left along confined channel segments. Additional fill material for critical
areas may be obtained by excavating shallow depressions along the banks of these planned,
open-channel segments. These excavated areas will represent closed linear, elliptical, or oval
depressions. In essence, the channel may be converted to a sequence of shallow, ephemeral
pools adjacent to effectively plugged and backfilled channel sections. These pools are
expected to stabilize and fill with organic material over time. Vegetation debris (root mats, top
soils, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be redistributed across the backfill area upon completion.
Ditch Rerouting
The eastern tributary is currently routed around Site pastures to the roadside drainage network.
Restoration activities revolve around diverting this stream flow through its historic floodplain.
However, the roadside drainage network must remain in place upon completion of restoration
activities, and must function to drain the existing hydrologic design of the roadway. Therefore,
rerouting the ditch around the Site and tying the ditch network back into Site drainage features
near the Site outfall has been proposed. The rerouted ditch will be excavated adequately to
drain the roadway; the location of the rerouted ditch is depicted in Figure PL 1 (Appendix A).
6.1.2 In-Stream Structures
Stream restoration under natural stream design techniques normally involves the use of in-
stream structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and habitat improvement. Primary
activities designed to achieve these objectives may include the installation of log vanes and a
TerraCell drop structure.
Log Vanes
The primary purpose of the log vanes is to direct high velocity flows during bankfull events
towards the center of the channel (Figure 15, Appendix A). Log vanes will be constructed
utilizing large tree trunks harvested from the Site or imported from off-site. The tree stem
harvested for a log cross-vane arm must be long enough to be imbedded into the stream
channel and extend several feet into the floodplain. Logs will create an arm that slopes from the
center of the channel upward at approximately 5 to 7 degrees, tying in at the bankfull floodplain
elevation. Logs will extend from each stream bank at an angle of 20 to 30 degrees. A trench
will be dug into the stream channel that is deep enough for the head of the log to be at or below
the channel invert. The trench is then extended into the floodplain and the log is set into the
trench such that the log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size
to completely block stream flow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed) then a footer log
will be installed beneath the header log. Support pilings will then be situated at the base of the
log and at the head of the log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in place, filter
fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream side of the vane and draped over the structure to
Detailed Restoration Plan page 27
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
I

I
I
I
7
I
I
I
force water over the vane. The upstream side of the structure is then backfilled with suitable
material.
TerraCell Outfall Structure
A TerraCell drop structure is proposed at the Site outfall to lower Site hydrology to its
preconstruction elevation. To avoid hydrologic trespass, the drop structure may be installed
approximately 200 feet from the downstream Site outfall. The structure should be constructed
to resist erosive forces associated with hydraulic drops proposed at the Site. TerraCell is a light
weight, flexible mat made of high density polyethylene strips. The strips are bonded together to
form a honeycomb configuration. The honeycomb mat is fixed in place and filled with gravel or
sand. Material in the TerraCell structure may be planted with grasses and shrubs for additional
erosion protection. The TerraCell structure will form a nickpoint that approximates geologic
controls in stream beds.
6.1.3 Piped Channel Crossing
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of one piped channel crossing to allow
access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities (Figure 15, Appendix
A). The crossing is located on the section of stream which bisects the conservation easement;
the location of the proposed channel crossing is depicted on Figure PL 2 (Appendix A). The
crossing may be constructed of two pipes a minimum of 1.5 feet in diameter and hydraulically
stable rip-rap or suitable rock and will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated
vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the crossing will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable material, which is free of
fines.
6.2 Wetland Restoration
Alternatives for wetland restoration are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system
which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat. Restoration activities
are expected to restore a minimum of 3.3 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetland and a minimum
of 3.1 acres of jurisdictional nonriverine wetland (Figure 11, Appendix A).
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soil have been impacted by channel incision; vegetative
clearing; earth movement associated with the dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site
tributaries; ditching of agricultural fields; and compaction by livestock grazing. Wetland
restoration options should focus on 1) the reestablishment of historic water table elevations, 2)
excavation and grading of elevated spoil and sediment embankments, 3) reestablishment of
hydrophytic vegetation, and 4) reconstruction of stream corridors.
Reestablishment of Historic Groundwater Elevations
The existing channel depths average 5 feet, while the depth for the proposed channel averages
approximately 1 foot. Hydric soils adjacent to the incised channels appear to have been drained
due to lowering of the groundwater tables and a lateral drainage effect from existing stream
reaches. Reestablishment of channel inverts at 0.8 to 1.2 feet in depth is expected to rehydrate
hydric Muckalee soils adjacent to Site streams, resulting in the restoration of jurisdictional
hydrology to riverine wetlands.
' Detailed Restoration Plan page 28
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
In addition, drainage ditches are effectively removing wetland hydrology within the interstream
flat. Filling of these ditches is expected to rehydrate hydric Rains soils within the Site, resulting
in the restoration of jurisdictional hydrology to nonriverine wetlands.
Excavation and Gradinq of Elevated Spoil and Sediment Embankments
Some areas adjacent to the existing channel and area ditches have experienced both natural
and unnatural sediment deposition. Spoil piles were likely cast adjacent to the channel during
dredging, straightening, and rerouting of Site streams, and ditching of the adjacent floodplain.
Major flood events may have also deposited additional sediment adjacent to stream banks from
on-Site eroding banks and upstream agricultural fields. The removal of these spoil materials
and/or filling of on-Site ditches with spoil material represents a critical element of on-Site
wetland restoration.
Hydrophytic Vegetation
On-Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as
land clearing, livestock grazing, and other anthropogenic maintenance. Wetland areas will be
revegetated with native vegetation typical of wetland communities in the region. Emphasis will
focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage. Sections 6.4 (Plant Community Restoration)
and 6.5 (Planting Plan) provide detailed information concerning community species
associations.
Reconstructing Stream Corridors
The stream restoration plan involves the reconstruction of the entire on-Site length of the two
UTs to the New River. The existing eastern tributary has been routed around the Site pasture
into the roadside drainage network. Restoration activities revolve around diverting this stream
flow through its historic floodplain. Existing channels will be backfilled so that the water table
may be restored to historic conditions. However, some portions of the existing channels may
remain open for the creation of wetland "oxbow lake-like" features. These features will be
plugged on each side of the open channel and will function as open water systems. They are
expected to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife as well as create open water/freshwater
marsh within the Site.
6.3 Floodplain Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent
important components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex
surface microtopography. Small concavities, swales, exposed root systems, seasonal pools,
oxbows, and hummocks associated with vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are
scattered throughout these systems. As discussed in the stream reconstruction section, efforts
to advance the development of characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed.
After construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 1
foot in vertical asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Subsequently, community
restoration will be initiated on complex floodplain surfaces.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 29
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
L
1
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, on-Site observations, and community descriptions
from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
were used to develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during
community restoration activities. Based on Schafale and Weakley (1990) community
descriptions, the RFE most closely resembles a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
(Blackwater Subtype) community, which occurs on alluvial floodplains of small blackwater
streams that are intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamps are typically underlain with soils of the Muckalee series such as those present within
s riverine areas of the Site and the RFE.
Vegetative species present within the RFE also correspond with species of a Nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), which most closely
resembles nonriverine areas of the Site underlain by soils of the Rains series. Nonriverine Wet
dt Hardwood Forests are typically located on poorly drained interstream flats not associated with a
stream that are seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables, poor drainage, or sheet
flow from adjacent areas. Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forests may grade to Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamps at the head of drainages. Despite the landscape position difference between
riverine and nonriverine areas of the Site, vegetative communities are similar and will be
combined when developing the primary plant community associations.
Community associations that will be utilized to develop primary plant community associations
include 1) Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest and 2)
stream-side assemblage (Figure 16, Appendix A). Planting elements are listed below.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp/Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
1. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
2. Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
3. Cherrybark oak (Quercus falcate var. pagodaefolia)
4. American elm (Ulmus americana)
5. Green ash (Fraxinus americana)
6. Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
7. Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
Stream-Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
4. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Stream-side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and
overbank flood events. Stream-side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the
r channel throughout the meander belt-width. Shrub elements will be planted along the
reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends. Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swam P /Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest is targeted for the majority of the Site including the
Detailed Restoration Plan page 30
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
1

floodplain and the interstream flat. The following planting plan is the blueprint for community
restoration.
6.5 Planting Plan
The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish vegetative community patterns across the
landscape. The plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of
proposed Site preparation, and 3) planting of selected species.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources.
Advance notification to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of various noncommercial
elements.
Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the stream-side
assemblage will be planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Table 8
depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association.
Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during
the dormant period and set root during the spring season. A total of 23,661 diagnostic tree and
shrub seedlings may be planted during restoration.
Tnhln A Pinn+inn Plan

Vegetation
Association Small Stream
Swamp/Nonriverine Wet
Hardwoods
Stream-side
Assemblage

TOTAL
Area acres 19.24 3.89 23.13

Species Number
!anted*
% of total Number
lanted'*
% of total
Number lanted
Swamp chestnut oak 2616 20 - -- 1962
Laurel oak 2616 20 -- 1962
Cherrybark oak 2616 20 - - 1962
American elm 2616 20 -- 1962
Green ash 916 7 - - 654
Sweetbay 916 7 -- - 654
Silky dogwood 785 6 3174 30 654
Black willow -- -- 3174 30 1058
Buttonbush -- -- 2116 20 794
Elderberry -- -- 2116 20 794
TOTAL 13,081 100 10,580 100 23,661
" F iantea at a aensity of 6Hu stems acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, as well as wetland components of hydrology,
and vegetation. A general Site monitoring plan is depicted in Figure 17 (Appendix A).
Detailed Restoration Plan page 31
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

7.1 Stream Monitoring
The Site stream reach is proposed to be monitored for geometric activity. Annual fall monitoring
will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a
water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format.
Data to be presented will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4)
maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt-width, 8) water surface
slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate composition. The stream will subsequently be
classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in
channel morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data in each successive
monitoring year. A photographic record that will include preconstruction and postconstruction
pictures has been initiated (Appendix B).
7.2 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream
system.
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in
channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in
restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the width-to-depth ratio should characterize an
E-type and/or a borderline E-type/C-type channel (s 18), bank-height ratios indicative of a stable
or moderately unstable channel, and minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width,
and/or bank erosion along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or
shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain at approximately 1.3 (thalweg
distance/straight-line distance). The field indicator of bankfull will be described in each
monitoring year and indicated on a representative channel cross-section figure. If the stream
channel is down-cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank
or slope stabilization methods will be employed.
Some areas within the design channel may be expected to form low-slope, braided,
stream/swamp complexes similar to Muckalee swamps in the area. These stream/swamp
complexes would not be considered unstable; however, footage of stream channel restoration in
these reaches will be recalculated from distance along the thalweg (1.3 sinuosity) to distance
along the valley (1.0 sinuosity).
Stream substrate is not expected to coarsen over time; therefore, pebble counts are not
proposed as part of the stream success criteria.
' Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred.
Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure,
¦ abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
7.3 Hydrology Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed within the Site and on a reference site to
monitor groundwater hydrology. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing
6
Detailed Restoration Plan page 32
a
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

season at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit
(USEPA 1990).
7.4 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 10 percent within
Rains soils (nonriverine wetlands) and 8 percent within Muckalee soils (riverine wetlands) of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. This value is based on DRAINMOD
simulations for 42 years of rainfall data in an old field stage. These areas are expected to
support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation
and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in these areas.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including
construction of ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in
support of jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
7.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with USEPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (USEPA 1990) and
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant growth should be
included in each annual monitoring report.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 30,
after each growing season, until the vegetation success criteria are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to five sample plots (10
meters by 10 meters) will be randomly placed within the Site. Sample-plot distributions are
expected to resemble locations depicted in Figure 17 (Appendix A); however, best professional
judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of
construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include
species composition and species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and
herbaceous species will also be recorded.
7.6 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon
the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are
dependent upon density and growth of "Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree

Detailed Restoration Plan page 33
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site I'

Species include planted species along with species identified through visual inventory of an
approved reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community used to orient the project design.
All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference forest will be utilized to define
"Characteristic Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria.
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in
the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must
be surviving in year 4 and 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5. Planted species
must represent a minimum of 30 percent of the required stems per acre total (96 stems/acre).
Each naturally recruited Characteristic Tree Species may represent up to 10 percent of the
required stems per acre total. In essence, seven naturally recruited Characteristic Tree Species
t; may represent a maximum of 70 percent of the required stems per acre total. Additional stems
of naturally recruited species above the 10 percent and 70 percent thresholds are discarded
from the statistical analysis. The remaining 30 percent is reserved for planted Characteristic
e Tree Species (oaks, etc.) as a seed source for species maintenance during midsuccessional
phases of forest development.
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with
tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as
needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria.
7.7 Contingency
w In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair
and/or installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank
stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables
that are not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize
stream success include 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3)
bank erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that on-Site structures are compromised, the affected structure will be repaired,
maintained, or replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize
adjacent stream banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which
remain intact, but exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer pilings will be
repaired by excavating a trench on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric
in front of the pilings. Structures which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse
of header/footer pilings, will be removed and replaced with a structure suitable for on-Site flows.
Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through on-Site
measurements [i.e. bank-height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut
migration and repairing damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration
may be impeded through the installation of in-stream grade control structures (rip-rap sill and/or
log cross-vane weir) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is
Detailed Restoration Plan page 34
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
I?
?J
achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include channel backfill with coarse
material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or
willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs at the Site resulting in elevated width-to-depth
ratios, contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width-to-depth ratio will be
implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may include the installation of cross-vane
weirs and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot
cutoffs or channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to
stable values.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 35
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

t

8.0 REFERENCES
Acrement, Jr., G.J. and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2339, 38 pp.
Amoroso, J. L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Belcher, H.W. and G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD verification study for Zeigenfuss
soil and Michigan climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Chang, Howard H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating Hydraulic Roughness Coefficients. Agricultural Engineering,
37, 473-475.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
Dunne, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company. N.Y.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengston, and C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating Subsurface Drainage in the
Lower Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30(6). (1979-
1688).
Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs, and C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a Water Management Model for
a Louisiana Sugar Cane Field. Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists, 4:18-28.
Geratz, J.W., W.V. Sweet. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence
Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of American Water Resources
Mi Association, 39:861-871.
?- Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 36
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological
Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. USDA Forest Service.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.
LeGrand, H.E. and S. P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
Manning, R. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the
Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. White Oak River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. North Carolina Waterbody Reports
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.htmI [June 24, 2005]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water Management Model Evaluation for Shallow Sandy Soils.
Transactions of the ASAE 28(3): 785-790.
Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Skaggs, R. W. 1976. Determination of the hydraulic conductivity-drainable porosity ratio from
water table measurements. Transactions of the ASAE 19(1): 73-80.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. Drainmod Reference Report. Methods for Design and Evaluation of
Drainage Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. South National Technical Center. Fort Worth,
Texas.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey and B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water management evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4): 922 - 928.
Detailed Restoration Plan page 37
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field evaluation of a water management simulation model. Transactions
of the ASAE 25 (3): 666 - 674.
Skaggs, R. W., and A. Tabrizi. 1986. Design Drainage Rates for Estimating Drain Spacings in
North Carolina. ASAE Paper Number: 84-2055.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Skaggs, R.W., D. Amatya, R.O Evans and J.E. Parsons. 1994. Characterizations and
evaluation of proposed hydrologic criteria for wetlands. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 49 (5): 501 - 510.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 2002. Methods to Determine Lateral Effects of a Drainage Ditch on
Wetland Hydrology. ASAE Annual International Meeting / CIGR XVth World Congress.
Paper Number: 020602
Smith, R. L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology, Third Edition. Harper and Row, New York. 835
PP.
Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx, and G. Wyseure. 1987. The Use of Simulation Models to
Evaluate the Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems. Proceedings of Third
International Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University, pp. A67-A76.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Onslow County, North
t Carolina. United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type
Classification (MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and
Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Critical Habitat for Piping Plovers
(online). Available: hftp://www.fws.gov/plover/ [June 24, 2005]. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North
Carolina.
[
6
Detailed Restoration Plan page 38
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
i

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.

t
Detailed Restoration Plan page 39
Lloyd Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
i
r
i
i
i
r
Appendix A.
Table of Morphological Stream Characteristics
and Figures
Morphological Stream Characteristics Table
Lloyd Property Stream and Welland Restoration Site
Exislting Channel
Variables Eastern Tributary Main Tributary
4- wflm-l REFERENCE PROPOSED
G•type 0-type
Stream Type G5/6 G5/6 E6 ES/6
Drainage Area (me) 0.55-0.57 0.63 - 0.69 1.27 0.55-1.4
Bankfull Discharge late) 5.1-5.2 6.7-6.2 'to 6.1-12.0
mane on ado a
Bankfull ross• ono ea 6.1-13.2 6.7-7.2 11.8 8.1.12,1
Existing Crose-Sectional Area (A,...) 53.9-94.2 41.7 - 59.6 11.6 8.1 -12.1
Mean: 6.5 Mean: 7.1 Mean: 9.3 Mean: 9.4
Bankfull Wldlh (Wl?r) Range. 4.6 - 7.2 Range: 6.3 .8 4 Range: Range: 7.7 - 11.0
Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1,0
Bankfull Mean Depth (D,u) Range: 0.8-1.3 Range: 0.8- 1.1 Range: Range: 08-1.2

n: 1.4
Mea
Mean: 1.3
Mean: 2 3
Mean: IS
Bankfull Maximum Depth (D,,,,,) Range: 1.2-1.7 Range: 0.9-1.3 Range: Range: 1.0-2.3
Mean: 7.1 Mean: 7.0 Mean: 8.9 Mean: 13.2
Pool Width (W,,,,J Range: 5.3-8.9 Range: Range: 81 - 9.0 Range: 77- 15.4
Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 3.1 Mean: 2.5
Maximum Pool Depth (D,,,d Range: 1.0 - IS Range: Range: 2.2-4.0 Range: 1.8-3.3
Mean: 9.0 Mean: 9.3 Mean: 225 Mean: 225
Width of Flootlprone Area (Wlw) Ran e: 18-10,2 Range: 8.7-10.8 Ran e: 150 - 250 Range: 150 - 250
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 24.2 Mean. 24
Entrenchment Ratio PN
(Wra °u) Range: 1.3. 1.8 Range: 1.1-1.5 Range: 16.1-26.9 Range: 16 - 27
Mean: 6.5 Mean: 7.0 Mean: 7.4 Mean: 10
Width I Depth Ratio (W40.1) Range: 35 - 8.8 Range: 51-10.5 Range: Range: 7.12
Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.9 Mean: 1.6
Max. D,,,/ 0. Rollo
Range: 13- 1.5
Range: 1.1 - 1.3
Renge: _
Range: 11 - 1.9
Mean: 6.4 Mean'. 5.1 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0
Low Bank Height I Max. De,r Ratio Range: 4,5-9.0 Range: 4.9-5.2 Range: Range: 1.0-1.3
Maximum Pool Depth I Bankfull Mean: 1.3 Mean: 1.3 Mean: 2.5 Mean: 2.5
Mean Depth (D ,u) Range: 1.0- 1.6 Range: 1.2-1.6 Range: 1,11-33 Range. 1.8.3.3
Pool Width I Bankfull Mean: 1.1 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: IA
Width (W w) Range: 0.8 - IA Range: 0.8-1.1 Range: 0.9-1.0 Range: 1.0.1.7
Pool Area / Bankfull Meam, 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.6
Cross Sectional Area Range: ------ Range: ----- Range: 1.0-1.7 Range: 1.1 - 2.1
Pattern Variables
Mean: 43 Mean: 47
Pool to Pool Spacing (Leo)
Range: 32 - 55
Range: 31 - 77
Mean: 71 Mean: 75
Meander Length (L,,,) No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive pattern
d d
to
f
d
l
iffl Range: 65-82 Range: 46 - 154
Bell Width (WW ue to
riffles and pools
staightening activities o
es an
poo
s
ue
r
stalghtening activities Mean: 34 Mean: 31
Range: 21 - 36 Range: 15 - 77
Mean: 16.1 Mean: 21
Radius of Curvature (R.) Range: 11.7 - 18.6 Range: 15 - 44
Sinuosity (Sin) 1,02 1.02 1.37 1.3. 1.4
Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/ Mean. 4.6 Mean: 5
Bankfull Wcfth (L ,,/W.,) Range: 3.4-5.9 Range: 4.7
Meander Length/ Mean: 7.6 Mean: 8
Bankfull Width (LdWewd No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive pattern Range: 5.9-8.8 Range. 6-14
rif0es and pools due to of riffles and pools due to
Mean: 3
7
Mean: 4
Meander Width Ratio stalghtening activities staightening activities .
(W-,W.# Range: 2.J-3.9 Range: 2-7
Radius of Curvature/ Mean: 1.7 Mean: 2.2
Bankfull Width (Rcf Wvu) Range: 1.5-2.0 Range: 2.4
Profile Variables
Mean: 0.0025
Average Water Surface Slope (S 0.0043 0.0032 0.0040
Range: 0.0017 - 0.0029
Mean: 0.0039
Valley Slope (5,,,,,) 0.0044 0.0033 0.0055 Range: O.OOJ3 40044
Mean: 0.0129 Mean: 0.0033
Riffle Slope (S_)
Range: 0.0070.0.0160
Range: 0.0007.0.0084
Mean: 0.0006 Mean: 0.0025
Run Slope (S_j No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive Palle m
Renge: 0 - 0.0023
Range: 0.0.0102
riffles and pools due to of riffles and pools due to 0029
Mean: 0
Mean: 0.0015
Pool Slope (S
y) staightening activities stalghtening activities .
„ Rnge: 0.0.0096
a Range: 0 - 0.0087
Mea n : 0.0023
Mean: 0.0013
Glide Slope (Spy,)
Ran 0.0021-0.0024
Rena: 0-0.0055
Profile Ratios
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface Mean: 3.2 Mean: 1.3
Slope (S,y dS„,) Range: 1.7-4.0 Range: 0.4-2.2
Run Slope/Water Surface Mean: 0.2 Mean: 1.0
Slope (5,,,/5,) No distinctive repetitive pattern o No distinctive repetitive pattern
dal
d
l
d Range: 0.0.6 Range: 0 - 3.5

Pool SlopelWaler Surface riffles and pools due to
slalghtening activities es an
poo
s
ue to
of
staightening activities Mean: 0.7 Mean: 0.6
Elope (S 5,,,) Range: 0 - 2.4 Range: 0 - 3.0
GHde SlopsMater Surface Mean: 0.6 Mean: 0.5
Slope (S S„.,) Range: 0.6-0.6 Range: 0 - 1.9
' -' ? pfl4? '?It Mlr ? (I
`j 'GM'JN.N 5'(-ATF FOREST
v
1 51
' ,5 Jr TMF_ 'F4iitC5i - N
111 •L. ?` M1 MNI•AM nt
6 i dr?
r t .' t •? - _ ?__. mob. •, .9'{: w
? rr
y ler /\ v? '410 0
ti (Ii MANN ti TF. FOR£5'f •`t., •.
tRjshrence
Foist \ y J' IN
001
Lloyd *?,454,. r•$r,*,. 4, 18 t hn,
Site Location G, " A
+
7q( if •J,
• ??I 1
44 .
t C Re 1 ras . ..t ? F WMf. V
1:150,000
Source: 2003 North Carolina Adas and Gazetteer, p.77.
own by FIGUHH
SITE LOCATION cLF
:•??o:•?s?•Ira +IC z •.92
Dalo9!9: .n e..i611 LLOYD RESTORATION SITE May 2006 -1
i 5']B]91.,. I
Onslow County, North Carolina
r Project 05-021
rj
1) 11 hilt.
I/ l
\? `? y e
In tituta h
J N r ` . v ,
w
k 1 ?N,
Elroy Best .?? y- t It
f, \\\ `LaGrange ) r Sr' t? J t <??
1 ?M1 {\1..1 _ .l Ft Barnwell
r
? _ ? KIf1?S?011 1
r ?J I Falling"
). 1_\ Riveirnorit
Sevgp Springs ?, \ ' yy^sDover skin
N 0 1 R Wlse Fork \ .a Jc,sUer
Mucks
? HIII l (-1 ?• ? \ F4 -11 .1
Tuscarora Bellalr
J \r 1.. n-
\ Outlaw Deep Run Hyrna5?C^ oorrc''.w
Bridge i ridge
New
tancus Albertson
ames City
Jonestown Phillips
Crossroads
R ien? bWent
i
.Korne.93 * -Tronton ? \ ul rls
Pink Hill
Thurman
' J O N E S
Comfort 1 .1 Poll o'ksyllle
P L I N erdalp
U x,: Ravenswo
-,I' + r.. Cabin Pot r ro?tar
Hdl ;, ..-
? Kenansville Huffrrm
` -
Haw
Beulavilie Branch \ r 1 - ,fie
I Hall Lloyd Richlands aysvllle t
Site Location Belgrade I \
1.
e - r r - Gum Brdnch,}
i.
yman
FOUritaln 1
ITalf Moon M eUpe
on `'
'Chinquapin k -
Charity atheii a Lake t?
1t r ..Mare.ady Kellum
Sloan N ^ftt"{ ! `'L O 7•'Ftella
Jacksonville siwerdalG/?,;
Cypress Creek J •?..ls \
\ F'eletie.r
` Tut City MI4dWalr`f,,k Hubert Occstrt
Z- - Fes` - _ o Piney G eon
Haw i 1 CaP••"Willard o
\ 5wansburu••" C?uteret,
,_..,.±
Verona ear Creek , rare0t %yk LdP,
I adggtt amp E}ud
Maple Hill leleune i
Watha
Van Eden - \ - - /
1 t Dixon
`?/
R
N • Hulga E \ neads Ferry l P.
olkstone
y
St Helena Chadwick Acre,
\ Holly Ridge
L.t n,htnn ? -
EdRecombe ? /iMorris Landing Jv
5 mi. 0 5 mi. 15 mi. vista f
-? Surf City
.I Sfaop Point 1
.......1:025,000
Source: Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974 State of North Carolina Topsail Beach
rky
own by FIGURE
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP CLF
? 1.6 i Sp 1, i (0 N,'u. Oir,n
" "s51693 1i92 LLOYD RESTORATION SITE °`la May 2006 ?\
19131 y1-1693 /
i91910171i 171ox
Onslow County, North Carolina
Project 05-021 G
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t.
1\ y y (pw `+° ?' ? F? \? ne ypfn n.? ? f\ ??? 'I I)
?,\ w? po rv ? ??/. .,,_,1./ r? ? .` P/. ?? ? ../i _ •nleen.w, ? .:, l+,f+0 ?
\ ..j
r/v
• +Ir 'i \ r Y p • q.. PAM I A pt t? boq,
Q m1 ?- ,3 • w
Reference''
.l 'lo ppv \ `
Stream Location : 903 Vlnp ItIR = a;
R•Qpl «.(„ c .RYA.
_`\ •\• ..? ?; ^ t 1 t ??'- ro _/ ''! / 241 + -(? t
w 0
\? ??(yu ?cJ? f CQ
41n b ?' 1? _ --?
11 8 a 903 ' p0 I,, \npw
! _ MmNrll 1!.G.[p b
?pC P it
w: - l C .1 i, a... 06 ,??., r s - a ( L ` 777?? b • r 'A Y
90J r
t•` ? I P
Alen 7 p r • y / ' ?- v 1>,p?' _
' - ` ? trr!? ^I - ? ? V ; `24
dp 241x/
41
24 n. P •?? ; P r•9
Lloyd Site
-10 miles
. ?•' `?\\\\\ e?
I....'6RIrv 1'.,pnpw ! rWy,MO.V?. M>~ ° 1,.
V Spu
y' p? ?...r _ ?Y?? 41 a2\.F-n X11 _ •,5.? r?.
50
all. J tt ? sr ??: .? 4* _ Troy - ,,?` b r ? rM.p1
r
1 mom. _ 0 1 mi. 4 ml.
1:150,000
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.70. a
AJA Dwn by
REFERENCE STREAM REACH LOCATION CAF FIGURE
2121 MNA,YI[I Pnn1 0n,p
Y/2ax Spngl NC 21592 Date'
191991 1215Ifi9) LLOYD RESTORATION SITE FEB 2006
191 94179G91a.
onslow County, North Carolina
05-021

? ? ? '• -may.
_ I r? ? >'?` 'T. ?..?I ..5.. ? .` ... l? i ?.! I?
!
liz'j
Z•A1,15 +

-Ij

"t31?
`
l i JJJ^?

J

., 1?.Cfbbl/i?r... ~i
?
! ' ??
i . X41 _-•' ,-5a' ??

.n
!!j ? 11 Cyi?s i?G*arry ? a l

((??' Legend
Property Boundaries
1 ? ? a
r Y1 a ,n1,,' I 1 !I !' 171
Site Boundary = 24.26 acres
0 0 125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1'. w
?. ,;• Drainage Area = 1.4 square miles
Miles l

212 8 Rowland Pond Drive

w , NC 27592 opdnPond ri
1R
216-1693
341-3839

ITE TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA

LLOYD RESTORATION SITE Do. by FIGURE
CLF - 4

DB1e.,

May zoos
Onslow County, North Carolina Project

Axiom Environmental, Inc. 05-021

t
E
t
c
t
t
t
t
t
ti -
I fl? oil
t, b'
0 5001,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Legend
Property Boundaries
ED Site Boundary
Drainage Area = 1.4 square
2126 RoMand Pond [Mve
W+Ilow Spring, NC 27692 DRAINAGE AREA LAND USE
(919( 1493
(919j341 341.34]9 OK LLOYD RESTORATION SITE
,\Illi Onslow County, North Carolina
Ajj? loom Envkmffmn al, Inc.
CLF
0an
Piojecl:
el
May 2008
05-021

t

a

t

I

r

11
Soil Profiles
Muckalec
Hydric Floodplain Soils Adjacent to Upstream Channel
as Observed in the Field
Texture
0 - -- - --
10 YR 4/2 A Fine Sandy Loam
10
i
20 10 YR 5/2 Cgl Sandy Clay
30 10 YR 5/2 Cg2 Sandy Clay Loam
40
50
Depth in inches
Muckalee
Hydric Floodplain Soils Adjacent to Downstream Channel
as Observed in the Field
Texture
Rains
Hydric Inerstream Divide Soils as Observed in the Field
Texture
0.c
10 YR 4/2 A Fine Sandy Loam
10
20 2.5 Y 5/2 Btgl Sandy Clay Loam
30
2.5 Y 511 Btg2 Sandy Clay
40
50
Depth in inches
Goldsboro
Typical Nonhydric Soil Pedon as Observed in the Field
Texture
0
0
_
10 YR 4/3 1 A Sandy Loam
10 2.5 Y 5/4
10 I A Fine Sandy Loam
20 10 YR 5/2 I Cgl Sandy Clay 20 A.
2.5 Y 6/3 B I Sandy Clay Loam
30 2 Sandy Clay
10 YR 511 C 30 2.5 Y 5/6 B2 Sandy Clay
g
40 40
50
Depth in inches
2126 R-1-1 PI"I D11-
W.". sv.rq Nr 17592
19191215.1693
X9191311-38391,.
A,-E-11lInI..tM. k.
50
Depth in inches
TYPICAL SOIL PROFILES
LLOYD RESTORATION SITE
Onslow County, North Carolina
own by. CLF FIGURE DdtB' V
May 2006 R
P'Olecl' 05.021
U
C
C
E
c
2
W

G
.4
W
N
O
d ?
t m <o U
? so « v 11
C OQQ S ? 11
CR 'q:
aeo.4 m??>
^c
110 'x Y II 11
'aEeaza
U ?a3o2` 31, wrn
?. LL
U
i
m
O
M
0
U
i
r
O
u
w
N
Q
u
(laaj) UOgenal3
a?
9 d rn
m
IX m
C:
O y
m. v II mII1-1 E
II IIO ? ?Y II A
e
o3am3LLwin
o
rv rv rv rv rv rv rv?? rv
(190-4) UOl1en013
d
` m U
7 U)
?.y..
II
O Qw d ? NQ
:q q,: Ol pp C7 T
II .O ~
N ,l11 tC
x=tDr u
11 if E
EaA?E?maZB
U QM:093:Wwo
QI
? LL
O

xnnnrvrvrvrvrvrvrv
(188-4) UOIJBA013
z
0
U
W
w
V)
W
O
z
ffi I
m v U
c 7 V 04 if IyI
N (7L 6
?oll'?nm u E
0 CCIQ? 607
E V33:01M LLwin

z

u
S O
U)
u
(laej) Uollenal3
d
g
CL ?
c w
O N ui
U) l
if
if I
U pg
¢
Q50
0
O
a.
N
O
c
m O
w N
O
0
nNNNC°,?NNNC°rnm?m
(laaj) Uollen013
J J
N
K
Cr r n
uuc O d
co '-LO MFT
III II 11=00)1 u E
w u x u u
E IcoeaZ
U_W(n
I
K .. r
A
C
o .?.
4 ... LL

0
ryN

U ,.
(100-4) Uollen913
C C C
0
CL ;p =
00

0 cu
o? -
U cu
?U
a
0? C 0
0Z
p' 47
D r)
? O
ai n°u
o g
u 0313
0
l
I
N
O
) c

rn
Q r?
V
rv rv (leaf) Uollen913
w
N
m
c w II II
M L

OH
NOh•-.y ? O
' r
n II
11 E
0
x Y 11 II " W
1 e
?O Om su
w
a
in
U
?t
i
k
rc
m
O
u O
013

O
U
rv (laa j) Uollen013

a

c ?j w
O N Wm
0
1
1
8
0 $
21 O
(1e8-4) U01len813
N
LL
U)
z
O
z
0
oz
ui O w
z0
CO
w
?i
a colt
c 0 v
o roo
n
II II

0
z
w
2
LL
N qNq
v/) o a`
0
°

ao y
CO o W
O
N
N + U))
O
U
T '.2 t2
rv rv (108-4) Uollena13

y U
Q O N N I I
O G
O N
- c; L G1
04

E
"Y
ll
11 4
ld? e
?m
7
!2
n
r) )
¢0? iz?LLwv

°rv
s
y
rvrvrvrv???rvrvrv
(100-4) Uollenal3
w
?X
W
rn
rn

t

C?

E

r r? r r ® r rr r r r rr rr rr r rr rr r rr rr
C
M
T
J
N
m Station (feet)
N A' O co a N ,1A CA
O O O O O O O O O
? O
a
co
cn
T N
t\O p
N
O
O
rn
Elevation (feet)
9
-0 1
O
CD

x
x

u
Io x
N

Elevation (feet)
m ? 8
o I
rn
c
d
N
T
O
CD o
rA n
a
? x
T N
VI
-.
--++
N o
.-*
00
0
?a
O
O
fD
O
7
Elevation (feet)
? v
o,
D?
Z ?Tf
0
N m
? O
Si

c °L 3
?
-,
N m a w
.
o 0

-0 CD
CD
N CD
m
ZO r
0
N ;U 57
=r O

?? N Q v
•-4
O _0
m'
_
O
..
OO D
=F
O
C CD

*0>
- 0
0
V "a
O 0 8 O
II 11 II

V N A O
7
fD ?
A
'. y ?
O
O
fD
lD
eo
Elevation (feet)
O
N
O

O
7 N

(p
v M_
0

?n 3
N
?v> n
-
-
0
0
10
p O O y
II it II ?
M
to
O p t
f~D N
? O
C p
d C

A _
fD
A
z
0
m
Cj)
X
m
O
Z
fn
(?J? J 0?0 (gyp O ? N

N I p

ff
'o

7 y
y
P

t"D 2

0
o I
cnm-0?mv?.D C)
m?DV?3v??3
d 2. co
3 =xm
11
-I A v? N ' ID
W W N p O
n
N ?» d n Zl
(a 1
M A
(D N
O
3
m
3
CD
o

,gn\LLOYD-Rdy.p shl.dgn
O
m O

r
m
Omo
„>O (n
-0 r
O no
= n
_ m
0 0(n Z F O Dn D Z
o
z -4mom D z mD m
CZ<
?
? -G m rM
oZ r

D
y D
n0 r
C
- n0Z Z O
n -n
m mr m
n ro
m
CIi !a W N Z

cn cn cn cn m
m m m m m
m m m m m

2 2 2 2 2
m m m m m

w
-n
N
-n -0

N n
v
N r-
,
N
O
K

=

O
O
O

0

D O
x

T
r-
m
0
--A
D

-?

m 'rl
X

i
,
T
X
-n
F
m -n
?
T
00

r
n
C

m

0
D "r7
X
n
D

Z
Z
r
r
D
-<
O
-1
W
r
m
ymZyrn0i
rnN$NG`?
y ? ? 1 Z Z
k W N ~ ? ?
G Q)rn
?rn~
prpZ
D
y
0
mg-v
ZOO
om-0
m Z O
m
?m

m \w S`X w
I` OQ ?
\ n
M
1 ? co
1;0 ;0 J
mm / 11 0
D cn cr)
ZG) I

r
Z 1 , !? W ;all
?

/w o
/? ;

'
co ? r;0 /;0
i
I
a) '
a) 1
X x n /
m /
I
I ,
,\ I
I \
1 `
1 /
X /
X n
W f
,yam
C
-I -i rr 11 cyl i N I J
0)
1
OD -4 I 11 A
I I - / (n 00
a) 0 1 1 a) a) a7 -i 1 2 m m
n-{ , / ;0X X ;u mm

X=
31'J r
-
J 0, A.
n r .p 1 - m Z
z
n
rr-
0D \1
/O / m
ii/ ` ?Dr

f
-? X/ N
Arm

03
;u a N
1

,00 n A

= - '
- ;K ZZ
_ O T
- - _ _ - - _ N
r171Z
\I C13
-' - N N a)/ W A N i 0
_
w l
/

? - ' N `
I ll } 1 I

M ?I`J, cn w r w m
-,= m O 00 f
mmG)
0 3I /' ?Dmfl pN cl \ \ \I
N r' , rn
` 3I rJ f 1
E SHEET P?-2
N N TA• 14+00.00 SE
MAC GH ??NE S
Z (?
O
m
D
r
N
A
D
r
m
N
o AD
83
m
m
0
0
n o o IN CONJUNCTION WITH:
z n NORTH CAROLINA PLANS PREAPRED BY:
m ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
r SITE PLAN PARSONS
LLOYD PROPERTY STREAM RESTORATION SITE BRINCKERHOFF
--= Axiom Environmental, inc.

_
\ /
\ /
_ O fn(n(no' - - - _
-
-
mm
O;u
-
-
mmF0
mOr?
\ \.,, \ m ?
?D-DEm

? '
1 Iyl V ? I
I , >>f ?
\
l
l ll?l I
fi
/
l
f /II I1llflr\
ll
l
I
l

\
a)
if
l
lr
\ ®t \ \` ` ;10

m
m
Go

ct)
?NX - ;0
7 1 `ra

\ ao
, .,
C
)
A
O r f w,

O. W
w f ?
h
6 /
I O
I
-\0-qn\LLOYO-Rdy-psh2.dgn

m O
m
r
m

cnKm Z= Z Z
m
Z * y r-
CZ<
?--AD m r-m
oD •v
m DZ0 00 c
- oz -nz
n o
m mr ?m
E r 0
0
m U)
Cn A W N - Z

-i

m m m m m
"
m m m m m

= 2 = 2 2
m m m m m

T 0
w v ^ r
r ?
m -n N N

Z

9 X p

r
N
0 r
U O
= rn r N

O
° ;C7 T
r- y O C O
O -1 M x
O D r < c7
n D m m =
D
r
.. Im D z

D m D m
W r
r
m D

O
C

??

?;0 c?
m = r`n y
m*Dm
z 0;0
z
+
0 -< -
m m
z oo -i
?0 70
;o (P
N N
W W N :.A
v 7
i
J

_
.? X - / N N

i N
co CD O v O Q
Q
00

i
IN
0+9
W N
0
to o 4/

-
w w a,.=
W to ;a y
o
,

-,
c>, W
w w w c.,)
C)
Y ,
-i
--
\ / x
CA) ?O CA)

I
C13

7
X Cl)
` W W
-4 :C7

J Co

cn

- i A

-
Omrn I

-n
DmD
;i1
w w
0 0 ,
co W A
o? ISO \
N N \
I Z --I
mnm
o Ca -z / CA)
aq o,
m g N
w ; ° X
cn to r-
-
CA)

m rrM 0
m o
-q m
?? w Jm
z
N O O / ? NI
?
00 0 ?
L
? A x I i
W m Z6?, • CURE
z5 ; ` M,\
_? qll A
W
03 CO
W A SI
1
I:< N
z5, -` zs- A 41
N N
Ca im 0 \z6
;o X
?;o?? A
O A
O W w
` , _ CJi A W N N co a9 m :C7 J4 U7 r ?
00 7 cAJ1 rA-thr m Cl) C7 JD
YC7, ?IArn= \
A ` C Zr 1
X ;1 T7 }? \ W m
al Ln (" 1 O O A A/ -b6 D_ r OBSCURED 0 m O
?
(n " I Co ;o n X A I cn DmD
c
=O -iZ-i
/ X ? o c°mm mnm
01 A- can `l W ? z m
4 X 0
W (n (n0
o 01 = -i
q?.C \ m ,
' m rn N
03 --1
;o X cncn0 m0<
cn rr =rn= ?mD
is I to A moz ?Dm
m riq "imZ ivr
N cn ?8 - - - -I D r w
o xOQO Ar -u
z C/)
OD
° yFFT
S 111/N lit, i, n
m
N A N b ?Z ? Z O
1_ N ,^
?C yf ?B S. y
p
n?
m n : NORTH CAROLINA PLANS PREAPRED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH:
n z ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
° SITE PLAN PB PARSONS
m ? ? N LLOYD PROPERTY STREAM RESTORATION SITE BRINCKERHOFF A
K
`R -? Axiom Environmental, Inc.
I
on\Deaign\ L L OYD_Rdy_ psh3.dgn
cn A w v z

N w M
M m m m M
M m fT1
M m m "

M m m m m

711 0
w

-n j

-n
71
-'

-•
O
z
°?

=
O
O
G7
0

D O

m

v
-.j
D
-i*
W
m -n
0°

-o
X
-n
r
!'? -n
O
o

O

<
X
m
v
Y m
0°
=
D
z
z
r-

<
o
-1
W '
r
M
X
M
°m C
V)
O
a Z
Cn
0
np?h a
m v.
? H T
? ra ae ?'?'
?WO? o
0
I
0
W
NORTH CAROLINA N CONJUNCTION WITH:
m a -°i PLANS PREAPRED BY:
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
SITE PLAN PB PARSONS
LLOYD PROPERTY STREAM RESTORATION SITE BRINCKERHOFF A
W
I I Axiom Environmental, Inc.
J /
I /
IIII?
Il lu -_
/ ? ? 4 1 X111
` ? 4i IIII
, I pl?h
I I `1?1
I I hip ?,
n M O
, IlU 1lI?
I 111111 I ?
I ' I,IIII Ilil
\ / /? ??? IIII I -
Ili
\ / / ??? I III I
I I ? IIII
H ;111 II t
NIII
' N N
I I
1
;0 W
A
I
A 1co
rn

r
M
n>o Cn
-0 r-
O 00
=: 0
= 0
m
Z o
m Cnmm b D D m
CZ<
X?> -
G M r- 03
00> r
'0
r
C
- OZ ? G)
n O Z
M m _r - rn
z rC
M (nn
MoD
M-uZM
-n* OM
zp?z
n < -< --I
mm
z

W 0 D
D=W
;)? zz
„ZV
F m o w \
r- r z X
X
-

\m ,arn,-A? I cn zs.
\ CP r
K/) !n 0
/=m= ;q W
Z10 I
(33 v \
M M >
OBscu?D m z
(.n M

I
I

n
M zi

- i m W I
-
,,
I
-4
?I J 10) -n
:C
I
-iDT

A r= 7t)

CO
X I r
r- /
` i C
?
r ?I --I W X pp /
//
r ? N I (p IIIII\\
v C:)
O I 1 \

I
/ I O
/
I 1
r _ _ ys , ? ? / I
?
r I
I ? -i I II No \ /
I / I ,Z7 I ? / ?
/ N

OBSCURED ?7 I W N/ N
N
I /W
C) N -'
X .? r N
Ul 0>

r rn N N
-i w w ? r ;0 W
\ C) >
I N I
?J N
49 /cnz
-
_ fn

r?
W
= A 1
N I
0 O
z
Z
Q

=m

-i
'-

G7
m
' m m G) \ ors C) N ca
-4

Ill?v< N

\ci\ a NN v
/
X W
N
?Dm ` CO
N \ rn

\ 4
I \ \ \ I O `
\ \ 1 '?/ N
(O "i ?
W C,
-
\ N W
.I1

MATCH / ?O
L11V
E ST
A. 14+00.()
? SE
E SHEET P
L-4
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ¦? ? ? Iiiliiiiiiiii? l?
i
ign\LLOYD-Rdy_psh4.dgn
-MATCH LINE
STA. 14+00.00
SEE
I I ,
SHEET P
O05CURED ;] ;u
f ' \ W j w I S
Q -L4
// - \ \ m --I W \ TL W
cy) I O
CJi A W N ? z ? N ? ? \ /
?flq?'c
O w w
-I W 03\ ?? ? I ';u ;13 to ;10 O
C/) -I cn -o (1) v cn cn m X' ;o I X rn ()1 cn,oo '
m >m -nm >m m cn W. w co w? cow 25 T?
m aim ,?,m -Im ml W rnN - \, 28
!n r
cn N D (n 0 0Y xO
m -n
/
= (n3: O= _ IGy'I' --q
m m m m m - °D w v ?? 0
' C,) cwn rn -I co X Cp S'AC`
0) / U) C/) r F A
-i --I -I -i --I / w w X rn ;u
cn N .o cn r A X 0 )/ ? 0) o, = m 0 ,
w -? T n / F-77 -a _ N N r' / m m O I
.n L cnfnr , )-i?W ? I rno<
O D 0 -n -n m m 0 o w W-4 w / `o M'> A/
0 r;O Z -I0< WI Nr-*
N 0 Y m --q z ;o ca
-IDm ;d0;v , ;o
Q O X N z w' o? co
\ \
r X O -n m
O ;o T Q r W W .u.
G7 m F r w C° X m
n -n m -v > . \
D
r- 0 Z O O v;o ' W co ;o a 2m=
> 0 P6 .06
cn C -a ' '11l w W N m o Z
W -I
r D m? -imz
!TI m < \ rn \ v -q m
ArC
mom =m ? ? fllct, rn \I m/mD?I cau
> c_n cn 0+00 1 n\ m o/Z as D --q O
y ?i22 m 0? ;a ? z0 ,? ?\ ?? to I mZ O ?n
j 00 min ?Z '\? cao) ;o (3) >r cI - ZI
n-0 --1 m \ p 1i \ X
m?0 r- c:
2 m V, 0 I co m _ ` II
cn Ri c? 2 O D C? -i ;o co
r me C= (n
-----
m :0 co
-4 M
r- >m
mD rq O Z I \ \t\ /( ,\
z o
`
\O ??? ?y
Z /
w
m
-n r-
I JIM NJ
co
Cil 01 01 cn
can U' lncnr ,
/
= m O
Immo C-)
- m o .A
< m ?; /, cn
01- z M co
al Url
m m
\ W
\,? ?? m m
<
' D
0

N
O
v moo
omX>
-
0
0
ml

L
Z
T O C) Z F G7 =' C? >
< m cn r < z= z 0
2mzox z ?mM D
my m
m o ;u (n < z 133
-< m
:t1 ---I A r D r
oo
-°
o -I m D -i m
0-1z?r v
Z
DD_ Do r
C
nu• n wrmn O
nOZ -nZ
,,
,,.? NOy . m -1 m m r W m
z r
O
z o
0

°.
©%apF m -I

w
aO
°
6
%, n 8
m n ° NORTH CAROLINA PLANS PREAPRED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH:
z ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
SITE PLAN
PARSONS

A
m A o LLOYD PROPERTY STREAM RESTORATION SITE PB
BRINCKERHOFF
--
? Axiom Environmental, Inc.
mD
'o W
?D
-n cn
?m
IL-
O
0
m

J z-
0
w

A
I

1
I
O

co 3O?o ? 02-, z
m = G-) o
m
v m
Cn m
?
?
o
o
c
1
?
N C
,
-
,
M
z
m m N O z z

C) m n
6 ?n?
CO Op
O
N
-1 Z :r MMa 2m

A D
z
D
En 1 ? y 'G) F M
4 M I m i t

i nim?
n-y m
-
D oxP 220
m
C4
RADIUS
z
Z,
Z
m m r
'a y z r
m 2
T = ?
0
f)
?n
?
z 2
=
o
z D
z > m
D r
M u M 0 Z

Z
r 0 S
z r
t
00 Z
+
m D
<
<o °Z z

En --1
O o p
m<

C
m X O
mm
z
iA
u{ m 4 O %
X
D?
00 M
o:. n
0
rn
5
m
z
z
0
'D -u
10
0
my
;u O
z (n
DD
z m
v?
Mm
Mz
0
n
mz
y:
M:
0 i
O:
>
o l
r;
X r
r/1 r
z %
O f
2
z?
M'
rQ
z
z
> z
n r
o c)
O
> z
N
C -i
c
c
4
1 4
O
7 z
7 z
? O
N
i
0 r-
0
? Xo
Q
0
n N
?,. O V T
Q) 0
?o
CD
o m
> > -I
v? I<
-0
0 N
r m
r-
0
X
O
ch
CP
to
irr _ r r s ?r r ar ar
0 o
? O N
A r
O Q
v T
o°
o°
1 0
M y
z ?
oz
O ?
0
M 3
M
C
O m
? o
O T
m0
M
p
oA
o0

D
r
n
2
D
z
z
m
r
T
X
O
In
r -
M

_0
n
D
r
n
X
O
Cl)
T
cn
m
n
--I

m
r r
T
t0C
(D
m
T
Cfl r r r it rr r r ?r r r r? r r r? . r r?
CT7

C

D

z

c
m

<
Z

a-Nir
MM

mN
PC

kr
O
O

im
mx
Z
O
?O m
N
d rT-- F; r X=y
R'. DO i
G
mj
Oz m
0y
m mC fn

T ,
T 8
N
M :q DA
2 r m
r N
ADO CO m?

z O ml
T
O O
O O m m?'a ?2 t
iim ?m a0
Zv
O) O
ay
m -42
m _
m zz
O m t
j mfn
o

N
m ;5=i
03rt1m =
m
NZ m0
m m 0
O
z m
D
r
m Z -I
;d> 20 1O m
m D m
m ,
00
T m N

m

Z
0

m
n?
?m m
?r
T Z
x
T
m bv
i
m
O
O
0 0 o =N

mm MM

my
C
r
A
Z
C
3 fn I
r N0
ZN yc Nz
-{
1
O

O r

r
z
z
y
F:
?
U
-n
vA
m 0
m
m p
pT
2m
x
m
D t•
-4
m ?o ? o
z z 0:1 10:1
w ?!
m O m

I
I
y
I ?
I 0
I
z
m
D
z
m
100,
,o
r
9
_IN O-0 (n
mT ?. rC
0,>G)O
pp Z(Am
N ?m?
v
r
A z
1 y dl
?m
D D
Z 'n
m
O
O
o m = D ; c
r m 2
? ? O m m m 0
c m
c
V
D r Z { O
vm? m2 "
N O m N
o 0
m
x O
OOo m. =p
m z A Rl r V
-1 O < -1 O F
2: -e m m z<OOm z o
z2aimso
zo co c? ?
m
m
/C
o
40 5D
N r
cn
0-A<
m
A O
mmD
DZO
Z?Z
z
O

Z
Z
m
r-
0
0
z
0
m
D_
r,
Oro
zm0?;
N
ZOm
N Z X1
mom
mz?
cn
0
T
r
O
O
O
b
?rn D
z ? Iz
?
a
? I
n m
O 'x
m C
m \ o
0 - - 4 >
z i m

? I
N
m
0
0
z
v
0
Ohm
G)
?Z
1<TI'Np IV
DZz
Z N
rn

-630
M X
U)
v
z cr
x N m
m m
? A
T ?
O
2 m
N
m
2
O
C
v
O
K
z
2 tDll ,ZOj
m20
?N
N
tzQ , -a
moy
Igo
N N
m
rn
D
O
O
A
m
D
m
D
N
m
0
O
c
ch
N
m
0 0 D
DOC)
MC
M
m

0 115 230 460 690 920
Feet
r '? t F 1 ?''
N .,
1 ? T
Y: %
Ar
a tS,~ ?
q
e?
4 yY
e'• a ?•'1 'y
Legend
Conservation Easement 24.36 acres
Proposed Channel
Hardwoods Community = 19.24 acres
Streamside Assemblage = 3.89 acres
t Property Boundaries
- 2W
---
+ ?r>a
:Mr Small Stream
r V*99tatlon 9wamplNonrlwrlne Wet gtnam•alde
Association Hardwoods Assemble TOTAL
i Area acres 19.24 3.88 23.13
Number Number
'/. of total IanNd" Y. of total Number planted
Species IaMed•
I _p
- . 2
_ ?? d Swamp chestnut oak
Laurel oak 2616
2616 20
20 --
y
-
4' - Cherrybark oak 2616 20
n
• American elm 2616 20
r - Green ash 916 7 -- -•
r Sweetbay 916 7 .. •.
Silky dogwood 765 6 3174 30
Black willow 3174 30
Bullonbush •• 2116 20
Elderberry •• •• 2116 20
TOTAL 13.021 100 10.560 100
ay FIGURE
1 2126 Rowland Pond Ddve PLANTING PLAN cLF
VNllow Spiring,
-1 93 NC 27582 Date:
, (e18?218 LLOYD RESTORATION SITE May 2006
(919)SN•3331fax
16
Onslow County, North Carolina pro;,
05-021
6om Environmental, Inc.
E
480 720 960
Feet
n Y
" Wi.
q r ,.
E
M Y
R?
H tF.

IN "IMM
2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Willow Spring, NC 27992
?. [phone]
\1919) 341.3839 fax
Axiom Environmental, inc.
WON
F,
r?.
- •'t
lY it
1
I Legend

Conservation Easement = 24.36 a cres
x Proposed Channel
Property Boundaries
® Potential Veg Plots (10m x 10m)
Benchmarks
to Y` "';,?
.. ' Aerial PhotolTopo Panels
^
A.
-
?j Potential Photo Plots
. Potential Groundwater Gauges
? Wetland Restoration Areas
- Riverine
Nonriverine
Wetlands within 50 foot Buffer
" will not count toward restoration acreage

D... by FIGURE
MONITORING PLAN CAF
LLOYD RESTORATION SITE oaYa. May 2006
17
North Carolina
Onslow County
, PfOfed:
05-021 -1 - 1

Appendix B.
' Preconstruction Photographs

I

r

Appendix B: Preconstruction
Photographs

V Site intall.
t
I
ryl
-4
l*Looking across the abandoned channel
toward the main tributary adjacent to the tree line

Looking downstream on abandoned channel.
Looking upstream on abandoned channel.
Looking upstream on abandoned channel
at Site intall
t,
Appendix B: Preconstruction
Photographs (continued)
/
l./
e;r
y??4
31}
Looking upstream at the main channel adjacent to
the tree line.
near the
4
i ?
stream towards the confluence of the main channel
the existing eastern channel/roadside ditch.
channel
rill bisectthe easement.
abandoned channel.
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
NC Dept of Environmental &
Item to be Paid - Description
080706
Check Number: 4516
Check Date: Aug 7, 2006
Check Amount: $475.00
Discount Taken Amount Paid
475.00

4516