20061483 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060913

oCTF uLP-148
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
October 16, 2006
Action ID No. SAW-2006-41095-121 / Nationwide Permit No. 27 (Wetland Restoration)
Mr. Lin Xu
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Xu:
J§@gV@%
0c, L 0 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
?? BRAt1Cli
?hVLN $ Mt) STORE
This correspondence confirms our receipt of your notification dated September 13, 2006,
requesting Department of the Army (DA) authorization to implement the restoration plan
entitled, Unnamed Tributary to Pembroke Creek Metland and Stream Restoration. This work
will be undertaken on a 59.4-acre site located east of NCSR 1200 (Macedonia Road) just south
of NCSR 1208 (Wildcat Road), northwest the city of Edenton, adjacent to the headwaters of an
unnamed tributary to Pembroke Creek, in Chowan County, North Carolina.
Accordingly, for the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, lists nationwide
permits. Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities in waters of the United States associated with
the restoration of former waters, the enhancement of degraded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and
riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas and the restoration
and enhancement of non-tidal streams and non-tidal open water areas on private lands.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the attached General Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
a. This authorization in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to recognize this
work as a stream or riparian wetland restoration project.
b. This authorization in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accept this
project for use as compensatory mitigation proposed by the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP), or any other person, program, or entity.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing
NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 18, 2007. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice
when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence
this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will
have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP to complete
the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
You should contact Ms. Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, telephone
[phone], regarding Section 401 Water Quality Certification. This nationwide permit does
not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be addressed to me at
the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.. . .
Sincerely,
Ik ?- &;0Q
William J. Biddlecome
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Water Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Domey
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. James Halley, P.E.
Natural Systems Engineering
3719 Benson Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
o.."- V_
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
/ P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
J / IN REPLY REFER TO
October 16, 2006
Regulatory Division ,/ V93
Action ID No. SAW-2006-41095-121 / Nationwide Permit No. 27 (Wetland Restoration))7- a -/0
Mr. Lin Xu
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Xu:
QLrE @ NEdFM?
OCT 2 0 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
V,ETLA=M!0 STORIaYyATER BRMCH
This correspondence confirms our receipt of your notification dated September 13, 2006,
requesting Department of the Army (DA) authorization to implement the restoration plan
entitled, Unnamed Tributary to Pembroke Creek lVetland and Stream Restoration. This work
will be undertaken on a 59.4-acre site located east of NCSR 1200 (Macedonia Road) just south
of NCSR 1208 (Wildcat Road), northwest the city of Edenton, adjacent to the headwaters of an
unnamed tributary to Pembroke Creek, in Chowan County, North Carolina.
Accordingly, for the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, lists nationwide
permits. Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities in waters of the United States associated with
the restoration of former waters, the enhancement of degraded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and
riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas and the restoration
and enhancement of non-tidal streams and non-tidal open water areas on private lands.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the attached General Conditions and the following Special Conditions:
a. This authorization in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to recognize this
work as a stream or riparian wetland restoration project.
b. This authorization in no way obligates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accept this
project for use as compensatory mitigation proposed by the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP), or any other person, program, or entity.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing
NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 18, 2007. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice
when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence
this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will
have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the NWP to complete
the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
You should contact Ms. Cyndi Karoly, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, telephone
[phone], regarding Section 401 Water Quality Certification. This nationwide permit does
not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be addressed to me at
the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
IkIA?. ?- &Aeowt
William J. Biddlecome
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
Water Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. James Halley, P.E.
Natural Systems Engineering
3719 Benson Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
reviews
1 of 2
Subject: reviews
From: Kyle Barnes <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:29:51 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
Here are a few. Not sure if I sent you the first couple already and one we have
talked about and you wrote. The HOLD you can all me if you have any questions.
06-0556 3-n-1, Inc. Pasquotank 9/13/2006 10/05/06 CAMA/MJ
issue normal conditions
06-1193 Wharfs Landing Dare 10/3/2006 10/05/06 NW 18 does
not need written concurrence
06-1483 UT to Pembroke Cr. Wetland and Stream Res. Chowan 9/18/2006
10/06/06 EEP issue normal conditions
10/9/2006 4:41 PM
reviews
06-1309 Lost and Found Lumber Co Perquimans 9/15/2006 10/09/06
CAMA/MJ Issue with conditions: BMP's for disturbance and Marine Fisheries
Moritorium is met
06-1311 Green Tree SD Sec. IV Craven 09/07/06 10/09/06 NW
18 Hold: Shouldn't this be a NW 14?, Applicant needs to provide calculation of
buffer impacts for crossing, Lot 2 has house proposed in buffer. If subdivision was
platted after Jan. 2000 there should be no buffer impacts with dwellings proposed.
Plat should show both zones of the buffer. buffer. Request stream determination
for crossing
2 of 2 10/9/2006 4:41 PM
Date:
Triage Check List
-- 0 1 P
Project Name. G-L &
DWQ#: V (_Q"- M
County: C \o P)
To: ? ARO Kevin Barnett
? FRO Ken Averitte
? MRO Alan Johnson/Barry Love
? RRO Eric Kulz
any
From:
WaRO Kyle Barnes
? WiRO Noelle Lutheran/Joanne Steenhuis
? WSRO Daryl Lamb
Telephone: (919
)
The file attached is being forwarded to your 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)
El 9LR@2flY@1
Pond fill ? Mitigation Ratios O CT 2 3 2006
? Ditching OEM
El Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable? itiFt ?,?osT??w??WNCH
? Check drawings for accuracy
.1
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern SEP 16 2006
Comments: C
?v jrf?

L':J

Unnamed Tributary to Pembroke Creek
Wetland and Stream Restoration
Chowan County, North Carolina, Project #D06102S
" 3 3
Final - Restoration Plan
-1 3 3

"i ti

w
., 3
20061483
Prepared for:
E North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem EcosYstem Enhancement Program (NCDENR-EEP
, )
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 ---Submitted September 8, 2006
,_
SEP 1 2016
•?Erft r ( ' Ir,{,
iC I?1? •J. I ?Ir

Prepared by:
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
Natural Systems Engineering
3719 Benson Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
Project Manger: James M. Halley, P.E.
[e-mail]
e

t

I

r
J 1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location .........................................................................................2
1.1 Directions to Project Site ..........................................................................................................2
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin .......................................................2
2.0 Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................................3
2.1 Drainage Area ..........................................................................................................................3
2.2 Surface Water Classification ....................................................................................................3
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ............................................................................................3
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ........................................................................5
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species .............................................................................................6
2.6 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................7
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology .........................................................................................7
2.6.2 Field Evaluation ..............................................................................................................7
2.6.2.1 Potential for Historic Architectural resources .......................................................7
2.6.2.2 Potential for Archaeological resources ..................................................................7
2.6.3 SHPO/THPO Concurrence .............................................................................................7
2.7 Potential Constraints ................................................................................................................8
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary .................................................................................8
2.7.2 Site Access .................................................................................................................... ..8
2.7.3 Utilities and Easement .................................................................................................. ..8
2.7.4 Hydrologic Trespass ..................................................................................................... ..9
3.0 Project Site Wetlands and Streams (existing conditions) ............................................................. ..9
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................................................................................................... ..9
3.2 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Preliminary Groundwater Characterization .................................................................. 10
3.2.2 Surface Water Investigation .......................................................................................... 10
3.2.3 Water Budget for Restoration Site ................................................................................ 11
3.3 Soil Characterization .............................................................................................................. 11
3.3.1 Taxonomic Classification (including series) ................................................................ 11
3.3.2 Profile Description ........................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................ 13
4.0 Re ference Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Target Reference Conditions .................................................................................................. 15
4.2 Reference Site Search Methodology ...................................................................................... 15
4.3 Reference Site Parameters ...................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Reference 1 ................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 17
4.3.1.3 Hydrology and Topography ................................................................................. 18
4.3.2 Reference 2 ................................................................................................................... 18
4.3.2.1 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.3.2.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 19
4.3.2.3 Hydrology and Topography ................................................................................ 19
4.3.3 Reference 3 ................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.3.1 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.3.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 20
4.3.3.3 Hydrology and Topography ................................................................................ 21
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N a 1 N E E R 1 N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ........................................................................................................ 21
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................................. 21
5. 1.1 Designed Channel Classification (narrative) and / or Wetland Type ........................... 22
5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities / Buffer Communities ................................................... 22
5.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis ....................................................................................... 22
5.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................... 23
5.4 Hydrologic Modifications (for wetland restoration or enhancement) .................................... 23
5.4.1 Narrative of Modifications ............................................................................................ 23
5.5 Soil Restoration ...................................................................................................................... 24
5.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment ............................................................ 24
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................... 25
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration ................................................................... 25
5.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ......................................................................... 26
6.0 Pe rformance Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 26
6.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 26
6.3 Flow Features ......................................................................................................................... 26
6.4 Schedule / Reporting .............................................................................................................. 27
7.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Tables (within text of document)
Table 1. Historical Land Use and Development Trends .........................................................................5
Table 2. Cape Fear Soil Series .............................................................................................................. 12
Table 3. Dragston Soil Series ............................................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Portsmouth Soil Series ............................................................................................................ 12
Table 5. Roanoke Soil Series ................................................................................................................ 13
Table 6. Tomotley Soil Series ............................................................................................................... 13
Table 7. Eastern Drainage Area north end of Project Area .................................................................. 14
Table 8. Eastern Drainage Area south end of Project Area .................................................................. 14
Table 9. Western Drainage Area ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 10. Small Pond ............................................................................................................................ 14
Table 11. Reference Wetland Compatibility Codes ............................................................................. 16
Table 12. Reference Wetland 1 Soil Description .................................................................................. 16
Table 13. Transect 1 - Wetland ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 14. Transect 1 - Wetland Edge ................................................................................................... 17
Table 15. Transect 2 - Wetland Area .................................................................................................... 17
Table 16. Transect 2 - Wetland Edge ................................................................................................... 17
Table 17. Chowan Soil Series ............................................................................................................... 18
Table 18. Wetland Area ........................................................................................................................ 19
Table 19. Wetland Buffer Area ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 20. Roanoke Series Soil .............................................................................................................. 20
Table 21. Wetland Area ........................................................................................................................ 20
Table 22. Wetland Buffer Area ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 23. Acreage for Vegetative Communities ................................................................................... 25
® NATURAL SYSTEMS ii
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

n

8.0 Exhibit Tables
Exhibit Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Exhibit Table 2. Drainage Areas
Exhibit Table 3. Land Use of Watershed
Exhibit Table 4. Groundwater Monitoring Summary
Exhibit Table 5. Crest Gauge and Rainfall Summary
Exhibit Table 6. Reference Sites Data Summary
Exhibit Table 7. Designed Vegetative Communities (by zone)
Exhibit Table 8. Restoration Summary
9.0 Figures
Figure 1. Project Site & Reference Site 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site & Reference Site 1 Watershed Map, Hydrologic Features, & Gauge
Locations
Figure 3. Project Site & Reference 1 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Reference Site 1 Wetland Determination Sample Locations and Communities Map
Figure 5. Reference Site 1 Cross Sectional Data
Figure 6. Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 7. Restoration Summary
Figure 8. Historical Aerial Photographs
Figure 9. Reference Sites 2 & 3 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 10. Reference Sites 2 & 3 Watershed Map, Hydrologic Features, and Gauge Locations
Figure 11. Reference Sites 2 & 3 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 12. Reference Site 2 Wetland Determination Sample Locations and Communities Map
Figure 13. Reference Site 3 Wetland Determination Sample Locations and Communities Map
Figure 14. Reference Site 2 & 3 Cross Sectional Data
Figure 15. Restoration Site Flood Event Map
10.0 Design Sheets
Sheet 1. Existing Site Conditions
Sheet 2. Designed Channel Alignment and / or Site Conditions
Sheet 3. Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 4. Designed Vegetative Communities Map (by zone)
Sheet 5. Designed Vegetative Communities Map (by zone)
11.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Reference Site 1 - Photographs
Appendix 5. Reference Site 1 - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 6. Reference Site 2 - Photographs
Appendix 7. Reference Site 2 - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 8. Reference Site 3 - Photographs
Appendix 9. Reference Site 3 - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 10. Preliminary Gauge Data Summary Groundwater and Rainfall Charts and Data
Appendix 11. UT to Pembroke Creek Wetland Water Budget
Appendix 12. 1927 Tile Drain Map
Appendix 13. Farm Service Prior Converted Land Site Map
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 111
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Executive Summary
This restoration site contains an unnamed tributary to Pembroke Creek (UT Pembroke Creek) and has
been selected for wetland and stream restoration by the North Carolina Department of the
Environmental and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR-EEP). The
purpose of this restoration project is to restore and enhance the headwater wetland/stream complex
located hydrologically within the Pasquotank River Basin.
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton, in Chowan County, North
Carolina as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The project lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
03010205 120010 (USGS, 1974) and within NC DWQ Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04 (NCDENR,
2002). For discussion and planning purposes the site has been divided in to three areas. The first
area, referred to as Area 1, is located north of the access road that bisects the site. Area 2 begins at
the access road and follows the valley south until a point approximately 1,000-feet below the road.
Area three begins where Area 2 ends and continues to the end of the project site (Sheet 2).
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on
reference conditions, with the intent to restore its wetland functions to that of pre-disturbance
conditions. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005;
USACE, 1987) and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success.
The primary project objective is to design a waterway through the wetland complex with the
appropriate cross-section and slope as to provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria
for the wetland. Additional project objectives, such as ensuring hydraulic stability and establishing a
native wetland plant community, are listed in Section 5.1 along with several other project objectives.
Currently the site consists of farmland and wooded areas. The total easement area for this project is
59.4 acres of which 26.7 acres is wooded and will be designated for preservation with the remaining
32.8 acres being used for agriculture. Two channelized features exist on the site. One drainage
feature is located along the eastern edge of the easement and another more prominent feature begins
at Wildcat Road in the north and continues southward to the end of the project area. The part of the
site north of the access road that bisects the site is extremely flat and reconnection of surface water to
existing land surface in that area will be limited.
The primary actions to restore the site will be reversal of drainage caused by the main ditch and the
re-establishment of native vegetation. Through these actions, approximately six (6) acres of wetland
enhancement and 17 acres of wetland restoration is expected. Approximately 4,488 feet of headwater
wetland corridor will also be restored.
In Area 1 the existing ditch will be filled and flow will be diverted to a natural valley on site. Minor
excavation will be necessary to divert water to the new location. The new wetland valley will allow
conveyance of runoff while providing a naturalized headwater wetland feature. The construction of
the valley feature will follow natural topographic relief. The earthwork necessary to construct the
headwater wetland valley will begin at approximate station 1+00. At approximate station 11+00 it
will connect to an existing valley feature and from that point and downstream, the restored headwater
wetland valley will follow existing ground surface. The access road will be modified to
accommodate occasional flow over the road. The small tributary located along the western portion of
Area 1 will be slightly modified to promote sheet flow down the valley and across Area 1.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Area 2 will only need minor earthwork, pool/hummock creation, and conversion of the pond to a
' more naturalized wetland feature. South of the access road, water table elevations are expected to be
near the ground surface for the remainder of the project. The creation of pool/hummock complexes
throughout the site will be part of the final design plans.
Area 3 is the location where the wetland valley feature must transition back to a drainage ditch. In
this area it is the goal to implement a naturalized transition over a distance of 50 to 100 feet. This
feature must be effective in making the elevation transition while also having a natural appearance
fitting for the Coastal Plain setting. A stabilized swale through the road will hydrologically connect
the reference wetland to the natural valley. This area will be designed to ensure that the existing
roadway is not adversely impacted during storm events.
Tables 1 through 20, within the text of this document, primarily apply to soils and vegetation and are
referred to as "Tables", while tables referenced in an attached appendix are referenced as "Exhibit
Tables". Exhibit Tables 1 through 8 present the project restoration structures and objectives, project
restoration structure and objectives, drainage areas, land use of watershed, groundwater monitoring
summary, crest gauge and rainfall summary, reference sites data summary, designed vegetative
communities (by zone), and a restoration summary. Figures 1 through 15 primarily depict site and
reference wetland conditions, and also contain information regarding historical aerial photographs,
and site specific flood maps. Sheets 1 through 5 illustrate existing conditions, proposed site
conditions, a longitudinal profile (cross-section view of the site), and designed vegetative
communities.
This report contains Appendices 1 through 13 which contain a multitude of information varying
subjects. Appendices 1 through 9 contain photographs and data forms for the site and the reference
sites. Appendices 10 through 13 contain gauge data and charts, the water budget for the site, a tile
drain map of the site dated 1927, and a map showing former "prior converted" areas of the site.
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton in Chowan County, North
Carolina as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The site is specifically located approximately 3
miles west-northwest of the Route 17 Bypass and Route 32 Interchange (exit 227). To reach the site
from the Route 17 Bypass, take Route 32 north approximately 1.2 miles then turn left onto Wildcat
Road. Continue north on Wildcat Road for 1.8 miles. Approximately 1,000 feet before reaching the
end of Wildcat Road where in intersects Macedonia Road, UT Pembroke Creek and the site will be
on the left (south) (Figure 2).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin
The site lies within the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03010205 120010 (USGS, 1974), which falls
hydrologically within the Pasquotank River Basin. The NC DWQ River Subbasin for the project area
is listed as the Chowan 03-01-04 (NCDENR, 2002).
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 2
' E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area for this project, measured at the downstream end where the cell tower access road
crosses UT Pembroke Creek, is 0.4 square miles (265 acres). The drainage area at the beginning of
the project is 0.08 square miles (50 acres).
The easement totals 59.42 acres and is broken into three easement areas. Easement area 1
encompasses 22.51 acres, beginning from the start of the restoration project extending south and west
to the gravel access road. Easement area 2 has 9.36 acres and extends from the gravel access road
south and west into the field to project end. Easement area 3 covers 27.55 acres, extending from the
gravel access road south and east of the restoration site to project end, creating the largest easement
area to ensure a buffer zone around restoration project. The land use in the watershed of the project
area is approximately 15% farmstead, 41% rowcrop, 1% surface water and 43% woods.
2.2 Surface Water Classification
The current State classification for Pembroke Creek (Stream Index # 26-1-1) from its source to
Edenton Bay, is Class B and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) waters (NCDENR, 2005). Class B
waters are used primarily for recreation and have no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges. The NSW waters classification is intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
(NCDENR, 2006).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The site is located on the Edenton 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map. No blue line
streams are shown on the site; however, an incomplete oval of a Carolina Bay is depicted near the
southern end of the site and to the east of the planned project limits. A small pond is depicted within
the project limits. The site is located very near to the western boundary of the outer coastal plain of
North Carolina. The site is underlain by Castle Hayne Limestone composed of middle Eocene
sediments known as the Albemarle Embayment.
The site has five primary soil mapping units. These units are the Cape Fear, Conetoe, Dragston,
Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley. The Cape Fear, Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley are listed
as hydric by the NRCS. The following are brief descriptions of all of the on-site soil mapping units
(NRCS, 1986).
Cape Fear (Q)
Nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in slight depressions on
marine and stream terraces. They formed in clayey marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy
surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is moderate.
Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1-foot. These soils are subject to rare flooding.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 3
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
t

t

Conetoe CtB)
These nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well drained soils are on uplands and stream terraces.
They formed in loamy and sandy marine and fluvial deposits. The surface and subsurface layers are
sandy and range from 20 to 40 inches thick. The subsoil is loamy. Permeability is moderately rapid
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.
Dra _ ston Ds)
These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils are on stream terraces and uplands.
They formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediments. They have a sandy surface layer and a loamy
subsoil. Permeability is moderately rapid and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table
is within a depth of 1 to 2.5 feet.
Portsmouth (Pt)
These nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in slight depressions.
They formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil.
These soils are underlain by sandy deposits at a depth of 40 inches or less. Permeability is moderate
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1-foot.
Roanoke (Ro)
These nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in depressions on marine
and stream terraces. They formed in clayey marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface
layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is moderate. Seasonal high
water table is within a depth of 1-foot.
Tomotley (To)
These nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils are on flats and in depressions on stream and
marine terraces. They formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface
layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is within a depth of 1 foot.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 4
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Table 1. Historical Land Use and Development Trends
(Observations based on aerial imagery)
Date Land Use and Development Observations
1927 Extensive tile drain system installed on central portion of property
1948 Agricultural production established and small complex of buildings on west border of property.
1955 Land disturbance observed in sandpit area; new field on southern portion of site is established
and contains residence and a road within the northern portion of site
1969 Observed sandpit area appears to be grown over, disturbance extending west; newly cleared
area on north edge of site
1979 Ditch features clearly depicted on site; road network through site is evident
1979-1988 Clearing of wooded lot below the southern portion of site; new direction in which the north to
south ditch is depicted
1998 Depicts site as current conditions
2006 Verification of current site conditions
Aerial imagery, documentation provided by the local Farm Service Agency (FSA), along with
information provided by the property owner indicate that the subject site has been used extensively
for agricultural purposes and also for sand mining. A 1927 tile drain schematic (Appendix 12)
provided by the property owner depicts an extensive tile drain system that was planned and installed
within the central portion of the property. The historical aerial photograph from 1948 (Figure 8)
depicts the subject parcel in agricultural production. In 1948 a small complex of buildings occupying
an area approximately 200 feet by 300 feet wide is evident along the west border of the property
where Chambers Ferry Road forks to the west from Macedonia Road. A dark area in the current
"pond" location on site is evident and extends from the cleared portion of the property into the
wooded area, potentially indicating a "wet" or surface flow area.
Between 1955 and 1979 minor conversion to agricultural use is evident along with substantial land
disturbance in the area of the former sand pit, due east of the subject parcel. By 1955 significant land
disturbance can be observed in the area currently noted as sandpit area on the USGS map depicted on
Figure 1. The 1955 image also indicates a new field area on the southern portion of the site
containing a new residence and road within the northern portion of the site. By 1969, the sandpit area
appears to be grown over, although the disturbance extends to the west, almost reaching the area that
currently demarcates the edge of the hog lagoon. The 1969 photo also shows a newly cleared area on
the north edge of the site. The 1979 image clearly depicts the ditched feature that begins at the current
project start location and continues south until it reaches the end of the project boundary. This ditch
feature is currently evident on site although it terminates near the buildings in the lagoon area. A road
network is also evident the 1979 photo. The main differences between the 1979 photograph and the
1998 photograph are the clearing of the wooded area below the southern part of the site and the new
direction in which the north-to-south ditch is depicted. The 1998 photo generally depicts the site in
the same condition as it is today, which can be verified by the March 24, 2006 aerial photograph.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 5
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Several distinct conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the photographs and the information
regarding historic land use. The 1927 tile drain schematic provided by the property owner and
developed by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service indicates that circa 1927 the land
was drained for the purposes of agriculture. The FSA information reviewed by NSE indicated that
the majority of the site was designated as prior converted (PC) cropland. According to FSA records
the PC call was made on June 12, 1990 (Form SCS CPA 026) farm serial number 1299 tract 204.
The PC map is presented in Appendix 13. Aerial photographs dating from 1948 until today indicate
that the site has been used for agricultural purposes for at. least the past 59 years, although it has likely
been closer to 80 years. Two variations of a linear north-to-south ditch feature have been
implemented at the site. All of the facts presented in Section 2.4 support the notion that the
groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil
structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive agricultural operations. Although most
on-site soil series are classified as poorly drained, the ditching and lowering if the groundwater table
on-site has caused these soils to be effectively drained.
2.5 Endangered l T/ireatened Species
A search was conducted on March 30, 2006 of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data for
Chowan County, NC. This search produced a list of plant and animal species with various federal and
state statuses. Upon further review, it was determined that only one of the species listed for Chowan
County was listed as either federally endangered or threatened. That species is Haliaeetus
leucocephalus or commonly known as the bald eagle (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006).
A description of the bald eagle and its habitat provides background information that aids in the
understanding of the review process that was conducted. The bald eagle is a sea or fish eagle that has
re-established breeding territories in each of the lower 48 states except Vermont. The bald eagle
breeds in forested areas near large bodies of water and it winters in coastal areas, along large rivers
and large unfrozen lakes. The bald eagle is an opportunistic feeder that will feed upon large birds,
mammals, carrion, and fish. Adults weigh 8 to 14 pounds and have wingspans of 51/2 to 8 feet with the
female being larger than the males. Bald eagles typically build large nests in mature, old-growth trees
or snags. There has been noted increases in the use of power poles and communication towers to
build nests. The trees selected for nesting are usually very tall and strong as the nests can weigh more
than 1,000 pounds. The nests usually include a perch with a clear view of the water.
The project site was reviewed using GIS data and field observations to determine the presence or
likely presence of the bald eagle on or near to the site. This review was conducted to determine if
project activities might significantly disturb the bald eagle. GIS data was reviewed and it was
determined that the site is more than one mile away from the nearest large body of water. Some ponds
are closer to the site, but they are all less than 30 acres in size. The most recent North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program's Natural Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO), updated March 2006,
dataset was also reviewed within the GIS. That data shows no element occurrences on or near to the
site.
Although large water bodies are far from the site, a site reconnaissance was conducted to determine if
other aspects of likely habitat exist. The site is mostly open farm fields that are actively farmed. The
ditch network has relatively young trees growing along them. A cellular telephone tower exists near
the site. A visual observation was made of the surrounding trees and communications towers and no
obvious nests of raptor size were observed. The landowner stated that some older trees had been on
the site, but they were destroyed in a hurricane a few years ago.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 6
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Therefore, it is concluded that no major elements for bald eagle habitat exist on the site and no
evidence of bald eagles has been found. It is the professional opinion that this project will have no
effect on Haliaeetus leucocephalus, bald eagle.
2.6 Cultural Resources
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The categorical exclusion document was followed in order to address any cultural resource issues.
The site is not located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
The site is not federal or Indian lands and thus compliance is reached for the Antiquities Act,
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Indian Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007. The
National Register of Historic Places was searched and no sites were identified near the site.
2.6.2 Field Evaluation
The project site is primarily made up of actively farmed agricultural fields. The project area was
plowed approximately one week before a site visit. The project site was reviewed in five transects.
Three soil borings were conducted along each transect to a depth of one (1) meter. The upper 12
inches of soil indicated typical alterations due to plowing and farming activities. No other indications
of disturbance were noted.
2.6.2.1 Potential for Historic Architectural resources
The site has no buildings within the proposed easement and project area. Additionally, the project site
does not contain any known historic trails. Based on the information collected to date, the likelihood
of historic architectural resources within the project area is low.
2.62.2 Potential for Archaeological resources
The project site is almost entirely made up of an active farm field. The field was plowed one week
before a site visit. No evidence of archaeological artifacts was observed. Additionally, the site is
located more than one (1) mile from the Chowan River and is composed of relic hydric soils. These
soils were drained in the early 1900's for agricultural purposes. There is no locally high spot that
would have provided dry land for use in the past. It is unlikely that the project site would have been
suitable for inhabitation prior to being drained for agricultural purposes. There is a small Carolina
Bay shown on the USGS topographic map (Figure 1) that is almost entirely off of the project site.
This Carolina Bay is very small and would probably not have offered enough resources for habitation.
2.6.3 SHPO/THPO Concurrence
A letter and maps of the project were submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for
review and comment on March 21, 2006. A SHPO response letter was received on April 21, 2006
stating that no registered historic properties were within the project area. SHPO, however, also
requested additional investigation in the southern area of the project that lies at the edge of a former
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 7
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Carolina Bay, which is depicted on Figure 1. A follow-up meeting with the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) Chowan County representative on May 3, 2006 produced a resolution for the
concerns expressed by SHPO. During this meeting NSE, presented additional detailed project
information that allowed OSA to rescind the comments regarding the need for additional
investigation. NSE sent a letter to SHPO on May 9, 2006 documenting the results of the meeting. On
May 26, 2006 NSE received a letter from SHPO that recommended clearance for this project in terms
of cultural resources.
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
This project will affect the following parcels. The main project parcel is the Carlton Perry property
owned solely by Carlton N. Perry and wife, Alice W. Perry. A 30 foot access easement is held by
United States Cellular Corp. for the purpose of access to a cellular communications tower located on
the adjacent parcel to the south, also owned by Carlton N. Perry and wife, Alice W. Perry.
2.7.2 Site Access
' The access easement follows the existing entry road from NCSR 1200 Macedonia Road. There is
adequate primary access to the site via a 20 foot wide gravel entry road from Macedonia Road. A
low grade access exists via a turnout on to NCSR 1208 Wildcat Road from a field on the northern
L boundary of the property. A secondary gated access road also exists along Wildcat Road. This road
allows access to the eastern boundary of the main project parcel; however, this road crosses over an
adjacent parcel owned by Mr. Carlton Perry.

2.7.3 Utilities and Easement
The following utilities were found to exist on or near the Carlton Perry parcel located in the vicinity
of the intersection of NCSR 1208 Wildcat Road and NCSR 1200 Macedonia Road. The utilities were
identified by surface observation, local research, and contact with the current property owner. Local
power exists on the property via overhead service lines. These service lines follow the northern and
western boundary of the parcel and enter the property along the northern side of an existing gravel
access road from Macedonia Road. Water exists on the property via a two (2) inch service line that
extends from the main distribution line along Macedonia Road. This service line enters the property
coincident with the centerline of the existing gravel entry road and terminates at the existing farm
structures. No sewer lines are in existence. Underground telephone cable extends from Macedonia
I Road along the gravel entry road's southern side and then follows an existing 30 foot access easement
south to a cell tower easement on the adjacent parcel. The telephone cable is located within the
access easeri.-nt, under the access road. Electricity for the cell tower enters the property via an
underground cable along an existing ditch that extends from Macedonia Road to the project terminus.
This cable lies outside the proposed easement area although it parallels the southernmost end of the
easement boundary for approximately 300 feet.

® NATURAL SYSTEMS 8
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.7.4 Hydrologic Trespass
Hydrologic trespass is one of the most significant design constraints for this site. The area where
hydrologic trespass is of greatest concern is the beginning of the project area where a 24-inch
reinforced concrete pipe culvert conveys the project stream under Wildcat Road. There are two
concerns at this location. The first concern is increasing the water elevations at the upstream
property. The second concern is increasing the water elevations at the road, which could cause the
roadway to flood on a more frequent basis. There are home sites adjacent to the project area,
although flooding is not expected to be an issue even though the water table may be raised slightly as
part of this project. Hydrologic trespass concerns after the beginning of the project site are minor and
are not expected to adversely affect the restoration design.
The part of the site north of the former hog lagoon access road is extremely flat and reconnection of
surface water to existing land surface will be limited. The invert of the pipe carrying the unnamed
tributary to Pembroke Creek has an elevation of 17.1 feet and the water surface elevation measured at
the culvert was 18.0 feet. All elevation references are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83)
using GRS 80 ellipsoid. The edge of pavement in the location of the culvert has an elevation of 21.2
feet. Following the natural valley of the site from the beginning of the project and continuing
southwest for approximately 600 feet, ground surface elevation is typically 20 feet f 1 foot. The
remaining 200 before the access road has an elevation of that ranges between 18 to 17 feet. To avoid
permanent hydrologic trespass upstream of the project and across Wildcat Road (SR 1208), the design
invert elevation for any headwater wetland Swale feature must be set at an elevation no higher than
18.0 feet. This will re-establish the connection between groundwater and surface water flow while
not increasing base water surface elevation upstream of Wildcat Road. See Section 5.3 for more
information regarding the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
3.0 Proiect Site Wetlands and Streams (existin! conditions)
The restoration site is located within an active farm operation. The farm is currently planted with
soybeans. Two drainage ditches exist within the project area one running along the west edge of the
restoration site and the other running near to the middle and eastern edge of the restoration area. The
western ditch flows into the eastern ditch toward the lower third of the project area. Before flowing
into the eastern ditch, the western ditch flows into and out of a small, minimally wooded pond. The
flow path of both ditches is generally in a north to south direction. A one lane dirt access road enters
the project area from the west and approximately bisects the project area in half. The access road then
splits with one fork exiting the project area to the east and the other forking to the south and
paralleling the eastern ditch all the way to the southern terminus of the project area. The southern
access road eventually leads to an active cell tower that is on the same farm, but outside of the project
limits. During site visits, ongoing farm activities were observed and they included plowing, planting,
spraying herbicide and some ditch maintenance.
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The restoration site was evaluated for jurisdictional wetlands. This evaluation was conducted based
on the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual 1987. In general, the
investigator assessed the restoration site to determine those areas which currently met the three
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
criteria listed in the delineation manual for wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic
vegetation (USACE 1987).
The wetlands within the restoration area are isolated onto two drainages on the site which primarily
exist along the western and eastern boundaries of the site and drain from north to south. The western
drain flows through a small pond near the middle of the site before entering the eastern drainage.
Excluding the small pond, the jurisdictional wetlands within the restoration and enhancement areas
are isolated to linear ditch features. See Figure 6 for a map of the jurisdictional wetlands.
3.2 Hydrological Characterization
3.2.1 Preliminary Groundwater Characterization
Collection of groundwater elevation data at the site began in April of 2006 to enable the evaluation of
pre- and post-project site conditions. The data collected during this initial period represents site
conditions from April 13, 2006 to June 20, 2006. Recorded precipitation amounts during the initial
monitoring period were 3.24 inches and 9.51 inches for May and June, respectively. The typical
average rainfall for in Edenton is 4.22 inches for May and 4.48 inches for June. Therefore, 2006 May
rainfall was below average while 2006 June rainfall was well above average.
The preliminary groundwater well results located in Exhibit Table 4 and Appendix 10 illustrate the
affect of the precipitation that occurred during May and June 2006. Long term data collection of pre-
and post-project site conditions will assist in evaluating the groundwater at the site.
3.2.2 Surface Water Investieation
The wetland restoration site is separated into western and eastern drains which join together as
discussed above in the Jurisdictional Wetland section. The eastern drain enters through a culvert
under Wildcat Road and flow is contained in a man-made ditch throughout the entire restoration site.
The eastern drain flows through two other culverts where an on-site access road crosses the ditch.
One culvert is located near the middle of the project area and the other crossing is located at the very
end of the project area. The western drainage begins as overland flow within the project area and
gradually grades into a man-made ditch. This ditch then flows through a culvert under the access road
which crosses through the middle of the site. The western ditch then flows into a small pond. The
ditch exits the pond and then flows through a culvert and enters into the eastern drainage ditch.
Additionally, a wetland area exists to the east of the site and contains the project's Reference Wetland
1. This wetland area is depicted as a Carolina Bay on the USGS map with an open end to the west.
This opening to the west, located approximately 300 feet before the end of the project area, provides
surface flow into the main channel within the project area. The observed surface water slowly
migrates toward the main channel through a series of shallow depressions. Since this area has not
been ditched, it flows at much higher levels. It empties into the sites eastern drainage ditch by
concentrating flow over a very short distance and spills down to the level of the drainage ditch. The
restoration project will seek to keep this existing flow at its current elevations and bring the rest of
' this lower portion of the site to similar levels. Two flood events were recorded at the site and are
depicted in Figure 15.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 10
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
3.2.3 Water Budget for Restoration Site
A water budget was developed for the project to assess the viability of establishing wetland hydrology
in the site area. The water budget was based upon methods given in Planning Hydrology for
Constructed Wetlands (Pierce, 1993) and the Engineering Field Handbook (USDA, 1997).
Calculation of the water budget requires knowledge of hydrologic inputs and outputs as well as
approximate site dimensions and characteristics of the soils present. The water budget results verify
that there is an ample amount of water to meet proposed wetland hydrology criteria for the majority
of the site. Calculations indicate excess water when inputs were compared to outputs (AS/At =
1,791,046 ft3). It was assumed that stormwater inflow/runoff was zero and that channel base flow in
and out of the site was zero. Even with these extremely conservative assumptions, calculations
indicated excess water at the site. The water budget is located in Appendix 11.
South of the access road, wetland hydrology can be easily achieved based on site observations. North
of the access road the sight is constrained by NCSR 1208, Wildcat road. NCSR 1208 at that location
has an elevation of 21.2 feet. This constraint limits how high the water table can be raised because of
the possibility of flooding the road during a high water event. Additional analysis of the site
monitoring data, incoming water flow, stormwater runoff, surface flow, and rainfall data is necessary
to determine whether or not this section of land will have a water table close enough to the surface to
support a wetland.
3.3 Soil Characterization
3.3.1 Taxonomic Classification (including series)
The restoration site was investigated to determine the soil types on the site as well as the hydric
nature of those soils. More than 40 soil borings were conducted during the soil mapping process
(NRCS, 1986). Five (5) soil series were found to exist within the restoration area. These soils are as
follows:
Cape Fear fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Dragston coarse, loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aeric Endoaquults
Portsmouth fine-loamy over sandy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Roanoke fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
Tomotley fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
3.3.2 Profile Description
Based on the numerous soil borings completed throughout the site, the following profile descriptions
are provided that typify the five (5) soil series found within the restoration area. Dragston is the only
soil that is not a hydric soil. The soil survey shows a large portion of the restoration site to be
Dragston, but the on-site soil investigation found that Dragston only makes up very small areas of the
site and the rest of the site's soils are hydric.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 11
(? E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS IIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

Table 2. Cape Fear Soil Series
Soil
Depth Description
Horizon
Ap 0-5 inches I OYR 3/1 sandy loam, medium granular structure, friable, common roots, common clean sand
grains, common medium faint 2.5 YR 3/6 soft iron masses.
5-17 1 OYR 511 sandy clay loam, weak subangular blocky structure, firm , slightly sticky, slightly
Btgl inches plastic, common fine roots, many medium prominent 2.5YR 3/6
soft iron masses.
Btg2 17-36 1 OYR 511 clay, medium subangular blocky structure, very firm, moderately sticky, moderately
inches plastic, may prominent 10 YR 5/8 and 2.5YR 3/6 soft iron masses.
Btg3 3646 1 OYR 511 clay, medium angular blocky structure, very firm, moderately sticky, moderately
inches plastic, many prominent 10 YR 5/8 and 2.5YR 3/6 soft iron masses.
BCg 46-53 1 OYR 5/2 sandy clay loam, weak medium subangluar blocky structure, friable, slightly sticky,
inches slightly plastic, common prominent 10 YR 5/8 soft iron masses.
Cg 53-57 1 OYR 6/2 sand, single grained, loose.
inches

Table 3. Dragston Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A
p 0-6 Yellowish brown (IOYR 514) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, few fine
inches roots, common fine pores.
Btl 6-12 Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
inches sticky, common fine pores.
Bt2 12-20 Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) sandy clay loam, weak subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
inches sticky, common medium distinct brownish yellow (I OYR 6/8) soft iron masses.
BO 20-26 Light yellowish brown (2.5 YR 6/3) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure,
inches friable, slightly sticky, many coarse prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) soft iron masses.
BCg 26-32 Grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, nonstick,
inches nonplastic, many coarse distinct yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
C 3242+
inches Light yellowish brown (2.5YR 6/4) sand, single grain, common subround quartz gravel.

Table 4. Portsmouth Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A
p 0 to 9 Dark gray (IOYR 3/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium
inches roots.
A 9 to 30
inches Black (IOYR 2/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium roots.
E
g 30 to 38 Very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few
inches medium faint dark reddish brown (2.5YR 2.5/4) soft iron masses.
38 to 46 Gray (IOYR 511) sandy cay loam with pockets of sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky
Btg inches structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, few medium faint
yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
BCg 46 to 50 Brown (IOYR 5/2) loamy sand, weak medium subangular blocky structure, very friable,
inches nonsticky, nonplastic, many medium prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) soft iron masses
Cg 50 to 56+ Gray (IOYR 6/1) sand, single grained, loose.
inches

® NATURAL SYSTEMS 12
E N O I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105 ,
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

Table S. Roanoke Soil Series
Soil

Horizon Depth Description
A
p 0 to 7 Dark gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly
inches plastic, common fine roots, few fine distinct red (2.5YR 4/6) soft iron masses.
7 to 10 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
BtgI inches slightly sticky, slightly plastic, few fine roots, common medium prominent yellowish brown
(IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
10 to 17 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay, moderate medium angular blocky structure, firm, moderately
Btg2 inches sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots, common coarse distinct yellowish brown (IOYR
5/6) soft iron masses.
17 to 47 Gray (10YR 511) clay, weak medium subangular blocky structure, firm, moderately sticky,
Btg3 inches moderately plastic, few medium roots, common medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR
6/6) soft iron masses.
47 to 58+ Light gray (10YR 7/1) sandy clay, massive, common coarse distinct light greenish gray (10Y
Cg inches 7/1) soft iron depletions, common medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) soft iron
masses.

Table 6. Tomotley Soil Series
Soil

Horizon Depth Description
0 to 6 Grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, few
A
p inches fine roots, common fine pores.
Btg1 6 to 12 Gray (10YR 511) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly sticky,
inches common fine pores, few medium distinct yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
12 to 26 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
Btg2 inches slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common medium distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) soft
iron masses.
BCg 26 to 32 Gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, nonsticky,
inches nonplastic, many coarse distinct yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
C
Cg 32 to 42 + Gray (10YR 6/1) sand, single grain, commn medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6)
inches soft iron masses.
3.4 Plant Community Characterization
The restoration site primarily consists as an active farm field. It is currently being grown in soybeans.
Some trees do exist along the eastern drainage ditch. There is also an area along the eastern drainage
area near the northern most extents of the project that was clearcut after Hurricane Isabelle (2003).
This area is a very thick early successional shrub area. Some small trees also exist around the small
on-site pond. The plant lists below indicate the plants found in these areas. Even though no woody
material is growing along the western drainage area, a plant list was developed for general interest
purposes as well as for invasive species issues.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 13
E N I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Table 7. Eastern Drainage Area north Table 8. Eastern Drainage Area
end of Project Area south end of Projec t Area

Community Type - Disturbed Community Type - Disturbed
Woody Woody
Acer rubrum frequent Acer rubrum occasional
Arundinaria gigamea frequent Alnus serrulata occasional
Baccharis halimifolia occasional Lonicera japonica common
Juncus spp. occasional Rubus spp. occasional
Liquidambar styraciflua frequent Salix nigra common
Lonicera japonica frequent Sambucus canadensis occasional
Nyssa biflora occasional Saururas cernuss pools only
Pinus taeda dominant Solidago spp. common
Toxicodendronradicans occasional
Lieustrum sinense occasional
Quercus nigra occasional
Quercus phellos frequent
Rhus copallina occasional
Rubus spp. occasional
Salix nigra frequent
Sambucus canadensis occasional
Table 9. Western Drainage Area Table 10. Small Pond
Community Type - Disturbed Herbaceous Community Type - Disturbed Mixed
Juncus spp. occasional Baccharis halimifolia occasional
Myriophyllum aquaticum dominant Hydrocotyle spp. frequent
Typha latifolia frequent Juncus spp. frequent
Amaranth spp. frequent Lonicera japonica frequent
Ranunculus spp. frequent Nlicrostegium vimineum present
Rubus spp. occasional
Saccharum giganteum frequent
Salix nigra frequent
Sambucus canadensis occasional
Solidago spp. frequent

t Typha latifolia frequent
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 14
' E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.0 Reference Wetlands
4.1 Target Reference Conditions
The site is currently under cultivation. There are drainage ditches and underdrains throughout the site
There was little evidence of the historical wetlands that would have existed on the site. Therefore,
physical parameters of the site were used as well as other reference materials to ascertain the target
wetland types. In essence, an iterative process was used to develop the final information for the site
design.
To develop the target reference conditions, site physical parameters were reviewed. This included
inlet watershed size, outlet watershed size, soil mapping units from the Chowan/Perquimans Soil
Survey for the watershed and site, as well as general topography. The "Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential community types that would
have existed at the site(Schafale Weakley 2003).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
Located within the Physiographic Region - Outer Coastal Plain (OCP)
Minimal hydrologic alteration (H)
Jurisdictional Wetland Status (JD)
Watershed size between 30 and 300 acres (with the three sites spanning the range) (W)
Climax Community - Small Stream Swamp or Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (C)
Similar watershed soil types (WS)
Similar site soil types (SS)
Minimal impervious surfaces within watershed (1)
Similar topography (T)
Minimal presence of invasive species (Inv)
4.2 Reference Site Search Methodology
All of the parameters listed in Section 4.1 were used to find appropriate reference wetland sites.
Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in
locating suitable references sites for the project. For this project, a total of three (3) reference
wetlands were desired. At the outset of the project, the first reference wetland was already discovered
and approved through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program. This first reference wetland is located to
the east of the restoration area and on the same farm property. This site was partially used to aid in
establishing parameters for finding the other two (2) reference wetlands.
A GIS based search was initially conducted for the identification of reference wetland sites in the
outer coastal plain. The GIS process was first based on an automated procedure which included the
overlay of CAMA wetland data, Chowan Soil Data, NCGAP data, and public land. No eligible sites
were found on public land. After potential sites were identified, sites near the project area were
manually reviewed using other available GIS data such as aerial photography and topography. Once
sites were identified, some were visited that could be easily viewed from public roads. Neither
Chowan County nor Edenton have GIS based parcel data; therefore, candidate reference site
information was acquired at the Chowan County Tax office and Register of Deeds office.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 15
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wctland and Stream Restoration • USGS IiUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
In 2003, Hurricane Isabelle hit Chowan County and caused widespread damage. This storm knocked
down many trees. Even more trees were taken down as the landowners undertook clearcut operations
in an effort to clean up the downed trees. Several potential reference sites identified during the
reference site search suffered tree loss from Hurricane Isabelle and were subsequently clearcut.
Ultimately two (2) reference wetlands were identified in addition to the one reference wetland on-site.
The following table shows a general assessment of each reference wetland as they relate to the
parameters laid out above.
Table 11. Reference Wetland Compatibility Codes
Wetland OCP H JD W C WS SS I T Inv
Reference Wetland 1 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Mostly Some Some None Yes None
Reference Wetland 2 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Mostly All No Little Yes None
Reference Wetland 3 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Young All All Little Yes None
4.3 Reference Site Parameters
Wetland determination forms have been completed for each reference wetland and can be found in
the appendix. Each reference wetland has one form from within the wetland boundary and one
prepared from outside of the wetland in the transition zone.
4.3.1 Reference 1
4.3.1.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 1. The wetland soils were found to be:
Portsmouth - fine loamy over sandy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Reference Wetland 1 can be seen in Figure 4. The following is the typical soil description for
Reference Wetland 1.
Table 12. Reference Wetland 1 Soil Description
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6
inches Black (IOYR 2/1) loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, many fine medium roots.
Eg 6 to 15
inches Gray (IOYR 6/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium roots.
15 to 24 Light gray (IOYR 7/1) sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
Btgl inches sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, few medium faint brownish yellow (1 OYR 6/6) soft
iron masses, common medium prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) soft iron masses.
24 to 34 Light gray (IOYR 511) sandy clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
Btg2 inches slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, many medium distinct brownish yellow
(IOYR 6/6) soft iron masses.
BCg 34 to 48 Grayish brown (1 OYR 5/2) loamy sand, weak medium subangular blocky structure, very friable,
inches nonsticky, nonplastic, many medium prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) soft iron masses.
Cg 48 to 56+
inches Gray (IOYR 6/1) sand, single grained, loose

® NATURAL
E N G 1 N SYSTEMS 16
E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.1.2 Vegetation
Reference Wetland 1 was in fairly good condition for vegetation analysis. However, many trees had
been knocked over from Hurricane Isabelle and the transition area had a fairly high number of pinus
taeda. The following table shows the community types and plant species list found at Reference
Wetland 1.
Table 13. Transect 1- Wetland
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype
Subcanopy Canopy
Acer rubrum 5%
Liquidambarstyracii lua 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 5%
Magnolia virginiana occasional
Nyssa bii fora 50%
Pinus taeda 5%
Quercus laurifolia 25%
Quercus michauxii 5%
11ex opaca occasional

Table 15. Transect 2 - Wetland Area
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype)
Canopy
Subcanopy (%)
Acer rubrum 25%
Nyssa aquatica 20%
Nyssa bii fora 40%
Pinustaeda 5%
Quercus laurifolia 10%
Ilex opaca occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana occasional
Table 14. Transect 1- Wetland Edge
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed)
Subcanopy Canopy
(%)
Acer rubrum 5%
Carya glabra 10%
Cornus florida occasional
Liquidambar styrac flua 10%
Liriodendron tulipifera 25%
Magnolia grandiflora occasional
Pinus taeda 40%
Quercus albs 10%
Quercus nigra occasional
Vaccinium atrococcum occasional
Prunus serotina occasional
Ilex opaca occasional
Table 16. Transect 2 - Wetland Edge
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed)
Subcanopy Canopy (%)
Acer rubrum 15%
Liriodendron tulipifera 15%
Magnolia virginiana occasional
Nyssa bii fora 10%
Pinus taeda 40%
Quercus michauxii 10%
Quercus nigra 5%
Quercus phellos 5%
Ilex opaca occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana occasional
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 17
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.1.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference Wetland cross sections are shown in Figure 5 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 1 is 45 acres and significant ponded and flowing water was evident during the
survey. Average land slope down the wetland valley was 0.5% and water surface slope was 0.2%.
The flat portion of Cross Section 1 was 143 feet long and 58% of the distance was wet or had
standing water. The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 133 feet long and 76% of the distance was
wet or standing water. Reference Wetland 1 is located in a former Carolina Bay and a significant
portion of its upstream watershed was a former sandpit (Figure 1). Accordingly, a large portion of
the watershed has the soil designation Udorthents (Figure 3) (USDA, 1986) indicating an area where
natural soil has been altered.
4.3.2 Reference 2
Refer to Section 4.2 for information showing how Reference Wetland 2 compares to the restoration
site. Reference Wetland 2 is depicted on Figure 9.
4.3.2.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 2. The wetland soils were found to be:
Chowan fine-silty, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents
The following is the typical soil description for reference wetland 2.
Table 17. Chowan Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6 Dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) silt loam, weak granular structure, very friable, common
inches medium distinct yellowish brown (I OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Cgl 6 to 36 Gray (I OYR 511) silty clay, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common medium distinct
inches yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
20a 36 to 55+ Black (IOYR 2/1) sapric material, massive, very friable.
inches
The site soil series for Reference Wetland 2 is not one of the on-site soil series. NSE strived to
achieve a 100% match for each reference wetland. However, this was not possible due to budget
constraints, Hurricane Isabelle impacts, and landowner authorization problems. Even though the
Chowan soil series is not on the project restoration site, it is located on the restoration sites drainage
about 1,000 feet below the project limits. Therefore, the Chowan soil series is associated with the
projects soil types. Also, the Chowan soil series and the majority of the site soils have high clay
contents in the B horizons and thus should perch water in a very similar manner. Also, the soils
within the watershed of Reference Wetland 2 and the restoration site are very similar. This is even
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 18
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS llUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
more important as this controls how water moves toward the site (deep groundwater, perched water,
overland flow, surface flow). Reference Wetland 2 also has another very similar characteristic to the
site in that it has an approximately 280 acre watershed which basically matches the bottom end of the
project site. Reference Wetland 2 has a similar watershed size, watershed land cover, and similar
soils which made it an excellent candidate as a reference site. These similarities allowed Reference
Wetland 2 to be used to provide strong evidence as to whether the bottom end of the restoration site
should have a defined stream channel or not. Reference Wetland 2 is very wet, but it does not have a
defined stream channel. Therefore, this is reflected in the proposed restoration efforts as no defined
stream channel is proposed.
4.3.2.2 Vegetation
The canopy of Reference Wetland 2 was impacted by Hurricane Isabelle. However, all of the plant
species are still represented. They are just present at lower densities. Overall, reference wetland 2
appeared to be very representative of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest community type.
Table 18. Wetland Area
Community Type - Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Liriodendron tulipifera 21%
Liquidambarstyracii lua 12%
Acer rubrum 15%
Carpinuscaroliniana 21%
Quercus laurifolia 3%
Nyssa aquatica 9%
Nyssa bii fora 12%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3%
Frazinus caroliniana 3%
Diospyros virginiana 3%
Table 19. Wetland Buffer Area
. Community Type - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Fagus grandifolia 20%
Nyssa biflora 40%
Liriodendron tulipifera 30%
Liquidambar styracii lua 10%
4.3.2.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference cross sections are shown in Figure 14 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 2 was 279 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference
Wetland 3. Average land and water surface slope down the wetland valley was 0.5%. The flat
portion of Cross Section 1 was 133 feet long and 53% of the distance was wet or had standing water.
The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 87 feet long and 28% of the distance was wet or standing
water. The drainage area for Reference 2 (279 acres) is similar to that of the site (254 acres) and the
slope values for both sites are also similar; therefore, Reference 2 is considered an exceptional
reference for the site.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 19
E N G 1 N E E R 6 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.3 Reference
4.3.3.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 3. Reference Wetland 3 is depicted on Figure
9. Refer to Section 4.2 for information showing how Reference Wetland 3 compares to the
restoration site. The wetland soils were found to be: Roanoke - fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
Typic Endoaquults
The following is the typical soil description for Reference Wetland 3.
Table 20. Roanoke Series Soil
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 3 Grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly
p inches plastic, common fine roots.
A 3 to 12 Gray (1OYR 6/1) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic,
inches few fine roots, common medium prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses. _
12 to 30 Gray (IOYR 6/1) silty clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, firm,
Btgl inches moderately sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots, common coarse distinct yellowish
brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Btg2 30 to 42 Dark gray (1 OYR 3/1) sandy clay, weak medium subangular blocky structure, firm, moderately
inches sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots.
Cg 42 to 48+ Gray (IOYR 6/1) loamy sand, massive, loose.
inches
4.3.3.2 Vegetation
Reference Wetland 3 is a younger forest than the other two reference wetland sites. This appears to
have helped save the trees as they were more protected during Hurricane Isabelle. Even though it was
younger, it still has an enclosed canopy and no real invasive species problems.
Table 21. Wetland Area Table 22. Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - Non-Riverine Community Type - Mesic Mixed
Wet Hardwood Forest Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Plant Species Canopy (%) Plant Species Canopy (%)
Acer rubrum 25% Carya glabra 5%
Carya glabra 5% Liriodendron tulipifera 20%
Liriodendron tulipifera 60% Liquidambarstyraciua 20%
Liquidambar st}•racii lua 5% Ulmus americans 20%
Ubnus anrericana 5% Querus pagoda 5%
Carpinus caroliniana 80% Fagus grandifolia 30%
(subcanopy)
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 20
' E N 13 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.3.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference cross sections are shown in Figure 14 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 3 was 30 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference
Wetland 2 with no standing water. Small channels were evident at the lower end of the reference (see
Cross Section 3 Figure 14). Average land surface slope down the wetland valley was 1.6%.
Assuming flow in the observed channels, a range for valley width of 14 to 47 feet for this reference.
This reference was considered to be applicable to the drier portions of the site.
5.0 Proiect Site Restoration Plan
5.1 Restoration': Project Goals acid Objectives
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on
reference conditions, with the intent to restore its primary wetland functions such as nutrient cycling,
flood storage, and providing wildlife habitat. The ideal end product will be a self maintaining
vegetated corridor containing a diversity of native plant and animal species. The current base flow
conditions will be managed to emulate reference conditions and to ensure that the necessary success
criteria are met. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005;
USACE, 1987) and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Physical
restoration and the return of the overall biological and water quality functionality will be
accomplished by fulfilling the following objectives:
• Improve water quality downstream by allowing nutrients and sediment to settle and be
processed in the wetland.
• Buffer flood flows downstream by increasing infiltration and storage areas.
• Design a waterway through the wetland complex with the appropriate cross-section, slope,
and pattern as to provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the wetland.
• Collect and appropriately apply reference data to develop the design for the project site.
• Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat diversity.
• Establish a contiguous buffer along the project that can serve as a migration corridor for local
fauna.
• Ensure hydraulic stability of the restored waterway through the use of natural materials (i.e.,
log sills) to create the desired hydrology within the project site as guided by reference data.
• Use natural materials and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design to the
greatest extent possible.
• Establish a native forested riparian plant community within the non-wetland buffer area.
• Establish a headwater wetland community.
• Integrate the removal of exotic vegetation during construction implementation.
• Provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 21
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification (narrative) and/or Wetland Type
The restored wetland will function similarly to a bottomland hardwood forest, but will consist of Non
Riverine Wet Hardwood plant community, transitioning into a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
plant community, according to reference data.
5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities / Buffer Communities
The wetland restoration will consist of two communities within the wetland area and one community
in transition areas as well as on hummocks within the restoration area. The two communities that will
be represented within the wetland area will be the Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum
Slough Subtype) and the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The community type on hummocks and
transition areas will the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype). In general the project
site will be restored as a bottomland hardwood wetland. Section 5.7 discusses the plant communities
in greater detail.
In addition to the restored areas, an area to the east of the restoration site will be preserved and left
undisturbed. This area includes Reference Wetland 1. The preservation area has no significant
invasive species issues.
5.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site was conducted to assist in restoration design and also to
document pre-restoration site conditions. As part of comprehensive pre-restoration monitoring two
(2) crest gauges (Rantz et al., 1982) were installed at the site (Figure 2). These gauges have a dowel
inside that holds granulated cork at approximately one-foot intervals. As flood levels rise, water
enters the crest gauge which suspends the granulated cork within the cylinder. As flood waters
recede, an adherence ring is left on the dowel. During manual inspection the distance between the top
of the dowel and the adherence ring is subtracted from the known elevation of the top of the dowel to
yield the maximum flood stage. These gauges have been monitored on a regular basis and also
correlated with rainfall events to thoroughly understand the effects of rainfall on the site with regard
to flooding (Exhibit Table 5).
Two flood events are illustrated on Figure 15 which indicates that the site currently floods on a
regular basis. The storm event occurring on June 20, 2006 produced 2.23 inches of rain in six (6)
hours which nearly equates to a 2-year return period storm (2-yr storm = 2.9 inches in 6 hours). The
resulting flood elevation at Crest Gauge 1, located at the ninety-degree bend in the existing channel
near the start of the project indicated that flood water has reached a peak stage of 19.93 feet. The
existing edge of Wildcat Road at the culvert location is 21.5 feet. Based on the information collected
to date, it is likely that the roadway temporarily floods during significant rainfall events.
Existing and proposed conditions were examined during the hydrologic analysis of the site.
Preliminary contours of the wetland valley were created to determine the difference in storage volume
between existing and proposed conditions. Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of additional water
storage will be created between the elevations 18 and 20 feet, assuming that all excess soil material
not used to fill the existing ditch is placed outside of Area 1.
I
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 22
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
To restore wetland hydrology at the site, it will be necessary to remove the existing 24-inch culvert
below the access road. To convey stormwater during intense periods of rainfall, it is proposed that
the existing access road be modified to also act as a stormwater conveyance device. Two sections of
the roadway, approximately 40 feet long and set at an elevation of approximately 18.0 feet, will
provide adequate hydrology upstream, while also conveying stormwater at high flows. Near the
downstream end of the project two additional sections of roadway will be placed at a lower elevation
to allow movement of surface water during intense precipitation events. Sheet 2 illustrates the
location of the proposed ford crossings along the access road and at the end of the project.
5.3 Best Management Practices
Due to the rural nature of this project, individual stormwater best management practices (BMPs) have
not been required. If the opportunity presents itself during detailed design, stormwater BMPs will be
implemented. Stormwater management issues from future development of adjacent properties will be
governed by the applicable local and state ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any
future stormwater entering the site maintain pre-development peak flow. Any future stormwater
diverted into the project area should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions or
degradation of the project in any way.
A swine lagoon closure is being conducted approximately 500 feet east of the restoration project
easement area. This closure is expected to occur during the winter of 2006. Water and sludge will be
removed from the lagoon area and land applied in accordance with guidance provided by Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and the North Carolina Division of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Agronomic Division. Crop application will be based upon the amount of nitrogen
present in the sludge, soil types, and types of crops present for land application.
5.4 Hydrologic Modifications (for ivetland restoration or enhancement)
5.4.1 Narrative of Modifications
This Restoration Plan for the UT Pembroke Creek site outlines a method for restoring the existing
agricultural property into a natural headwater wetland feature. The project goal for this restoration
plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on reference conditions, with the intent to
restore its primary wetland functions such as nutrient cycling, flood storage, and providing wildlife
habitat. A pool and hummock complex will be restored at the site to disrupt flow and retain water on-
site to the greatest extent possible. Native vegetation will be incorporated into the design using
reference conditions as a guide. A schematic of the design concept is presented on Sheet 2.
The Restoration Plan for the site will be described in two parts to simplify discussion. The first
portion of the site is extremely flat and begins where UT Pembroke Creek flows under Wildcat Road
(SR 1208) and ends where the access road to the hog lagoon passes over UT Pembroke Creek. The
second portion of the site has minor relief and begins where the access road passes over UT
Pembroke Creek and ends at the project terminus where the cell tower access road crosses UT
Pembroke Creek.
Near station 1+00 a wetland valley feature will be used to divert the existing flow from the main ditch
onto the site. The proposed wetland valley dimensions were based on reference data (Exhibit Table
6) and yielded a bottom width of 10 feet and side slopes of 1:8. The design invert was set at the
measured water surface elevation of 18.0 feet. As depicted on Sheet 3 the invert of the culvert under
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 23
E N G I N E E R i N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

Wildcat Road is 17.0 feet, and the top of the pipe has an elevation of 19.0 feet. Setting the proposed
wetland valley invert at 18.0 feet allows 2.5 feet of water storage above the design invert, before
water extends onto Wildcat Road. More importantly, the design elevation of 18.0 feet is based on
measured water surface elevations therefore the project will not be creating a water surface increase
for any upstream offsite properties or rights-of-way.
Filling the main ditch feature north of the access road will require approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
fill material. The wetland valley will generate approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Placement of excess fill material outside of Area 1 or on areas above 21.0 feet within Area 1 will
ensure that a net gain of water storage capacity is achieved.
At station 11+00 the wetland valley will transition into the existing land surface. Small channels,
hummocky areas and pools will be created throughout the wetland area. Reference cross-sections
indicated that approximately 30 percent of the "flat" wetted width had standing water or pools;
therefore, it will be specified that approximately 30% of the project area have standing water or pools.
Pool dimensions are based on reference data. Material pushed aside to make pool areas will be used
for the creation of hummocky areas.
At station 40+00 to 50+00 the surface will be roughened and minor earthwork will occur to promote
sheet flow. Small channels (6" to 12" deep by 6" to 12" wide) will be created along the axis of Area
1B and also perpendicular across the valley. The conveyance of water across the valley will promote
wetland hydrology near station 12+00 and possibly stations 11+00 and 10+00. The existing access
road will be modified to have a constant elevation with two low areas that will convey flow during
large storm events. The proposed elevation of these areas is 18.0 feet. A Geoweb® or equivalent
material will be used to construct the low areas in the road.
Downstream of the access road it is expected that the groundwater table will be at or near the surface.
The existing pond will be integrated into the wetland design. The two wetland valleys will continue
' south until they combine near main ditch station 24+00. Once the two valleys combine, the easement
area becomes narrow for the remainder of the project. Two low areas in the road, similar in design to
the areas along the access road, are proposed at the end of the project. The first low area in the road
will allow flow from Reference Area 1 into the project site. The second low area will be higher than
the first, but will convey large storm events.

5.5 Soil Restoration
5.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment
As mentioned earlier, more than 40 soil borings were conducted on the restoration site. All borings
found that an acceptable topsoil layer exists throughout the site. After construction activities, the
subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over
the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site
during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 24
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is a very important aspect to the restoration of the site. Many
sources of information have been used to determine the most appropriate species for this restoration
project. The selection of plants has been based on the three (3) reference wetlands, the "Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" Third & Fourth Approximations as well as the sites
designed drainage characteristics. The three reference wetlands showed a mix of three community
types. These are Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum
Slough Subtype), and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Coastal Plain Subtype. The reference
wetlands had drainage areas ranging from 30 acres to 280 acres which matches the range in drainage
from the beginning to the end of the restoration site. These references showed nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests to be higher up in the drainages with smaller watershed sizes. The references also
showed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp to be lower and be associated with the larger watershed
sizes. The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest was located on the fringes of the wetlands and on larger
hummock areas.
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was found in Reference Wetland 2 and it has a drainage area
similar to the outlet of the project site. Therefore, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was selected for
the area below where the Reference Wetland 1 drainage flows into the eastern drainage area. This will
provide the maximum drainage into the restored wetland and will be subject to more frequent
flooding. The remaining hydric soil areas of the site will be nonriverine wet hardwood forest. This
community type is represented by Reference Wetlands 1 and 3. Reference Wetland 1 has a larger
drainage area and is more representative of the central portion of the project site where the eastern
and western drainage areas are brought together just above the access road. Reference Wetland 3 has
a very small drainage area and is most representative of the upper portions of the project site.
The mesic mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain subtype) was commonly found on the non-hydric
soils surrounding the reference wetlands. Therefore, the mesic mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain
subtype) will be used for non-hydric soil areas within the project area as well as for a buffer around
the site.
Based on the information stated above as well as the plant species information from each reference
wetland, the restoration site will be zoned into these three (3) plant communities. A specific plant
species list has been developed based on these community types and can be found in Table 6. A
schematic layout of where these three community types will be located is shown on Sheet 4.
The preservation area will not be disturbed. Based on the Reference Wetland 1 data, which is within
the preservation area, the majority of the preservation area is nonriverine wet hardwood forest with
some mesic mixed hardwood forest on higher locations. The following lists the estimated acreage for
each area:
Table 23. Acreage for Vegetative
Communities
Community Acreage
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 27.5
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 1.5
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 4
Preservation Area 26
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 25
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS IIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
Some invasive species have been noted on the site. These include Lonicera japonica, Microstegiwn
vlnnneum, Ligustrum sinense, and Myriophyllum aquaticum. These species are currently isolated
along or within the drainage ditches themselves. The farm fields are currently grown in soybean and
are actively controlled for weeds by the use of herbicide. The movement of the topsoil will also stir
up weed seeds. However, some weeds will be inhibited due to the increased water tables on the site. It
will be important during monitoring site visits to check for any significant encroachment of invasive
species and to develop a plan of action to control any such problem.
6.0 Performance Criteria
6.1 {Wetlands
Headwater wetland systems have a variable water table. The restored wetland will function similarly
to a bottomland hardwood forest (USACE, 2005), but will consist of a Non Riverine Wet Hardwood
plant community, transitioning into a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp plant community, according
to reference data. Plant community selection was based on the reference data (Section 4.0).
Therefore, the wetlands restored on this project site shall target establishing water tables near or at the
surface. More specifically, the water table shall be within 12 inches of the soil surface continuously
for greater than 5% of the growing season under normal rainfall conditions (USACE, 1987). The
water tables will be monitored by using two automated groundwater gauges located on the site.
Performance criteria may be defined more specifically based on long term reference data (USACE,
2002).
6.2 Vegetation
The restoration site will be planted with species appropriate for the three targeted community types on
the site. For each community, the vegetation will be monitored on an annual basis to determine
survival. This monitoring process will be conducted in an effort to show the survival of a diverse
target community such that the restored site has survival at a density of 320 stems/acre after three
years. This data will be monitored using sample plots (USACE, 2003) and in accordance with the
most recent version of the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP
Monitoring Reports".
6.3 Flow Features
Two swales crossing the access road will be installed to promote wetland hydrology; one in the
vicinity of station 18 i00 and the other near station 33+00. The swale will be monitored for overall
aggradation/degradation through the measurement of cross-sections.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 26
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS IIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
6.4 Schedule/Reporting
Activities for the first year of monitoring will begin at the completion of major construction activities.
This initial work will involve establishing monitoring stations, plots, and cross-section for all future
monitoring. A field investigation will be conducted to establish all monitoring locations. This will
include the establishment of fixed photo points, cross-sections, and stem counts for the planted areas.
The appropriate number of monitoring wells will be installed/re-installed, immediately after
construction, in a similar pattern to the pre-construction configuration. The establishment of
monitoring features and the collection and summarization of monitoring data will be conducted in
accordance with the most current version of the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports". As requested by EEP, a monitoring protocol similar to
pre-construction will be adopted for post-construction monitoring. NSE will continue monthly
monitoring until the due date of the First Year Monitoring report, unless directed otherwise by EEP.
Once the appropriate time has passed, the first annual post-construction site monitoring will be
conducted. A monitoring report of findings as it relates to identified success criteria will be prepared
and submitted to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 27
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
t

t
t

r
C

7.0 References
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). July 2002. Basinwide
Assessment Report: Chowan River Basin. Division of Water Quality.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2005. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. Report Date 9/30/05.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2006. Surface Water
Classifications. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html
Pierce, Gary J. 1993. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands. Wetland Training Institute, Inc.
Poolesville, MD.
Rantz, S.E., et al. 1982a. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow, Volume 1, Measurement of
Stage and Discharge, U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Water-Supply Paper 2175.
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. 2003. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Fourth Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Copy obtained through Carolina Vegetative Survey. Website obtained July 2006.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, 1986. Soil Survey of Chowan
and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997. Engineering Field Handbook. 210-EFH, Part 650,
1/92, revised 1997.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1974. North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2005. Information Regarding Stream Restoration In The
Outer Coastal Plain Of North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Regulatory Division and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality December 1, 2005
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. Chowan County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
and Federal Species of Concern. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/chowan.html.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 28
E N 6 1 N E E R I N G
U"1' Pembroke Wctland and Stream Restoration • USGS I IUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
t Section S.0 Exhibit Tables
Section 8.0
I? NATURAL SYSTEMS
L N U 1 N L" E R 1 N
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 1. Restoration Structure and Objectives
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Restoration Designed
Segment/ Station Range Restoration Type Linear Comment
Reach ID Footage or
1+00 to 6+16 Wetland Enhancement
Area 1
11+00 to 6+16 Wetland Restoration
Area 1A 6+16 to 17+70 Headwater Wetland
Area 1 B
Area 2
1+6 to 10+64 Headwater Wetland
18+00 to27+50 Wetland Restoration
18+00 to 27+50 Headwater Wetland
27+50 to 34+30 Wetland Restoration
This area may qualify for restoration depending
6 acres post-project conditions. Monitoring will yield
additional insight.
11.5 acres Proposed groundwater elevations in this areas are
expected to be at or near ground surface.
1220 ft. These valleys were selected based on historical
information, existing conditions 0.5'-topography
954 ft. and historical topography (1927, Appendix 13).
4.3 acres Proposed groundwater elevations in this area is
expected to be at or near ground surface.
1692 ft. Wetland valleys will combine in this area to form
one valley.
1.1 acres In this area significant standing water is expected.
Pica.)
27+50 to 34+30 Headwater Wetland 622 ft. A transition back to the pre-project surface water
elevation will occur in this area.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 13 1 N E E R I N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 2. Drainage Areas
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Reach Drainage Area (Acres)
Project Start 50
Halfway between slant and access road 96
Main Stem - IA at access Road 112
Tributary 1 B at start 19
Triburaty 1 B at road 42
Below access Road (1 A & 1 B combined) 161
Project End (includes Reference 1 area) 254

Reference 1 45
Reference 2 279
Reference 3 (upper end) 26
Reference 3 (lower end) 30
*See Design Sheet 2 for Reach Designation
Exhibit Table 3. Land Use of Watershed
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Landuse Acreage Percentage
Farmstead 38 15%
Row Crop 105 41%
Water 2 1 %
Woods 104 41%
Woods/Grass 6 2%
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R 1 N 13
L
c?
G
7 6a
? u
CD 4?. N
C ? O
a ..
C C A
r O ?
C, L y
L V CJ
W c U
C L y,
O "
M
V ? a
V r0+ y
Cj
el a?
A
,C
k
w
y
CJ
L
O O 'd'
"t v-, 00
O r` O
N ON CN
t` O t`
t`
`O
C O ?' M C? N N N M N --M M I N -- i --
to
Q
L' GA
r` ? , oo
m t` vl
^M 'IT
N O
M

G
O
h ?

Q ?
?
g j a M ?' M M N N --M M -M
N M CV -- --
v
C
O
N N
i
i
N

C .C
?t N rt --O to ?O W) 'n m N v M vl M
x
O O M 'ct kn x O t` O N Q, 00 n O N M 00 C14
p M cM N N N M I N --M M '[r N --
u
0
u to .-O O ?O 00 00 M N 00 M N [- ON ON \?o

c?

_
OD ?oov
; N
V'1 ?' .-.
M ?.
.-. O C; rnImM
'
M
.--
??i
Y
O O N M "t 1.0 O, In rn --00 O H O Q Q
? O ?' ?' M M N N i M M N ? M M N ?

z z
^
o w w
M 01J

Q ?O O O
M M

i O N M
M
N N
i 1.0 --'IT

--M M [- W" N

--N N O V'1

M --

^'

A
O

A
O
M
Z z z

L N O O\ \C O, OC 'IT Vl V^ M --M 00 O O
'
'
A
A
N C i r C
,

z z
.. N M N ?Q r 00 o, N M "t N '10 [? 00

'? G .L .L d L L e- e
N M c! tn
rn C C C C C .? N M
o C o 0 0 0 o u u u
i' O
V u
j u
% u
V u
V u
V C p p
u r
] l
] ) 1 ) L L. L
12 I.C.,

'?

L

L

L

L

L V

Ri
Q
N..
G
ai
U U U U U
N
d
0
CA
w
c
0
.b
•O
a
d
L
c3
C
0
0
rn
e
0
.C
O

N 13
2 z
Ul
W
N
W
J
NQ z
N
d
Q Z
Z W

UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 5. Crest Gauge and Rainfall Summary
UT Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Crest Gauge I (elevation 22.25 ft)
Month Date Crest
Gauge
Checked Distance from
top of Gauge to
cork Water
elevation Previous 5 days of total
rain from when crest
gauges checked 6 hr. Max
of rain for
the month
(ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in.)
April no data no data no data 0.58 0.25
5/1/2006 no change low 0.42 0.25
May
5/30/2006
no change
low
0.38
0.29
6/13/2006 3.44 18.81 3.07 0.62
June 6/20/2006 2.32 19.93 2.80 2.23
Crest Gauge 2 (elevation 15.14 ft)
Month Date Crest
Gauge
Checked Distance from
top of Gauge to
cork Water
elevation Previous 5 days of total
rain from when crest
gauges checked 6 hr. Max
of rain for
the month
(ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in.)
April no data no data no data 0.58 0.25
5/1/2006 no change low 0.42 0.25
May 5/30/2006 no change low 0.38 0.29
6/13/2006 2.24 12.90 3.07 0.62
June 6/20/2006 0.52 14.62 2.80 2.23
Monitoring well locations are provide on Figure 2
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N 13
?n 10
20
O N
O v
O
w y
] o
oU
0
C
°z
0
y O
?cj
3
o
,b s
c U
v ?
3a
? a
o ,o
per. U

O
O 0
O
N
o? N
oar
3 a
M

00 G O

l? G G

C)
'
IS 0 cl

O

V
0

z

3 M??

Nb?l C
00
d I
?
s?
Ob
~
0

G
!

q
o

I
0

I

N

1
2 r+ C N Cf ,
N C} O x O
Gy c
S
O
M
N O O
.
CJ G vi rn ' ?, O O
7 p o p o c
>° >° zz

1 c

N l d 3
E b
u
u I M cJ C'J
' C [? O O O I?
O\ o o
N '?
?7o, O
N ,>? ?
i ,A
aC/]b o C3
q p
I ...
I to
I rn
i
M O
I
o
N O O '
• X Lt. 00
U
O
00
C
C
M
O
te
U
i
r
c3 N y

~ Ea3°
M 00 V) O 'rr'.i C? 00 00 O
C
Q i
v o
n
N n
.
o
I N
I •h 3 •C .b
a? o O
E
q O
I O
i
i O
t O?
o

4"

O

O r
3 rn en
C?, > o
?3'
M
M
M I
p

?`?
l?
a
i N w y Ri . y O C C N O
x z a
?

y, u
?:. ? rn rn ?«, y
'b +?.+ 6J Lhy. ? d '? y
`'' a r:4
.r
o 3 a o a =w
O
" O y a S`'
C
i

v? 0 o x a
Q x o. c
M en E a
w a
3 N M v rn ccz

v?
.. v? ?. r-
C N
Ao O
p .
0
,oao,
?'?orn
? ? ?
?O CG q N

N O
y
C14 0
p u d h O N M I 1, O\ w c03 q
,?, ? M
0 o 0
o o a

M N

q O
p:
W V
u C/] O O
? CY. r. N
W O M N

'n
q s
C q

o
m
O H

.. to E
w
b
N vs N
-- N O
?0 3
o
d
c
o ?
O r` ?
n E
O A
La .°'+
O -- r
N r N E?

+ ?^` 3 My
I N M Q
V
----------------- ?
b
O C!3
O O

Q cu C,

3
ON
O

C N L)

a Y IT
3
°
¢ N N ° - c
L O q
o c O
t c
+ En
M d
q
.--. N 01 I M
? M
V 00
? ? N M
c
i
0 b

+ V3
n
O
O
O C?, N
C
0
,.

•?+ \ \

N ,?
O
N M -T
to O

q
C C ' N i
p C
CQ G.
? - d Q
- -- cCD 3I?c'
+

I ?
H
cl

6
L 45

xd?
'b
? b
o
V d ?
C ? = a G
O C O .y y .. rn
C o `n ?

- y
u ? C7 :: ?s
C u 7V?, _ u c o o

d y
3 a
V] qa> a
? c
4 '? o
?"'
a to
O
i
O G ? y
. . y
7 V +
? C
C O cJ
E
C C av+ L 7 C O i CA
C u to b E
a s C d o> p?
Q? :? a C
;? > A x U

N "
Z
Ul
W
N
W I
?Q 2
LL -
Q 2
Z W
OrWAiWl
Eiii
4
d
C
0
N
,C
y
? N
O
E o
o A
V ,
? x
a+ y
CS L
?U
L
b ?
c E
.y 1+1
U O
Q w
r E?
U
F
O
s
w
a./
to
C
'u
O
0.
C
Q
Fr
^O
O
C
0
OA
c.
0
L
a
y
L
O
i+ y
? O
rn w
?. o
w O
rQrr
Q r+y
d
r d
L
V ?
1
C
O
z
E
M
z
0
s
e
0
U
y
'u
u
a.
c
tL
L
h
F
00 00 DD 00 00 00 00 DD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0:
x x x X X X X X X X x X x x X X N
DO DD 00 00 00 00 00 DD DD 00 00 00 00 DD 00 00 (X

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 N
•i: N
'? N
•F. O
O O
O O
O O
O C
c
a: a: a; x rx ? a: a: a: c c ? x x rx x a

0 0 0 ? ? t? cg a
r) r) r)
IW)
M
V
K
I V'1
v
E
E-'
0
C
U
z
Q
0
Q
' U
I
I

l1 w
cy
I U
Q
0
c
L
V
? G
I ?
I ?
.C
a_
G
u
C
C
'1 IX
kn
m
a?
U
I [-
O
U
a
0
CS
a
O
V
h

a
N
iia
a
I R
la
v
1 ?
,1 -
00 00 00 00 00
x x x x x
00 00 00 00 00
.? '? .o

ai c C c
? _

a1 cli
O
O
O
U U U
O O ? O ?

G7 G7 G7
n

W

'b N?
w aa V w
0 j, 0 W
p
, U U E

?
¢ X
3 W
H U J
Q z
O ? Y QI _

13

0 0 ? ? ? Z
Z
sz
? Q 13 U
mo W
' ? •? v o
-
I
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 8. Proposed Project Goals
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Mitigation Zones Acres Linear Feet
Nonriverine Wetland Enhancement 6.0
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration 17.0
Headwater Wetland 4,488
Nonriverine Wetland Preservation 26.7
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N 13
UT Pembroke WctLmd and Strc.nn Rc?toratioo • USGS I IUC 03020105
Rcstmation Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • 5cptcmbcr 2006
Section 9.0 Figures
Figures 9.0
'"a,9 NATURAL SYSTEMS
?? ? rz c; r N r. e: rz r rz r;
SIT
?.
® $andplta
cem
1 ` s
12
36.0899789
T56680871V san/'apit u d
s 1
s j=s •?.l'. U 1,?? \`+'..I ?? .pr I.ti. • 1A•:..:_,•.r „'??-
-ft
v?
v _ *REPERENgp SIT 1 , x"Sandpit s '
?..:`-_` ... e -- .,•. `,? .. ?,.?() b A ,,,,.'' si._. -"" ?_?. -? 4,x,•1
? AY- ' ? ice,. ) yy,. .+i. -.. y. •.&p ?
.: s r r. -/ ? 2Al .' ''r• \ - -+M "' / ltiY- • ? . ='?w1
• ' `` Mr .+t °.. Syr' i '?..
Aiw
41
EASEMENT BOUNDA . ` ` ' ..a' ° ?''.r •• l
•'.I?EFERENCE SITE"B W .... ?1; _
a« `
46.
1 -_-•i 7 • • /1291 + z.'•Y..•.•» • ^•- t4b..e.,.
.Y \CC
I '
U
4t P"
?Tp?l
com NAT"AI. RSl1 HAT?Ck?E1i1 °? •' <
` "''4` '•^ -a. -?j ?• •?c-,?. . %I `OHM a4' ". ?/?`•• • • •• •i ? " ` ~?? '`•
" r "'u -_ -? e s " NTON
DE
41
' „ •,.. _ . _. ,ay 6 ,. - ,.,? ''Y/ •M •- r "'e1, .•y ?
71 , ?f
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06 TITLE: PROJECT SITE AND REFERENCE 1 VICINITY
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN MAP, USGS EDENHOUSE QUAD
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601 PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK
?.
NATURAL SYSTEMS FIGURE
•?
E N 13 I N E E R 1 N E3 system 1
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com l?J). lilt €1I l.C i t
N
600 0 300 600
SCALE: 1" = 600'
Mw1
SITE°
MW29
Mw%
MW44
MW5
MWs
Ar
MW7 A1w8 MWA
A
MW 12ll�l
Mw11
Mw1o�
1998 ORTHOPHOTO (OFF SITE)
MW15 MW16
Mwu
f,
n.1P� N
CG2
5 REFERENCE SITE 1
REFERENCE WETLAND
MONITORING WELL
LEGEND
WATERSHED LINE
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
Ri
REFERENCE_ SITE 1 BOUNDARY
EXISTING HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
MW
�j
MONITORING WELL
CG/RG
(�
CREST GAUGE OR RAIN GAUGE
MARCH 24, 2006 ORTHOPHOTO
MW15 MW16
Mwu
f,
n.1P� N
CG2
5 REFERENCE SITE 1
REFERENCE WETLAND
MONITORING WELL

eta
C7
eta
stA-
eta
eta
3tA
OgA
�i
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06 TITLE: PROJECT SITE AND REFERENCE 1
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601 PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK
�.
NATURAL SYSTEMS FIGURE
E N G I N E E R I N G r t
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com I{,I liltII1+C'llt
►oawi

11

l?
G
a
A
0
23
R
m
m
x
N
X/
r
o \
°o
r
m
vN
10m
252
sz
?rri
'D
m
N
F,
X
A
T
a
a
Z
rp Z
R N
p r N nk) x°° °° + a
CD U1

REFERENCE SITE 1 CROSS-SECTIONS PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-08 ,r

?mj MWINATURAL SYSTEMS
(jT PROJECT NO.: EEP0601 ® E N O I N E E R I N [3
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SCALE: AS INDICATED + )SyStelll
d 1 i.
3719 Benson Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 [phone] www.nsepc.com
4 VAMMAL MR910 T - I PT

m
r m
A
m m r
r r
r

r
wr r
SITE
AREA 1
SITE
AREA 2
mi i it:iH i I SUMMARY
ENHANCEMENT - 5.99 ACRES
RESTORATION -17.03 ACRES
HEADWATER WETLAND (100' CORRIDOR) —4,488 LF
PRESERVATION - 26.67 ACRES
TOTAL ACREAGE - 59.42 ACRES
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY \
RESTORATION AREA
HEADWATER WETLAND AREA
ENHANCEMENT AREA
WOODED PRESERVATION AREA
MARCH 24, 2006 ORTHOPHOTO
1998 ORTHOPHOTO (OFF SITE) SITE AREA 3
400 0 200 400
SCALE: 1" = 400'

may' ? "?-.+ 1x
4# d 'q
I i ? 11 f
4 aIk Y
C X &O REFERENCE X TE 2
NOTE: REFERENCE ITES ?.,•
? LOCATED O
NP NO ACC SS
I WITHOUT OWNER P MISSION
i F
12 M1. TO PROJECT SITE
1 gM
• enfield
.j? ?t Grove IFERENCE SITE 3 •
1108 !*
f. ti .
4
if
., 13(18
LEGEND ? f ? ? ?•6 1000 ",.1 ?500" - 00
lBE SITE AND 38 UNDARY, f ,
.} CALEB 1" = 1000,
,".. +J/ x
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06 TITLE: REFERENCE SITE 2 AND 3 VICINITY MAP,
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN USGS YEOPIM RIVER QUAD
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601 PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK
NATURAL SYSTEMS FIGURE
E N G 1 N E E R I N G Istem 9
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com ?l,ll.lilt Clll -lit
rROawtM
I
0
200 0 100 200
SCALE: 1" 200'
fUPLAND�--
REFERENCE
O FOaE'�
'IEiFRMINATION FO
17MONtT�.1,A�NG WELLDETERMINATION FO
SITE 2
MW LEGEND
Q MONITORING WELL
REFERENCE SITE 2 BOUNDARY
1998 INFRARED COLOR PHOTO
w
I

m

x
L" Q
N i
+ C3
N
vN
wv
24
2
m
v?
im
rn - +
g
C4
V
$W
?-0
A
vvI) >m
2Q N W
> Z
21
m
ym ? \
A m co,
+-
Vl o ;
? V Oo
oT ID
u
?Y
Oy
O X
1 N
ox

t0
W
0
z ?
a
Fn
w
F;
;10 M
A
0
II
a
V
?i
N
X
0
n
Fn
XN
N

REFERENCE SITE 2 & 3 CROSS-SECTIONS

UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06
PROJECT NO.: EEP0601

SCALE: AS INDICATED

telll

I •Il Iili l'Il1C` It
NATURAL SYSTEMS
® E N G I N E E R I N G

3719 Benson Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 [phone] www.nsepo.com
4
0
4 M77CAL BVVRNAaW - r 17
ACCESS ROAD
ELEV. 18.81'
6/13/06
ELEV. 19.93'
6/20/06
FLOODING ONLY DRAWN TO
ROAD. ACTUAL FLOODING MAY
HAVE BEEN MORE EXTENSIVE
ELEV. 14.62' "
6/20/06
LEGEND
®' 06-13-06 MAX FLOOD LINE
6 HR RAINFALL 0.62"
06-20-06 MAX FLOOD LINE
6 HR RAINFALL 2.23"
MARCH 24, 2006 ORTHOPHOTO
1998 ORTHOPHOTO (OFF SITE)
FLOOD CONTOURS BASED ON
EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY
t�
j -..,,,..-ELEV. 12.90'
6/13/06
J 400 0 200 400
SCALE=: 1" = 400'

UT PcmhIOke Wetland and Sucam Rcstoration • US(iS I IUC 03020105
Rcstorntiom Plan • C;otivan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Section 10.0 Design Sheets
Design Sheets 10.4
NATURAL SYSTEMS
'? L N G I N L E H I N G
w M A M IA M ® I M M M X11 M
z `
r
No ??? a m
r ! ?\\??' •' m
J 1 ?
oj?. ?• /
O `s
%j • ANo
Ato
Z3A
• ?t
fJ Q 47 ?l ? q
L\\ // -n _ v Ij
I
...
P? b 00
ro `\ p
? iJ Y
r ? -o
tYa 1 lC?oa?
+-_
fo
Mp
N
44 Z'
N 3 .. gA
a Nm0
xu ?
1 ?
? ? Qf °x1
I ? ?N
43
Ito

a. C 3 w
t? A -
W %O
0?0o v jora?mcoa-mc"2
0 0.0;u_ >_
m8ra?l"?SD Z t )
U)) r
Nr--E!0 oc?WN 1
?V]] CC V1 O
FSo mm-n
5 .4
i? 09 5mD > 1 "r J
N ?a Z?m _
rnov 0
OO ?>, 0?
O Z
??0 Z NO5 OZ1
O° V
Z= n °0 r
N fn fn fn (n
22222
mmmmm
-4 -4 -4
ITIMMITIM
cn 41 CA
oorom
c? c cn x cn cn _s m m m o m x
pZ °z = ZomooDZ>'rv r 25F) 93:j
c 0 S r mr^???0Am=? M mm?ZCZi 22 z Z\ma OCOO 00 m >Z02 (1)
a O Fri m 0 ;d z DO O 5J D Z ??rZ?
a c c? 0c c 0 N -mi-mivmn
c w 0 m? DDOro
?DZp
Z m Z 0 D; Z ';u
z mCAD° N r?r5*RC:
0 00
M m 00 mN
z
D a KK m
c ZZ
0 =1
Z O Z
Z (m!1 N
N
Ol N N
INV12Cf % 7 W
W A14 -
3
14.3
1•T..1
N
O
O

M n
m
c
r
M

M
m N
X
° °
o
N
0
O

a 144

?A ?
1 ,
A
N
O N, i1
.. I
I? 3
1 ? ?
iv g
A hi n
lu
r64
&I
r

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS DATE: 9-8-06 .c?
1 LITUNATURAL SYSTEMS
PROJECT NO.: EEP0601
1 E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SCALE: 1"=200' I1
1c() yStEl11 }j
1
l! 1
5444
c
com
l
i
h
N
li
27609•
919
878
719 B
- R
th C
D
i
. www.nsep
.
g
,
aro
na
(
)
-
enson
a
e
or
3
r
ve

z
0
N
0
O
D
0
M
0
0
z
D
0
D

• z
(n +
m
-m 0
0
m ?aa? r
rAi?ayx.
(nod=DgA2 z== X
co 0
?R?;.-r[Ay*1Wmam jD (A 00<"O
\ OD2" OZ•'? I'r Z O
F? \
Cv $
g
0
mM
:i
9 ?z
58+72 41
EgE
CO
jF =
TA?c
o?
Ar?T Noz
OcaiP?o{m ?A OOxSa ov°z-?mo
M
Q?SymzoA ?z cil n 00
m my
ao D?
m? s? co
D F..
P o? r
r'
U!- ? r
_0> 0
A \? 1
a?x
\y D F}.
m '.
D
z
M
Z N C
? rn +
zm? o°
z
C13
o C i
rno
I N
;no
D C
a
02
N ov°
o
0 o?z \ ' ?0
g 8a0 a? o
+
o?0
En zp
0
Lp? $

O
Z *> c
;,
o f Or**1?
Z ;0.
D O c m
O
r
4, r* X D
N N
I-
D D RI

n f
TI O

-
O
x =1

r
0 M
M
D ;0
N
0
A
°
w
uci
z
°
0
z a
n
r7
m z
cn ? F <
D N o
0 0 c Z
o r?j m o F
z? m A
a
Z
O z
Z
Z
0O O

N

M z
*r
zZ
o m
?

Z m
n
0
Z
N ? u N _1 p
A3187;.0<o?-=x0002
000-u;u z -
- z °c
NEON??,o8o"
M>zxa Av
g?it0?0OD$NO??zzv
F
;a 0v N
c r a N
?mc Qo :y? zm?a7
Z?8 zz ?1> ZZRI
M_$ -z[ 22 z1
m0V 0, N.0 00
prp O D O A # A O
A 2 AO Z Q N s z.0
z=. 0 $?, w
N
O
O
rn
n
D:
r'
M
O
u'
N
o
O
O
N
JIL_ O
O
E=r. Om D

o? ? A r" Z
r??M Z

M i
0 z?v
M
z
= ?vo0
> X
a
s 4Z
-0
5? {
D
0 8F
?F 0
z;u
a Zm

so
0
z
0000

H221
azF
Czz
[no
8 czi
00 r
O
(/1
-?
{1 D N
°
m x
D
p o
D
D N
v N M
D
?
?
N y
O (
y
2Dp:
;oQ
;o D N
?r^?GZi

a

*00
zco
Tw ?

0
fo
X0
°0
N
cn Z
:00
O
g°
?F
0
•VOA?
A R?mD
00z or.
m ME,
c_
D
m
a
=1 0
°zZ
>O2
D Z>.
0D=D
DESIGNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT DATE: 9-8-06 ..
? NATURAL SYSTEMS
N
PROJECT NO.: EEP0601
j r E N G I N E E R I N G
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
1 "=200
E Lc0(''?JJs
i l
SCAL
: Wt-ill 3719 Benson Drive- Raleigh, North Carolina 27609• [phone] www.nsepc.corn
m C' m m

n m
?<
(7) -o
x
o -u
x
o m
x
(n -0
x
O m
x
(n O
?
z O
M
m O
M
m Z O
U)
m
C) M

?Z v

n

m
m
D
O

z v

o

vD
m
M
D
=
Z v

m

O
0
(n
C
?_q
>
m

S2
n
D ?

o

z
N
C
D

m v

X

O
o
*

M

M
D
0
Z ?

O

Q

D
?

m
m

z ?

?1
M
m
z
O

O
z

O
0
N W }U? ?I
O
D (D p
O
O
2
O O O O O O O O O p O
o
00+0 80ZL HSON
N ANI &Q
OVO8 1VOOlW1
o D ANI dWO „t?Z
-, r 'ANI HO110

r
_
rn _
zz
n u ;u D
z oN om
rte- Z I v m

?
m
Z _n
0 0
O _ I ZD

?
G m ?

pp ,--11
5j C m I

DZ
> -10
-I 00+9 Z N
0
zz o?
-0 m nit
D
c v -)
I (
OO m
D
pr °?
m O
Z

I
r
(n c? m
A DO
.
'ANI HO110
I
OO+OI I

9 MW
00+9L
OO+OZ
'ANI HO110
O '' N W (T
O O O O o O O
'ANI dW0 Z
'ANI ONOd W08J H0110
LL MW
I
v i0 0 71
O o 0 O
-- 8 m vi
OV08 SS300V
I 103S831NI 1N3WN911V
J. VONOp3S ONV 1N3WNO11V NIVW
00+9Z I A
<°
??DO DT?DO0(Arn0
-
°z8 -oDmO?-uo
? ?1?. ?c-n?mc
g o o
m -im Z v
?
W v?
?-< ZO
v??5?
D°m m
rm-?mc
DZ;u
o-iZDmrr, >y
z (AOD?m
?i Z.
+ zN DN
Z
v
00+0£ °
J OVO8 SS300V
ANI -- 9L MW
--- - --- - l M W
ANI 110
i NI dW0 „tiZ
' w - OV08 SS300V
v oo co 0
?J ANI HO110 0 o N w 4 (n ;5
1V 0N3 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE DATE: 9-8-06 NATURAL SYSTEMS
?
PROJECT NO.: EEP0601
j E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SCALE: AS SHOWN FkOVys
C111
('ll;('Iit
Illlal;
1'
5444
c
c
m
27609•
919
878
1
th C
li
B
D
i
- R
l
i
h
N
?
. www.nsep
.
o
(
)
-
aro
na
37
9
enson
r
ve
a
e
g
,
or
m = m t C G m
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + f + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .........
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + m
+ + + + + + + + D
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
E +
E E ++
Z Z Z z X N r
m m m m r. m D ;u D a D
.? W N M O D D
0 z M A --4j z A
O D Z N O M
O N I 0 v N N N C7 D
-Do ?waf NNN 21 c?a
c: q 0 r- r. ?m? X ? A I'*1 m -a-{{ ? D ? ? -6 C A mO
Z r A N (A m X
° A my -u 'D '9 2
5E -< m En > E! -0 =1 m O D Z 0 co r °a °
;0 ? b m? m? 5 m Z
Z D z C
A ?'?* SDOZ ti
r*1
v m M m o
y D 2 O
M D ? O
° m ?
o
N v
°z I -A
o
0
A D o m G7 (A
a r. ° cn C) r- <
N
D A
58 5j :A 54 ?j :A 5? S 2 2 ??? 5j A? A
m m m m m m m A A A A A A
-u -4 ?mmmmmm D
C m m C: co C= m m m m m m m m m m
--1 N N O
---1
o?
b
L9
--A 0
88000000000--1 O
D
m
D
cf)
Z
m
x C3 O O
D o
Z z n? n n? y
O
C?J D
r
M mm m M -4 -4 -1 -11
R1
0
it
N
O -'
O
O
0 co 0o 0 co co ao D
co co m co co w m ao m Co m co x x x x x x x x x x x xD n
X x x x x x x n
Co ao w m w au ao
co aomoomoooooowoomoo Z V7
N
O
0
? DESIGNED VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES DATE: 9-8-06
9 ? NATURAL S Y S T E M S
-p PROJECT NO.: EEP0601 i
SiC1I7
OS E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION y
1
SCALE: • 1"=200'
'
?'
.)) ? ,)) a ()) i (
1) t 3719 Benson Drive- Raleigh, North Carolina 27609• [phone] www.nsepc.com

o [n
D D
D ? ? v nl
C7

y ? W y Z ? ?
2 Z
N C
,D

D
S
?
D
D
D
C
A
m (7
0
-0 0?
D D

v o
Z
? D p

G7
? ?
D

D
Z
W

Dm
m
= r W

N W CA W N D x
o cn cn cn o cn o --I m
o D

D
?
O

0 o m m m m m D 0
"'?
D "'?
? A
m A
m A
m A
m A
m
?
Z
? m
? A
0 A
0 A
0 A
0 A
0
Z
N N 0 0 0 0 0
o v
m

O

N

Z

A jo 00 c: -n

O O O mAmA Z C 5y? n (n

o n c??7? ? ? a N
c) c ;u z
y ? C N- C ? ?5
° v v v z
Z
D
Cr WWNCn W D
m
00
Z? `0

? Z N ?
v ?
? ?
? m
a w p
l? Z
o Z
v n
_
a c a c
i? m o N N fTI

A n C
D A A
C ? Z D ? C ? C C
?_ Z Z
D D
D

D C
D x
s m
m 5] ? ? ? '
D
.9 O ?
? ?
?

?? ?
(?,? A
'< =
ac
= D
j ? °
? D
a Z
x 0
Z
? ? ? O
i c:
Z
Z
Z
'? m
? m

G7 '?

m m m m m m m m m z
2
? ?N
-1 ? O
Z

_ =
m

? D

?
0
W
W
W
N
W
(T
W
N
D C
G
?
N
o
°
O
N

oo o m m m m m m m m m 0
z
"?
n Z
"?
n Z
?
n D
A
m D
A
m ?
A
m n
A
m >
A
m >
A
m >
A
m >
A
m >
A
m >

?
z m m A A A A A A A A A
Z
A
N ;U
N A
V 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
0 O
0
v v v m

O

N

A
? ;d
C.Z - 1
Z
o o o
?
?

? C (n
O
O
C O
m O
N
C7
? a N N N O O f?I
D n N m z ? D O D (n
n ? a ? = Ea Z v
? a C D ? O
r* ?1 Z
N
D N
D

P
? ?
Z
z
?
n
°
z
0
z ? ?
? A ? ? A m

m

?
0 C7
2 2 2

m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m
m
a) 2

D ?
? N
=
O
?m
m O

?

O O m 0 0 U? N O O --I
o O

? m

-D

m
m
m
m
m
m D
0
Z
1
D Z
-'?
D Z
-'?
D D
A
m D
A
m ?
A
m D
A
m D
A
m D
A
m D
m Z
P m A A A A A A 2
;
u
N 0
N A
R 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
o v o m

2
O

N
m m oo w m m m m m D
x x x x x x x x x
n
au ao 00 CO 00 0o m oo m Z

® m m
U P Pcmhrokc Wetland and Strc:un Rr,tmation • I JSU; H UC 0302010`
Rc;loration Plan • Cho%cau County, North Carolina • Scptcmhcr 20011
Section 11.0 Appendices,
r Restoration Site Photographs
c

Appendix 1.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
1. t4 U 1 t•J I L 14 1 N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
C N O 1 N t C R 1 N 0
Photo 2 - View from the northwest portion of the site. Buildings near former
hog lagoon visible in the distance.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N I N [ [ R I N a
line with the existing tree line.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03026105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
the background.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
N a 1 14 C 11 R 1 N 0
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Photo 7 - Photo at intersection of ditch and gravel road looking almost due south.
Photo 8 - Photo taken near beginning of small ditch feature, looking almost
due south. Project area is east of ditch feature shown on left of photo.
Water in right of photo is collected in farm equipment tire ruts.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N O 1 N [ [ R 1 N 0
U 1 Pcmbuokc WCtland:uui Stream Rc,toratioui • (1SOS HUC 113010105
Ilcstmralio[I Platt • (IimaI I Cminty. Noitb ( arulica • September 2(100
Restoration Site USAGE Routine
Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 2.4
NATURAL_ SYSTEMS
ra c, I t4 c H I tj c
UT Pembroke Site
Flag 4015 - Wetland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Lft` Pcrti??????? Date !u
Applicant/Owner: County:
Investigator:, State:
)C
_
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No . .
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ? ----
Plot ID: y01S i.1
(explain on roverso if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spocies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. of n ^ '7r_'?' Dad- 9.
2. r Cep ?? ?? T.-r-C 10.

4.!„r[t,-tt•' Crn!dS? N. rh IL, 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
?l
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). _
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated

-1"zNo Recorded Data Available !Saturated in Upper 12"
?-'Water Marks
---Drift Lines
Field Observations: L-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water In Pit: 3 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_,CWater stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
F ,. , .
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): t ' r
1 (} frY Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): "5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No _!:?'
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottlo Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsoll Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
0-S 1\
- 11 ;V- /
11- Id IdW s/i C' n scC. sK,?
A ' S ') f?o.m ?? sc? flo??as
?
?a ) ?- caz?sc
?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
_6t-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 4-- No Within a Wetland? Yes `-_No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes C No
Remarks:
r
t
t
t
UT Pembroke Site
Flag 4015- Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
t
Project/ Site: 0r? 1? P ig 1??c'.
Applicant / Owner: FF P i
Investigator: 1+ r;i) F1 cY?;r
Date: tl? t c(
County 0n
State: c.

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No -
(explain on reverso if needed) Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: t'om'/St
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ?a?•.i' :? _??-n Tree ;'t 9.

?-
4. once ~i 7 12.
S. 13.
6. 14.
7. Is.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated

_?No Recorded Data Available -Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.} Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
.-FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
1'.. . '
??
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): i r }
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No v
Profilo Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottlo Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon -Munseil Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

loY?
R
f
t
i

Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Hist]c Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v' No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes- No -? Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ! No _
Remarks:
UT PcmLiokc Wetland and Sirenm Rc,loraCmi • USCiS IICCC 03020105
I?c?toration Plan • ('Iimun CounIy, Not IIt (- awIii,a • Suptcmhcr 2006
Restoration Site NCDWm Stream
Classification Forms
Appendix 3.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
PL _ N C; i rj L. L. H i _ N U
I North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: I c o Project ? -r rn 1 e_ Latitude: 5 6. D`r J27
Evaluator. J Sltu 4h `.M1.riy?`?Gt :S?utlzc..•r? ,, 1' ?, t &rr Longitude: -7(f. GCE6.?(%
Total Points:
Stream Is at least Intermittent County: `?, ¢i L! Other ft . -
ffz 19 or emnniafffa 30 e.g. Quad Namo: t i 3GLt
7: 'n tc
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = Y 5
1'. Continuous bed and bank Absent
0 Weak
1 Modorato
2 Strong
3
2. Sinuosi 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting (Q> 1 2 3
5._ Activefrelic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1' 2 3
7. Braided channel (9) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9' Natural levees . 07 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 'Q; 0.5 1 1.5
12: Natural valley or drainagewa 0 .5 1 1:5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented

evidence.
No 40

Yes = 3
••• .... •.....+....v.w? wv ?w? ww?, alv u(,l.1d351U141 111 RRiflUal
R Hvr(rn(nnv ICiihtnf?l- f!?
14. Groundwater flowidischarge 0 1 2
15: Water in channel and.> 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season
0
i
2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or plies (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximo is features resent? No = 0 Yes 1.5 71
C. Biolow (Subtotal
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 W 0
21 : Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 C-' 1.5
23.. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 . 0.5 1 1.5
25. Am hiblans 0 D.? 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5> 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton (Q 1 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizi22 bacteriafrungus. 0 0.5 C 1.5
29 : Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL 1.5> SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
..+.•.? ?? ¢,n. ?. Iwu* Y{1 - Wu-11w ul w-lu wdl". iwai Gv j(juu s on uie pfusunce ei aquauc or weuana giants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this foam for additional notes.)
' hC'. --5 ail ±u :r%ti Qr? fYktis7 _ tti rfa
t l t:?1C' l/'?t7[' •f tICJ O m i !
5 ? ? ?./.. S LI'C' )""'r•l? P?lY% b 41-[ IM r
t{r4i,u
'.?Yt? ????,?.tip•i•X?t?r1? L'b11•'t'1ut^"lfr t'T.+r lt/P`t !1 K/I i? 7
?tt? i JJ f
?•'tT?. ?ut.. `E11L? C1?+\^LS6t? rs? tt,%47'?'r•.'t=C:ri Cu^/")tr 7h^,.y-y ';?iftc- Qr'?} ? 5T qh'?
? l ? ?? .? L.r,aaS•F ? J. r? r ?
•v r ? • `'? ?,j- ? ?? ! ?rs;?•aY ??nu ;?C ) ? r?")f)1 t t3 ? h'?+.
r?1-?7`.•, hit v? r??•-?3 r.m r? ?'„) dt.S?,rr ?C? Y f , T 1 , r ?1
U i Pcmblokc Wetiaud and SITC:1111 KC_,tofatltm • I IS( is 111C 03020105
R.cduwtioli Phu • Chiman (homy, North C:uohl a • 5cpte1Ilbc1- 000
Reference Site 1-Photographs
Appendix 4.©
NATURAL SYSTEMS
Pe: w Co 1 14 c r_ R 1 N u
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
! N O I N ! [ R! I N 4
i
Photo 1- Reference Wetland 1. MW 16 in foreground.
Photo 2 - Reference Wetland 1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N O I N [ [ R I r4 O
Photo 3 - Reference Wetland 1
Photo 4 - Reference Wetland 1
UT Pcmbrokc Woland mud Scram RC WI,16011 • U?GS HUC 03020105
Kcstomlion Plan • Chmun County, Noith ('molil a • September 2000
Reference Site 1 - USACE Routine
Wetland Determination Data Firms
Appendix 5.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
L: N U I N L L. 14 1 N u
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Reference Site 1
Wetland
Project/ Site: Irr Date:
Applicant I Owner: County:_
Investigator: 77',?'')?t? State: .

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes C. No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:_
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

? : 7
1 _ "
>1 C. 9.
10.

4. 12.
5.'ntC-.?.,,r,, 13.
6.1-ir1 n,'/r. ,, ?EIv>^+: tt >?sl 14.
15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). &)0 -
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tid Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
_ ?Saturated in Upper 12"
tZ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
,Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: : (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) t/Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: f

SOILS
t
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): 1
Drainage Class:
r ,
.
Taxonomy (Subgroup) ??r r_. -
r: t;! ? ?!1 d ?_s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottio Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon tMunsell Moist) (Munseli Moist) Abundance!Contras Structure, etc.
`` 1 r /Q
/ n 17
Q-6 Y? C'
YLi ?_:1jj l",'?li )) I
!'')/%?
/a S
/!
?
1 iJ??^. //
J fr
[Y/•??
/

2 -3??
l0 5 12n
L
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi
Histic Epipedon -Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
vSultidic Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
lGleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes t! No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No -
Remarks:

Reference Site 1
Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: ii(T /JPrht?rr?Ktt'_ c-, -C V. r- 't"_ r noll Date: l1rl?= Iff
Applicant/ Owner: E f P County:
Investigator: U - --" ? State: l1
10
-
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? yes No C---- TransectID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ?' Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
r
9.
10.

5.i ^r1','+ ,r•; n irc?' a 13.
6. 1 rat' ; 3 -; 14.
7.4Vn''r Fro-{ >rl ; i•: C?Y'. 0 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 27%>
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated

No Recorded Data Available -Saturated in Upper 12"
- Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: "- (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: }3P (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
1
Remarks: Vert
SOILS

Map Unit Name , ' 1
(Series and Phase): .?D D 3
!S Drainage Class: "- -• ?'•' r '_?" ?''u' J
t
Taxonomy (Subgroup):Y?` •?^'?? ?,r..rn-.r .,' fn'?n;,Qonfirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No

Profito Descriptlon:
Depth Matrix Colors '
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon Munsell Moist (Munseil Molst)Abundance/Contrast Stru cture, etc.

l6 a 42oMM2n/ rJ? S? 5 h
-2- SL _S
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon -Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surfaco Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidle Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aqulc Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_
.-. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colo rs -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes t!` No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ?-- Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes - No
Remarks:
U1' Pc1ill) okc Well an(I and Strait Rctonltion • IP CAS I IUC 01020105
Pcxtrnation Plan • Chlnvan County, Notch Cxolin,i • Scptcnlhcr 2000
Reference Site 2 - Photuv-gr;qnhs
Appendix 0.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
U N Ii 1 N 1 H 1 t!
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 0 1 N C C R 1 N O
Photo 1- Reference Wetland 2
Photo 2 - Reference Wetland 2 I.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
N 0 1 N K ! R I' N O
I
Photo 3 - Reference Wetland 2
Photo 4 - Reference Wetland 2
U 1 Pcndnukc 1' Oland any( Sticun Rcsturation • I ISGS HUC 031120105
Itc;IoIatiun PI,ui • Cho?can ('witity, Nurlh CntoIit) a • ScI) tcmhcr-IM6

I
t
t
Appendix 7.0
r-I NATURAL SYSTEMS
E - u - - i_ i. n - N it
Reference Site 2
Wetland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: _r a +?>>c? ???G i* n %; Date:
Applicant/Owner: :mot
Investigator: /?.-i4n -?,6;41, County: C.?ot 4r;
State: it C

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Nom Transect IQ:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ? Plot ID: ??c=: t' '? ?c
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
r
2.L-vrl??iljl.?111.h:?i? rye Jt .??. 10.
11 '/
4. L7 k e rr Y? P", r-1 t 12.
1- 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC+ k
Remarks l /? j y
hl?n• .l'G ie ? ?W
?'r r !`
_._ti.osh l,l. -r,
Y"`j?1! •I?fi? i-?:.ct f ?C
C /v a:? ?©,J?
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
_--Saturated In Upper 12"
?No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
-Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: /U (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase)• ?+; 7) L00 ?I
f / t t
J'? .,logtiji Drainage Class:
t .- ? -
Taxonomy (Subgroup). jConfrm Mapped Type? Yes_ No=
Profilo Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottlo Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inched Horizon IMunsell Moist) (Munseli Moist)Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
p - ?_ !o y' j J
If

Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
JGleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes r! `No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes -? JNo_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 1 No
Remarks:
Reference Site 2
Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
p
ect/ Site: T V ? r
Pro ?
Date: q/- 110" G
j
Applicant / Owner: F-F E County: T r!??.±
Investigator: -'Amt k State: ;I?C,,
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes t//? No
- Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No
?;7- Transect ID:
P
=
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
t-- -
? )
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
-Fr"" G 9.
.
2. ;rA to 10.

z.ci 1 r-r i_ Till t=-t- 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available - Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: "- (in.) Secondary Indicators:

- _ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: `
(in.) Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS

Map Unit Name /N.,
(Series and Phase: -Wt* . I ! 1'A I
_ =Oh_• Jr ?>'J? Drainage Class: n -? ' . r ? 1
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 4 .0 U o C_ i x n !! !? i- ? Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No !:f
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottlo Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsoll Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
C7
q- to g (/ j r-e-0 ?l?• s? ?S

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sul(idic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes - No ci Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _ No u?
Remarks:
U I Prnahnalcc Abctlan?l :11111 `iucam Kc+Im,11 n-m • U; QS I IUC WONH05
Kc.,Rnatilro 1'1:111 • Clio"%;na County. Not tII C:irolit a • ScliIcnthcr 2006
Reference Site 3 - Photoardwhs
Appendix 8.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
, [ ra u i N t. t. at 1 r+ [a
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
t N O i N [ [ A I N O
Photo 2 - Reference Wetland 3.
!0105
2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
t N O 1 N E E R I N ¦
Photo 3 - Reference Wetland 3.
Photo 5 - Reference Wetland 3.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N O 1 N [ [ R I N O
i
I:
Photo 7 - Reference Wetland 3.
Photo 8 - Reference Wetland 3.
U I Nnibrokc Woland a id Sucam Rrstoralina • t J -OS HUC 03020105
kcckolation Plan • Clit)wan ('panty, Noith ( `.iroliva • September 2006
1 Reference Site 3m USACE Routine
1 Wetland Determination Data Forms

I

Appendix 9.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
L. P4 ri.. _1 . N.. E I.. H _1 . 14 U
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Reference Site 3
Wetland
Project /Site: ??? ?'??? ? n l'._ _•`_t' 'r f'_??r.a ? oc+ 'a1r? J Date' S?>
Applicant / Owner: F E P Count <' ?,?_ r
Investigator: Llr;,State: V
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Y03No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yos No G? Transect ID: ,
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No__?,_ Plot ID:
?i (explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION

Dominant Plant Specias Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. rcL( rF2 9.
2.1'y-
3
? _
1 r r c
G 10.
11
. _ .

Jr._? FA C- 13.
6. u _ S FP, ' t, 14.
7. _ 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
L HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
=
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other Inundated

-- -Saturated In Upper 12"
'--
No Recorded Data Available - Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
___,?aDrainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: Secondary Indicators:
oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit• _ (in.)
. L. Water-Stained Leaves
'Local soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) _._?FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_
Remark

a. s:
SOILS
Map Unit Name i
(Series and Phase): g o ; A'- Drainage Class: P? ?Ic1 ?; ? ; ? r?1
Taxonomy (Subgroup):-60?-h,te. Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No (/1'_
Protilo Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Toxturo, Concretions,
(inchos Horizon (Munsoll Moist) (Munsoll Moist) Abundancolcontrast Structuro, etc.
/0 VJ2
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidlc Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
_(,fftleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 1/ No Within a Wetland? Yes t/o
Hydric Soils Present? Yes L- No
Remarks:
DATA FORM Reference Site 3
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Upland
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Prv)ect / Site:-( Date- ! j
Applicant / Ow er•J4:-Ll?J_ _ Courtly: ar.r ?n
investigator: c L? `?,? ?- State• AZ
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes t!No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Z-, Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
vi=[,FTATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.?1 oy-9 ee- r C-?L-?-- 9.

4.?1Mi 'C n _t0 1 rGC? 12.
5 .? r w r?• ??'?? ?R n,r ?r 13.
14
6
7 .
15.
8 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).4
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
C No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Secondary Indicators:
ots Channels in Upper 12"
d R
i
o
ze
oxid
Depth to Free Water In Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: `'-FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
t?
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Draina e Class: fn.71 t, r-
Taxonomy (Subgroup): J V Y-)»? ?•,???? -hc n %' i ril Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profilo Doscrintion:
Depth
inchos
Horizon Matrix Colors Mottlo Colors
(M insoll Molstj__ (Munsoll Moist) Mottlo Toxturo, Concrotions,
Abundanco/Contrast Structuro
etc
l
.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosoi
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ;.r No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No r-?
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No tl?
Remarks:
li 1 PI I III IUke `v CtIan(I and Sit ctutt Itc;torm,?nl • U`(is I IUC 03020105
1`.Cyt(Il-atiun Phu • ('I?u«an (buniv, Not-III (fat-olive • Scl,icmbc1 2006
Preliminary Gauge Data S"ulmomarv a
Appendix 10.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
(? r N [. 1 N - !- R 1 N ti
cn
N M _ C
c7
I
(ui) uoi)u)idiaa id
o o v, o Wn o t o kn o
vi ?t V M ri N N O O
CS
4.0
a
A
0
0
M
a?
W
?s
a
0
0
u
i
y
N
O
it
U
} j = 90-unf-6I
t
90-unf-L I
t
9p-unf-I l
-. t = 90 unf 6
t
?I - 90-unf-9
1 I ? _
/?. 90-un f-b
I
90-unf-I
= 90-AN-6Z
90-AW-LZ
i 90-XU W -bZ
I
_ 90-XuW-ZZ
90-AN-6I
90-,(LN-9I A
7 t 90-?uI?I-bi
I
90-AIN-I I
I
90-AW-6
i 90- CuW-9
Glow - i _ 90-xuw-£
9o- LW-I
Y I ? o
U o, 90-idH-8Z
Ca ( 1 ? 90-ldV-9Z
i
90-ldd-£Z
90-idd-OZ
j 90-ldd-S I
90-idd-S I
90-idd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
O N M vl ?O
(11) ialumpuno ig o) q)da(l
N a
2z
F
U)
W
tn
YJ W
J z
Q
p
Q z
z W

O In o =n
W) M
u
C"i
v
(u?) uoijuj!diaaad
o W) O kn
M N N
o =n o
i ?
i
3
I i
i _
I I
I i
i
3
I j
i
i
I i
I ;
i
- 3
I i
I 1
o
Q I i Q
I '
i '
I
dw:
i
I
I
I
O
90-unf-6i
90-unf-LI
90-unf-bi
90-unf-II
90-unf-6
90-unf-9
90-un f-t7
90-unf-I
90-,(u W-6Z
90-xuW-LZ
90-XuW-t7Z
90-xuW-ZZ
90-XBW-6I
v
90-xuW-9I A
90-xuW-t,i
90-xu W- I I
90-l(M-6
90-,(u W-9
90-xuW-£
90-xu W- I
90-idd-8Z
90-jdd-9Z
90-1dV-£Z
90-ldd-OZ
90-ldd-8 I
90-1dd-S I
90-idd-£ I
O O O O O O O
O -? N M ? V'1 ?D
()s) aalumpunoag o; q;daQ
Ul a
I z
F-
Ul
W
Ul w
J z
Q
? n
F.
Q z
z W
FIKWI
r 00 C, u
Cq
II
(ui) uol)e)!diaaad P4
o ?n o v, o kn O V) O In o
vi ?t M M N N -- O O
90-unf-6I
f? i =
90-unf-L I
i
_ 90-unf-tbl
i = 90-unf-II
90-un f-6
= 90-unf-9
1/ I = 90-un f-{,
= 90-unf-I
= 90-XLN-6Z
t
90-XLW-LZ
i _ 90-xtw-ZZ
90-XuN-6I
dwi go-XL
i I =
I = 90-XuW-I I
i 90-Xu W-6
i
90-xuW-9
90-XU W-£
0 90-AUN-I
i
o. _ 90-.add-8Z
' CJ
0
Q I _ .90-ldV-9Z
1 90-ldV-£Z
90-ldV-OZ
90-ldd-8 I
I
1 = 90-ldd-S I
I s _
90-ldN-£ I
O O O O O O O O
O N M IT 1? ?O
()3) aa)vmpuno.tq o; tl)daQ
U)
z
i-
IA
W
Ul w
J
Q z
[Y -
Q z
z W
Uli
t
oa
O N
N
O N
o ?
U
a 0.
w ?
C7 c
? o
c "
o U
C
z
b
C 3
h ?
ti u
? U
? C
h
3a
.Y o
o0
a v
E- ?
j
f
l
j
j
O Wn O V)
kn V M
_u
I
C7
(UI) UOIpjidpaad
O kn O W)
M N N
O v'? O
I
=
I 3
U I a, _
Q I
I
s =
=
9o-unf-6I
9o-unf-L I
90-unf-ti
90-unf-I I
9o-unf-6
9o-unf-9
9o-unf-t
9o-un f- I
90-XBw-6Z
90-Xuw-LZ
9o-xnw-tz
90-xnw-zz
90-Xnw-6I
go-Am-91 A
90-XL,w-t I
90-AL,w- I I
90-XB W-6
9o-xuw-9
9o-AUw-£
9o-Auw-I
9o-ldd-8Z
9o-ldv-9Z
90-ldd-£Z
9o-ldd-oz
9o-ldd-8 I
9o-ldd-S I
9o-ldd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
(as) aajumpunoaE) o; tpdaQ
Ul a
2z
f-
N
W
Ul w
J
Q z
Q z
z W
rzqwiwl
LZA9
v
z C a
C7
(ui) uoi;u;ld[aaad
o ?, o n o W) o kn o vi o
Vi V M M N N O O
i = 90-unf-6I
t
90-unf-L I
9o-unf-17I
90-unf-II
90-unf-6
f
.? C.. : _ 90-unf-9
90-un f-},
= 90-unf-I
90-h IN-6Z
I
= 90-XBW-LZ
90-XU W -17Z
i
9o-Auw-ZZ
90-AEW-6I
= 90-,CnW-9I A
- 90-hW-bi
= 90-XLW-II
I
= 90-AUW-6
t
I' -
I 1 ? _ 90-,CeW-9
1 .? 90-XUW-£
o = 90-xuW-I
U i p 9o-jdd-8Z
G1 I } Q - 9o-ldV-9Z
_ 9o-idd-£Z
90-idd-oZ
J _ 90-ldN-81
= 90-ldN-S I
90-ldV-£I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(11) aaaumpunoag o; tlidaQ
In a
2z
f'
Ul
W
N W
J
Q z
? n
H
Q z
z W
rgqiwl
t
t
r
r
t
o In o =n
vi V d r)
W
N M =o
C7 C7 C7 ?
L L L cR ;R CR
I o!
c?
(ul) uol;ualdloa id
o In o kn
M N N
o W) o
I
I
i
;
- E
3
I =
I ?
I
I I
I
I ?
i =
I
I €
I '
I i
I
I =
•c ? ? w
= o
v I i ?
a. I ; Q
Q I ;
I =
;
I
I _
I
I
90-unf-6I
90-unf-L I
90-unf-t7I
90-unf- I I
90-unf-6
90-unf-9
90-unf-V
90-unf-I
90-AnW-6Z
90-Au W-LZ
90-'(UW-vZ
9o-xuW-zz
90-XnW-61
90-Auw-9I A
90-xnW-VI
90-Au W- I I
90-AuW-6
90-Auw-9
90-Arw-£
90-XL,W-I
90-1dd-8Z
90-1dd-9Z
9o-idd-£Z
9o-idd-OZ
9o-idd-BI
90-idd-S I
90-idd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
O N M V vi
(as) aa;umpunoaq o; u;daQ
In o
z
f-
U
W
NW
J
Q z
? u
Q z
z W
nzqgxl
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
DATE
T4/13/0
04/14/0,
0411510,
04/16/01
04/17/0,
04/18/0,
04/19/0,
04/20/0,
04/21/01
04/22/0
04/23/0
04/24/01
04/25/01
04/26/01
04/27/01
04/28/0
04/29/0
04/30/0
05/01/01
05/02/01
05/03/01
05/04/01
05/05/01
05/06/01
05/07/01
05/09/01
05110/0
05111/0
05/12/0(
05/13/01
05/14/0(
0511510(
0511610(
05/17/0(
05/18/0(
05/19/0(
05/20/0(
05/21/0(
05/22/0(
0/23/0(
05/24/0(
05/26/0(
05/27/0(
05/28/0(
05/29/0(
05/30/0(
NIW 1
-33
-33
-34
-34
-35
-36
-37
-37
-38
-38
-39
-39
-39
-39
-39
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-30
-28
-28
-29
-31
-32
-23
-18
-21
-23
-25
-27
-28
-30
-31
-32
-34
-34
-35
-36
-37
Gauge Data Summary
Groundwater Elevation Information
Note: All data reported in inches from ground surface
ITV 2 ITV 3 MW 4 DIW 5 MW 6 NIW 7 NIW 8 NlW 9
--- -30 -28 -21 -20 -16 -27
--- -30 -28 -21 -20 -16 -28
--- -31 -29 -21 -20 -16 -29
--- -31 -30 -22 -22 -17 -30
--- -31 -30 -22 -22 -18 -31
--- -31 -31 -23 -24 -18 -31
--- -32 -31 -23 -24 -18 -32
--- -32 -32 -24 -24 -19 -33
--- -32 -32 -24 -25 -19 -34
--- -32 -32 -24 -25 -19 -34
--- -32 -32 -23 -25 -18 -34
--- -32 -32 -23 -25 -18 -35
--- -32 -32 -23 -25 -18 -35
--- -33 -32 -24 -26 -18 -35
--- -32 -33 -24 -26 -18 -35
--- -32 -33 -25 -26 -18 -36
--- -33 -34 -25 -27 -19 -36
--- -33 -34 -26 -27 -20 -37
-41 -33 -34 -26 -28 -21 -37
-41 -33 -34 -25 -27 -21 -37
-41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -21 -37
-41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -21 -38
-41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -21 -38
-41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -20 -38
-41 -33 -34 -24 -27 -15 -30
-41 -28 -18 -11 -4 -1 -6
-41 -29 -22 -16 -10 -8 -14
-41 -30 -25 -18 -14 -11 -18
-41 -31 -26 -19 -17 -13 -21
-41 -31 -27 -20 -19 -14 -24
-41 -31 -28 -20 -21 -16 -26
-41 -27 -15 -10 -4 0 -7
-41 -27 -16 -9 -2 0 -7
-41 -28 -22 -15 -8 -8 -18
-41 -29 -24 -17 -13 -10 -21
-41 -30 -25 -19 -14 -11 -24
-41 -30 -26 -19 -17 -13 -26
-41 -31 -27 -19 -19 -15 -28
-41 -31 -27 -20 -21 -16 -29
-41 -32 -28 -21 -22 -17 -30
-41 -32 -28 -21 -23 -17 -31
-41 -32 -28 -20 -23 -17 -32
-41 -32 -29 -21 -23 -17 -32
-41 -33 -30 -21 -25 -17 -33
-41 -33 -30 -22 -25 -18 -34
-41 -34 -31 -22 -26 -18 -34
-28
-29
-30
-31
-32
-33
-34
-35
-36
-37
-37
-37
-38
-38
-39
-39
-39
-40
-41
-40
-41
-41
-41
-41
-41
-15
-18
-22
-24
-27
-29
-15
-9
-16
-19
-22
-25
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-36
-37
-37
-38
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS JIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
t
DATE
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/15/06
04/16/06
04/17/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
05101106
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/09/06
05110106
05/ 11106
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/14/06
05115106
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
MW 10
-15
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-21
-22
-22
-17
-18
-20
-20
-17
-15
-19
-22
-23
-23
-23
-23
-22
-19
-16
-2
-4
-6
-9
-13
-14
Gauge Data Summary
Groundwater Elevation Information
Note: All data reported in inches from ground surface
MW II MW 12 MW 13 MW 14 MW 15 MW 16 MW 17 MW 18
-4
-6
-6
-11
-14
-18
-20
-21
-20
-17
-17
-19
-20
-13 -16 -30 -41 -11 -1 --- ---
-14 -17 -30 -41 -11 -1 --- ---
-15 -19 -30 -41 -11 -1 --- ---
-17 -21 -31 -41 -12 -1 --- ---
-17 -20 -32 -41 -13 -1 --- ---
-17 -21 -32 -41 -13 -1 --- ---
-18 -22 -33 -41 -15 -1 --- ---
-18 -24 -33 -41 -16 -1 --- ---
-19 -26 -34 -41 -17 -1 --- ---
-19 -26 -34 -41 -18 -1 --- ---
-17 -23 -35 -41 -17 0 --- ---
-16 -25 -35 -41 -19 -1 --- ---
-17 -27 -35 -41 -20 -1 --- ---
-17 -28 -36 -41 -20 -1 --- ---
-16 -26 -36 -41 -20 -1 --- ---
-15 -25 -36 -41 -20 -1 --- ---
-16 -28 -37 -41 -21 -1 --- ---
-19 -31 -37 -41 -22 -2 --- ---
-20 -32 -37 -41 -23 -2 --- ---
-20 -33 -38 -41 -23 -3 ---
-20 -34 -38 -41 -24 -4 --- ---
-20 -36 -38 -41 -25 -6 --- ---
-19 -37 -38 -41 -25 -6 --- ---
-16 -35 -39 -41 -24 -5 --- ---
-13 -34 -39 -41 -23 -5 --- ---
-4 -15 -30 -41 -9 1 --- ---
-6 -19 -28 -41 -10 0 ---
-8 -21 -27 41 -11 0 -- --
-10 -24 -28 -41 -11 0 --- --
-13 -27 -29 -41 -14 0 --- ---
-15 -29 -30 -41 -16 0 -- ---
-3 -14 -25 -40 -9 1 --- ---
-3 -12 -21 -37 -9 1 --- ---
-7 -17 -23 -38 -10 1 --- ---
-8 -20 -25 -39 -10 1 --- ---
-7 -20 -26 -40 -10 1 ---
-11 -24 -27 -41 -11 1 --- ---
-14 -27 -27 -41 -14 0 --- ---
-16 -30 -28 -41 -16 0 --- ---
-18 -32 -29 -41 -18 -1 --- ---
-19 -33 -30 -41 -20 -2 --- ---
-18 -36 -31 -41 -21 -4 --- ---
-16 -37 -32 -41 -21 -4 --- ---
-16 -38 -33 -41 -23 -6 --- ---
-16 -39 -33 -41 -24 -7 --- ---
-17 -39 -34 -41 -25 -9 --- ---
NATURAL SYSTEMS
ftj E N G I N E E R I N 13
lJT Pcnit,toke Wetl:utd and i!t:`ain Rcstoi.it on - I J SGS I Il TC 03020;05
Pc."Iol tiurt 111 ,111 • Claaan Couufy, NorUi Carolh,a - Sclitcniticr2006
Appendix 11.0
NATURAL SYSTEMS
?lj t- t4 ? I I N - I . If I 'A Ll
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Water Budget
for the UT Pembroke Creek Wetland and Stream Restoration Project
A water budget was developed for the Ecosystem Enhancement Project in Edenton to assess
the viability of establishing wetland hydrology in the site area. The water budget was based
upon methods given in Pierce (1993) Planning Hydrology for Constructed Wetlands.
Calculation of the water budget requires knowledge of hydrologic inputs and outputs as well
as approximate site dimensions and characteristics of the soils present. The water budget
results verify that there is an ample amount of water to meet proposed wetland hydrology
criteria. South of the access road wetland hydrology can be easily achieved based on site
observations. North of the access road the sight is constrained by NCSR 1208, Wildcat road.
NCSR 1208 at that location has an elevation of 21.2 feet. This constraint limits how high the
water table can be raised because of the possibility of flooding the road during a high water
event. Additional analysis of the site monitoring data, incoming water flow, stormwater
runoff, surface flow, and rainfall data is necessary to tell whether or not this section of land
will have a water table close enough to the surface to support a wetland.
The following equations are from the Engineering Field Handbook (USDA, 1997).
AS/At = Qi - Qo
where: OS/At = change in water volume per change in time
Qi = flow rate of water entering wetland
Qo flow rate of water leaving wetland
Qi = P + Ri + Bi + Gi + Pi + Ti
where: P = direct precipitation
Ri = stormwater runoff from contributing drainage area
Bi = base flow from streams entering wetland
Gi = groundwater entering wetland
Pi = water pumped or artificially added to the wetland
Ti = tidal flow into wetland
Qo=E+T+Ro+B.+Go +Po+To
where: E = evaporation from surface
T = transpiration
Ro = stormwater outflow
B. = base flow leaving wetland
Go = groundwater leaving wetland
Po = water pumped or artificially removed from wetland
To = tidal flow out of wetland
S=Ss+SP
where: S = total volume of stored water
Ss = volume of stored surface water
Sp = volume of stored subsurface water
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 1 N E E R I N
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS IIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Site Data
Table 1 - Soil Physical Properties
Depth Hydraulic Conductivity Porosity
Soil type (in) Texture (mm/h
Roanoke 0-8 Silty loam 25 43
8-19 Silty clay loam 8 49
19-33 Silty clay 3 51
Tomotlev 0-7 Fine sandy loam 25 43
7-12 Fine sandy loam 25 43
12-42 Sandy clay loam 8 49
Dragston 0-7 Loamy fine sand 25 43
7-10 Loamy fine sand 25 43
10-20 Sandy loam 25 43
20-27 Sandy loam 25 43
Portsmouth 0-12 Black loam 12 47
12-16 Sandy loam 25 43
16-36 Sandv clav loam 8 49
Data obtained from Pierce, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, fourth edition
and Schwab, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.

Table 2 - Soil Areas Table 3 - Mean Temperature
Soil Type Area (ft) Month Mean temp (°C)
Cape Fear 11,184 January 6.1
February 7.4
Dragston 84,398 March 11.4
Nimmo 37,478 April 15.8

Portsmouth 245,168 May 20.3
June 24.3
Roanoke 804,058 July 26.6
Tomotley 260,202 August 25.6

Total Area 1,442,487 September 22.7
October 16.9
November 12.4
December 7.9
Data obtained from NRCS website 07/06
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
F E N 6 1 N E E R 1 N 6 2
UT Pembroke Wctland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Water Storage
Table 4 - Water Storage
Average Water Storage Capacity(ft)
Soil Type Depth(in) Capacity (in/in) (depth)*(capacity)*(area)
Cape Fear 0-17 0.185 5,704
17-36 0.17
Dragston 0-10 0.085 21,521
10-36 0.12
Nimmo 0-6 0.08
6-25 0.125 8,995
25-36 0.06
Portsmouth 0-16 0.15 110,325
16-36 0.17
Roanoke 0-8 0.17 410,070
8-36 0.175
Tomotley 0-7 0.125
97,575
7-36 0.15
Total 654,190
Data obtained from Soil Survey of Chowan County.
Using a storage depth of three feet a total subsurface storage capacity of 654,190 ft3 was
calculated. Due to the site constraints there will not be surface water in most of the
wetland, with the exception of the channels flowing through the wetland. In accordance
with this, a conservative estimation of no surface water was made for calculation purposes
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R I N 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Input
Precipitation
The average annual precipitation over the last 30 years was 48.6 inches. Over the square
footage of the property a volume of 5,842,072 ft3 is calculated.
Rainfall data obtained from the NRCS website (7/06).
Ground Water Flow
The ground water flow was calculated by an equation given in Applied Hydrology Third
Edition.
V. = - ( K / ne ) * (dh/dl)
where:
V, = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
ne = soil porosity
dh/d1= change in vertical distance over change in horizontal distance
For all soils K was 25 or less and ne was 49% or less. A value of 20 was selected for K and
a value of 50% was selected for ne as conservative for calculation purposes. A total
volume of 93,171 ft3 per year was calculated to enter the wetland.
Artificially added Water
There is no water artificially added to the wetland area.
Tidal Flow
The water level in the wetland is not influenced by the tides.
Base Flow
These calculations assumed base flow to be equal to zero.
Stormwater Runoff
Initial results fro the water budget indicate that the site has excess water. Furthermore, the
potential "dry" area on the site will be dry due to off-site constraints (Wildcat Road). To
simplify the water budget calculations, stormwater inputs are assumed to be zero.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R 1 N G 4
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration - USGS IIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan - Chowan County, North Carolina - September 2006
Output
Evapotranspiration
The ET was calculated using the Thornthwaite Method, temperature data was acquired
from the NRCS website 7/06.
ET=1.6*(10*Ta/I)a
where: ET = evapotranspiration
Ta = mean monthly air temperature ff )
I = heat index over 12 months
a = 0.49 + 0.0179 * I - 0.0000771 * I2 + 0.000000675 * I3
I = sum of 12 i values
i=(Ta/5)1.514
where: i = monthly heat index
Ta = mean monthly air temperature (°C)
Water loss due to evapotranspiration is 34.88 inches per year due to a heat index of 78.22.
The value of "a" is 1.741.
Ground Water Flow
The ground water flow was calculated by an equation given in Applied Hydrology, Third
pditinn
VX = - ( K / ne) * (dh/dl)
where:
VX = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
N = soil porosity
dh/d1= change in vertical distance over change in horizontal distance
For all soils K was 25 or less and ne was 50% or less. A value of 20 was selected for K as
conservative for calculation purposes. Actual values of 43% and 50% were used for ne. A
3
total volume of 11,472ft
per year was calculated to leave the wetland.
Artificially Removed Water
No water is artificially removed from the wetland.
Tidal Outflow
The water level in the wetland is not influenced by the tides.
Stormwater Outflow
Based on the decision to simplify the calculations and assume no stormwater flow inputs,
r stormwater outflow will be zero.
Base Flow
These calculations assumed base flow to be equal to zero.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R 1 N 13
5
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Summary
Storage
Ss=0 ft3
SP = 654,190ft3
S = 654,190ft3
Inflow
P = 5,842,072ft3
Ri = 0 ft3
Bi = 0 ft3
Gi = 93,171 ft3 from surface to a depth of 3 feet
Pi=0ft3
Ti = 0 ft3
Qi = 5,935,243 ft3
Outflow
E + T = 4,132,725ft3
Ro = 0 ft3
Bo = 0 ft3
Go = 11,472ft3
Po=0ft3
To= 0 ft3
Qo = 4,144,197 ft3
Change in volume
Qi= 5,935,243 ft3
Qo 4,144,197ft3
OS/At = 1,791,046 ft3
The water budget results verify that there is an ample amount of water to meet proposed
wetland hydrology criteria for the majority of the site. Calculations indicate excess water
when inputs were compared to outputs (AS/At = 1,791,046 ft). It was assumed that
stormwater inflow/runoff was zero and that channel base flow in and out of the site was
zero. Even with these extremely conservative assumptions, calculations indicated excess
water at the site.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
?1 E N 0 1 N E E R I N 6 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
References
Fetter, C.W. 1994. Applied Hydro eg ology, Third Edition.
National Cooperative Soil Survey 1995. Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina.
NRCS website. ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.iisda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37041.txt Internet
site accessed 7/06.
Pierce, Gary J. 1993. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands. Wetland Training
Institute, Inc. Poolesville, MD.
Schwab, Glenn O.; Fangmeier, Delmar D.; Elliot, William J; Frevert, Richard K. 1995. Soil
and Water Conservation En in?g.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997. Engineering Field Handbook.
210-EFH, Part 650, 1/92, revised 1997.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N 6 7
U I' i'_rnbi,_r.c A%'cIll I; d 5t m Pe ,iuiaii?: i , 1IIt i( , 030?( )IU?
Hi 'motiuit Phil • (llo;% m Cl?unty, PJrnth 'lina ?G'htollhcr "_1it0`?
VA ', a
1927 Til a I
Apriendix 12.0
?7) NATU1-4 -'iYSTEMS
l?
NOR IIIII E mom EMEN EMMI I = C223 WIN mom Immmm
1,q

lid
i
? ? lam. ? t? G?,.. V
1 ,1 ?' ?? \? may'. 0 {
? r
- r - x
CAW
?'I /4L L f4ND FARlw ! J1/. G EXTc l?r`.` .ON 5_-
CQ&,/VTl
ter.: . ?, - f - _. _ _ ? - - • ?- -?- - . .. .. _..
., 1
a ,
I +
y
:f: Zion
II I I" IIooI,r \1?ohII,I ontI :iIIcorl Itc.lcvatinn • I!,`;{_6:; IIUC 03020I0S
Fartni S(.ravmicv&% Pril.-)r Converted tLiAlld
AlOh
I

L
C

i
C.
L
u

Appendix 13.0
€ NATURAL *;Y TEP•r1`=.i
?H L i-k .? 1 it L
??

Office Use Only: ?/Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. O ? - 1 0
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 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 Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosvstem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Telephone Number: 919-715-7571 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: Iin.xunncmail. net
2. Agent 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: N/A
Company Affiliation: N/A
Mailing Address: N/A
Telephone Number: N/A Fax Number: N/A
E-mail Address: N/A
Page 5 of 13
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 I 1 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.
Name of project: Unnamed Tributary to Pembroke Creek iVetland and Stream Restoration
Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Chowan County Nearest Town: Edenton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The project site is approximately
3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton in Chowan County, North Carolina. The site is
specifically located approximately 3 miles west-northwest of the Route 17 Bypass and
Route 32 Interchange.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):North ing 36.0899789, Westin
76.6680876
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Forest and row crop
7. Property size (acres): 59.4 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Pembroke Creek
9. River Basin: Pasquotank
(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/.)
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Coastal headtivater restoration, wetland
restoration and enhancement
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track floes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Forest and roiv crop
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,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
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:
N/A
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. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must 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.
Page 7 of 13
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
Temporary
impact, filling
3017 ditches to restore 0.86 No 2051 Ditches
coastal
headwater
wetland system

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. 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.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://xvww.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.86 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.86 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (No Impact)
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditch ing/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.maPguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 8of13
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. (No Impact)
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. 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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N//A Expected pond surface area: N/A
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 tnay 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.
The nroiect is involved with enhancing and restoring streams for Ut to Pembroke site in
Chowan County to serve ESP's program objective and mitigation needs. The project is a
mitigation effort and does not impact adjacent streams and wetlands. See Ut to Pembroke
restoration plan for specific information regarding the restoration design.
Page 9 of 13
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 March 9, 2000, 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,
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 NCWRP 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.
1. 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.
The restoration plan is attached. The plan indicates the conservation easement
acquired by the state, plan views, cross section view and proposed method of
enhancement and restoration.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Page 10 of 13
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
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
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 (DWQ Only)
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.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify Catawba Buffer Requirement )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
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.
Page I I of 13
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3
2 0 1.5
Total 0
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0260.
Stream restoration is an exempt activity under the Tar-Pamlico Buffer rule (15A NCAC 2B
.0259)
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both 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.
N/A
XI1. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
N/A
XII1. Violations (DWQ Only)
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. 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
Page 12 of 13

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).
N/A

'lf1-3/b?
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
Unnamed Tributary to Pembroke Creek
Wetland and Stream Restoration
Chowan County, North Carolina, Project #D06102S
Final - Restoration Plan

s
I,,?

IF,
J`j { ? ] - ? ??. t'3,--- ??5 ? ? v fir. ?? y. +11 ? ? ? ? .. gip,. "? .. ? ??h ? } Sf ? , f •1 j3 ?` , S2J J ? ? ! Y '?4. t4 ?1R ? •{Jr a?. ?y ?L ? j..
', ? - ?r 'Y' rt ? `. ;erg,; ( ?,yq?y'? I ) _ t• L ,7{-i.4 f. ?. ,?- `a .. '>
k
T .z
It-
>z

"LCos Stelll
g'il't 'IU
f'V. i)I.V AM
SEP 16 2006
-ft
Prepared for:`
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR-EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Submitted September 8, 2006

Prepared by:
MU NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Natural Systems Engineering
3719 Benson Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
Project Manger: James M. Halley, P.E.
[e-mail]
/V/1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Table of Contents
Executi ve Summary .............................................................................................................................. ..1
1.0 Pro ject Site Identification and Location ....................................................................................... ..2
1.1 Directions to Project Site ........................................................................................................ ..2
1 1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DWQ River Basin ..................................................... ..2
2.0 W atershed Characterization .......................................................................................................... ..3
2.1 Drainage Area ........................................................................................................................ ..3
2.2
2.3 Surface Water Classification ..................................................................................................
Physiography, Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... ..3
..3
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ...................................................................... ..5
t 2.5
2.6 Endangered / Threatened Species ...........................................................................................
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. ..6
..7
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................... ..7
2.6.2 Field Evaluation ............................................................................................................
2.6.2.1 Potential for Historic Architectural resources ..................................................... ..7
..7
2.6.2.2 Potential for Archaeological resources ................................................................ ..7

2.7 2.6.3 SHPO/THPO Concurrence ...........................................................................................
Potential Constraints .............................................................................................................. ..7
..8
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ............................................................................... ..8
2.7.2 Site Access .................................................................................................................... ..8
2.7.3 Utilities and Easement ..8
...................................................................................................
2.7.4 Hydrologic Trespass . ..9
3.0 Project Site Wetlands and Streams (existing conditions) ............................................................. ..9
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................................................................................................... ..9
3.2 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Preliminary Groundwater Characterization .................................................................. 10
3.2.2 Surface Water Investigation ..........................................................................................
3.2.3 Water Budget for Restoration Site ................................................................................ 10
11
3.3 Soil Characterization .............................................................................................................. 11
3.3.1 Taxonomic Classification (including series) ................................................................
3.3.2 Profile Description ........................................................................................................ 11
11
3.4 Plant Community Characterization ........................................................................................ 13
4.0 Re
4.1 ference Wetlands ......................................................................................................................
Target Reference Conditions .................................................................................................. 15
15
4.2 Reference Site Search Methodology ...................................................................................... 15
4.3 Reference Site Parameters ...................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Reference 1 ................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 17
4.3.1.3 Hydrology and Topography .................................................................................
4.3.2 Reference 2 ................................................................................................................... 18
18
4.3.2.1 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.3.2.2 Vegetation .............................
... .... ........ . .
4.3.2.3 Hydrology and Topography ............................................... ........................ 19

19
4.3.3 Reference 3 ................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.3.1 Soils .....................................................................................................................
4.3.3.2 Vegetation ......................................................... ............
...................................... 20
20
4.3.3.3 Hydrology and Topography ................................................................................ 21
NATURAL SYSTEMS
® E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS 1IUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ........................................................................................................ 21
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................................. 21
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification (narrative) and/or Wetland Type ........................... 22
5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities / Buffer Communities ................................................... 22
5.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis ....................................................................................... 22
5.3 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................... 23
5.4 Hydrologic Modifications (for wetland restoration or enhancement) .................................... 23
5.4.1 Narrative of Modifications ............................................................................................ 23
5.5 Soil Restoration ...................................................................................................................... 24
5.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment ............................................................ 24
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................... 25
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration ................................................................... 25
5.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ......................................................................... 26
6.0 Pe rformance Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 26
6.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 26
6.3 Flow Features ......................................................................................................................... 26
6.4 Schedule / Reporting .............................................................................................................. 27
7.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Tables (within text of document)
Table 1. Historical Land Use and Development Trends .........................................................................5
Table 2. Cape Fear Soil Series .............................................................................................................. 12
Table 3. Dragston Soil Series ............................................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Portsmouth Soil Series ............................................................................................................ 12
Table 5. Roanoke Soil Series ................................................................................................................ 13
Table 6. Tomotley Soil Series ............................................................................................................... 13
Table 7. Eastern Drainage Area north end of Project Area .................................................................. 14
Table 8. Eastern Drainage Area south end of Project Area .................................................................. 14
Table 9. Western Drainage Area ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 10. Small Pond ............................................................................................................................ 14
Table 11. Reference Wetland Compatibility Codes ............................................................................. 16
Table 12. Reference Wetland 1 Soil Description .................................................................................. 16
Table 13. Transect 1 - Wetland ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 14. Transect 1 - Wetland Edge ................................................................................................... 17
Table 15. Transect 2 - Wetland Area .................................................................................................... 17
Table 16. Transect 2 - Wetland Edge ................................................................................................... 17
Table 17. Chowan Soil Series ............................................................................................................... 18
Table 18. Wetland Area ........................................................................................................................ 19
Table 19. Wetland Buffer Area ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 20. Roanoke Series Soil .............................................................................................................. 20
Table 21. Wetland Area ........................................................................................................................ 20
Table 22. Wetland Buffer Area ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 23. Acreage for Vegetative Communities ................................................................................... 25
u
C
fl
0
fl`?

u
N
CI
N
P,
U
r
0
fl
fl??
!?l
® NATURAL SYSTEMS ii
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
8.0 Exhibit Tables
Exhibit Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Exhibit Table 2. Drainage Areas
Exhibit Table 3. Land Use of Watershed
Exhibit Table 4. Groundwater Monitoring Summary
Exhibit Table 5. Crest Gauge and Rainfall Summary
Exhibit Table 6. Reference Sites Data Summary
Exhibit Table 7. Designed Vegetative Communities (by zone)
Exhibit Table 8. Restoration Summary
r
C
L!
r

,I

u
L I

9.0 Figures
Figure 1. Project Site & Reference Site 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site & Reference Site 1 Watershed Map, Hydrologic Features, & Gauge
Locations
Figure 3. Project Site & Reference 1 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Reference Site 1 Wetland Determination Sample Locations and Communities Map
Figure 5. Reference Site 1 Cross Sectional Data
Figure 6. Project Site Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 7. Restoration Summary
Figure 8. Historical Aerial Photographs
Figure 9. Reference Sites 2 & 3 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 10. Reference Sites 2 & 3 Watershed Map, Hydrologic Features, and Gauge Locations
Figure 11. Reference Sites 2 & 3 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 12. Reference Site 2 Wetland Detennination Sample Locations and Communities Map
Figure 13. Reference Site 3 Wetland Determination Sample Locations and Communities Map
Figure 14. Reference Site 2 & 3 Cross Sectional Data
Figure 15. Restoration Site Flood Event Map
10.0 Design Sheets
Sheet 1. Existing Site Conditions
Sheet 2. Designed Channel Alignment and / or Site Conditions
Sheet 3. Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 4. Designed Vegetative Communities Map (by zone)
Sheet 5. Designed Vegetative Communities Map (by zone)
11.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. Reference Site 1 - Photographs
Appendix 5. Reference Site 1 - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 6. Reference Site 2 - Photographs
Appendix 7. Reference Site 2 - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 8. Reference Site 3 - Photographs
Appendix 9. Reference Site 3 - USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 10. Preliminary Gauge Data Summary Groundwater and Rainfall Charts and Data
Appendix 11. UT to Pembroke Creek Wetland Water Budget
Appendix 12. 1927 Tile Drain Map
Appendix 13. Farm Service Prior Converted Land Site Map
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Executive Summary
This restoration site contains an unnamed tributary to Pembroke Creek (UT Pembroke Creek) and has
been selected for wetland and stream restoration by the North Carolina Department of the
Environmental and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR-EEP). The
purpose of this restoration project is to restore and enhance the headwater wetland/stream complex
located hydrologically within the Pasquotank River Basin.
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton, in Chowan County, North
Carolina as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The project lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
03010205 120010 (USGS, 1974) and within NC DWQ Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04 (NCDENR,
2002). For discussion and planning purposes the site has been divided in to three areas. The first
area, referred to as Area 1, is located north of the access road that bisects the site. Area 2 begins at
the access road and follows the valley south until a point approximately 1,000-feet below the road.
Area three begins where Area 2 ends and continues to the end of the project site (Sheet 2).
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on
reference conditions, with the intent to restore its wetland functions to that of pre-disturbance
conditions. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005;
USACE, 1987) and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success.
The primary project objective is to design a waterway through the wetland complex with the
appropriate cross-section and slope as to provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria
for the wetland. Additional project objectives, such as ensuring hydraulic stability and establishing a
native wetland plant community, are listed in Section 5.1 along with several other project objectives.
Currently the site consists of farmland and wooded areas. The total easement area for this project is
59.4 acres of which 26.7 acres is wooded and will be designated for preservation with the remaining
32.8 acres being used for agriculture. Two channelized features exist on the site. One drainage
feature is located along the eastern edge of the easement and another more prominent feature begins
at Wildcat Road in the north and continues southward to the end of the project area. The part of the
site north of the access road that bisects the site is extremely flat and reconnection of surface water to
existing land surface in that area will be limited.
The primary actions to restore the site will be reversal of drainage caused by the main ditch and the
re-establishment of native vegetation. Through these actions, approximately six (6) acres of wetland
enhancement and 17 acres of wetland restoration is expected. Approximately 4,488 feet of headwater
wetland corridor will also be restored.
In Area 1 the existing ditch will be filled and flow will be diverted to a natural valley on site. Minor
excavation will be necessary to divert water to the new location. The new wetland valley will allow
conveyance of runoff while providing a naturalized headwater wetland feature. The construction of
the valley feature will follow natural topographic relief. The earthwork necessary to construct the
headwater wetland valley will begin at approximate station 1+00. At approximate station 11+00 it
will connect to an existing valley feature and from that point and downstream, the restored headwater
wetland valley will follow existing ground surface. The access road will be modified to
accommodate occasional flow over the road. The small tributary located along the western portion of
Area 1 will be slightly modified to promote sheet flow down the valley and across Area 1.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Area 2 will only need minor earthwork, pool/hummock creation, and conversion of the pond to a
more naturalized wetland feature. South of the access road, water table elevations are expected to be
near the ground surface for the remainder of the project. The creation of pool/hummock complexes
throughout the site will be part of the final design plans.
Area 3 is the location where the wetland valley feature must transition back to a drainage ditch. In
this area it is the goal to implement a naturalized transition over a distance of 50 to 100 feet. This
feature must be effective in making the elevation transition while also having a natural appearance
fitting for the Coastal Plain setting. A stabilized swale through the road will hydrologically connect
the reference wetland to the natural valley. This area will be designed to ensure that the existing
roadway is not adversely impacted during storm events.
Tables 1 through 20, within the text of this document, primarily apply to soils and vegetation and are
referred to as "Tables", while tables referenced in an attached appendix are referenced as "Exhibit
Tables". Exhibit Tables 1 through 8 present the project restoration structures and objectives, project
restoration structure and objectives, drainage areas, land use of watershed, groundwater monitoring
summary, crest gauge and rainfall summary, reference sites data summary, designed vegetative
communities (by zone), and a restoration summary. Figures 1 through 15 primarily depict site and
reference wetland conditions, and also contain information regarding historical aerial photographs,
and site specific flood maps. Sheets 1 through 5 illustrate existing conditions, proposed site
conditions, a longitudinal profile (cross-section view of the site), and designed vegetative
communities.
This report contains Appendices 1 through 13 which contain a multitude of information varying
subjects. Appendices 1 through 9 contain photographs and data forms for the site and the reference
sites. Appendices 10 through 13 contain gauge data and charts, the water budget for the site, a tile
drain map of the. site dated 1927, and a map showing former "prior converted" areas of the site.
1.0 _Project Site Identification and Location
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton in Chowan County, North
Carolina as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The site is specifically located approximately 3
miles west-northwest of the Route 17 Bypass and Route 32 Interchange (exit 227). To reach the site
from the Route 17 Bypass, take Route 32 north approximately 1.2 miles then turn left onto Wildcat
Road. Continue north on Wildcat Road for 1.8 miles. Approximately 1,000 feet before reaching the
end of Wildcat Road where in intersects Macedonia Road, UT Pembroke Creek and the site will be
on the left (south) (Figure 2).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC D iVQ River Basin
The site lies within the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03010205 120010 (USGS, 1974), which falls
1 hydrologically within the Pasquotank River Basin. The NC DWQ River Subbasin for the project area
is listed as the Chowan 03-01-04 (NCDENR, 2002).
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 2
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area for this project, measured at the downstream end where the cell tower access road
crosses UT Pembroke Creek, is 0.4 square miles (265 acres). The drainage area at the beginning of
the project is 0.08 square miles (50 acres).
The easement totals 59.42 acres and is broken into three easement areas. Easement area 1
encompasses 22.51 acres, beginning from the start of the restoration project extending south and west
to the gravel access road. Easement area 2 has 9.36 acres and extends from the gravel access road
south and west into the field to project end. Easement area 3 covers 27.55 acres, extending from the
gravel access road south and east of the restoration site to project end, creating the largest easement
area to ensure a buffer zone around restoration project. The land use in the watershed of the project
area is approximately 15% farmstead, 41% rowcrop, 1% surface water and 43% woods.
2.2 Surface Water Classificatioiz
The current State classification for Pembroke Creek (Stream Index # 26-1-1) from its source to
Edenton Bay, is Class B and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) waters (NCDENR, 2005). Class B
waters are used primarily for recreation and have no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges. The NSW waters classification is intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
(NCDENR, 2006).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The site is located on the Edenton 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map. No blue line
streams are shown on the site; however, an incomplete oval of a Carolina Bay is depicted near the
southern end of the site and to the east of the planned project limits. A small pond is depicted within
the project limits. The site is located very near to the western boundary of the outer coastal plain of
North Carolina. The site is underlain by Castle Hayne Limestone composed of middle Eocene
sediments known as the Albemarle Embayment.
The site has five primary soil mapping units. These units are the Cape Fear, Conetoe, Dragston,
Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley. The Cape Fear, Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley are listed
as hydric by the NRCS. The following are brief descriptions of all of the on-site soil mapping units
(NRCS, 1986).
Cape Fear (Cf)
Nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in slight depressions on
marine and stream terraces. They formed in clayey marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy
surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is moderate.
Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1-foot. These soils are subject to rare flooding.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 3
E N O 1 N E E R I N O
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
v
n
0
u
0
n
n
n
v
u
n

Conetoe (CtB)
These nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well drained soils are on uplands and stream terraces.
They formed in loamy and sandy marine and fluvial deposits. The surface and subsurface layers are
sandy and range from 20 to 40 inches thick. The subsoil is loamy. Permeability is moderately rapid
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.
Dra sg ton (Ds)
These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils are on stream terraces and uplands.
They formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediments. They have a sandy surface layer and a loamy
subsoil. Permeability is moderately rapid and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table
is within a depth of 1 to 2.5 feet.
Portsmouth (Pt)
These nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in slight depressions.
They formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil.
These soils are underlain by sandy deposits at a depth of 40 inches or less. Penneability is moderate
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1-foot.
Roanoke (Ro)
These nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in depressions on marine
and stream terraces. They formed in clayey marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface
layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is moderate. Seasonal high
water table is within a depth of 1-foot.
Tomotle (To)
These nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils are on flats and in depressions on stream and
marine terraces. They formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface
layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is within a depth of 1 foot.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N ? 1 N E E R I N 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Table 1. Historical Land Use and Development Trends
(Observations based on aerial imagery)
Date Land Use and Development Observations
1927 Extensive tile drain system installed on central portion of property
1948 Agricultural production established and small complex of buildings on west border of property.
1955 Land disturbance observed in sandpit area; new field on southern portion of site is established
and contains residence and a road within the northern portion of site
1969 Observed sandpit area appears to be grown over, disturbance extending west; newly cleared
area on north edge of site
1979 Ditch features clearly depicted on site; road network through site is evident
1979-1988 Clearing of wooded lot below the southern portion of site; new direction in which the north to
south ditch is depicted
1998 Depicts site as current conditions
2006 Verification of current site conditions
Aerial imagery, documentation provided by the local Farm Service Agency (FSA), along with
information provided by the property owner indicate that the subject site has been used extensively
for agricultural purposes and also for sand mining. A 1927 tile drain schematic (Appendix 12)
provided by the property owner depicts an extensive tile drain system that was planned and installed
within the central portion of the property. The historical aerial photograph from 1948 (Figure 8)
depicts the subject parcel in agricultural production. In 1948 a small complex of buildings occupying
an area approximately 200 feet by 300 feet wide is evident along the west border of the property
where Chambers Ferry Road forks to the west from Macedonia Road. A dark area in the current
"pond" location on site is evident and extends from the cleared portion of the property into the
wooded area, potentially indicating a "wet" or surface flow area.
Between 1955 and 1979 minor conversion to agricultural use is evident along with substantial land
disturbance in the area of the former sand pit, due east of the subject parcel. By 1955 significant land
disturbance can be observed in the area currently noted as sandpit area on the USGS map depicted on
Figure 1. The 1955 image also indicates a new field area on the southern portion of the site
containing a new residence and road within the northern portion of the site. By 1969, the sandpit area
appears to be grown over, although the disturbance extends to the west, almost reaching the area that
currently demarcates the edge of the hog lagoon. The 1969 photo also shows a newly cleared area on
the north edge of the site. The 1979 image clearly depicts the ditched feature that begins at the current
project start location and continues south until it reaches the end of the project boundary. This ditch
feature is currently evident on site although it terminates near the buildings in the lagoon area. A road
network is also evident the 1979 photo. The main differences between the 1979 photograph and the
1998 photograph are the clearing of the wooded area below the southern part of the site and the new
direction in which the north-to-south ditch is depicted. The 1998 photo generally depicts the site in
the same condition as it is today, which can be verified by the March 24, 2006 aerial photograph.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Several distinct conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the photographs and the information
regarding historic land use. The 1927 tile drain schematic provided by the property owner and
developed by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service indicates that circa 1927 the land
was drained for the purposes of agriculture. The FSA information reviewed by NSE indicated that
the majority of the site was designated as prior converted (PC) cropland. According to FSA records
the PC call was made on June 12, 1990 (Form SCS CPA 026) farm serial number 1299 tract 204.
The PC map is presented in Appendix 13. Aerial photographs dating from 1948 until today indicate
that the site has been used for agricultural purposes for at least the past 59 years, although it has likely
been closer to 80 years. Two variations of a linear north-to-south ditch feature have been
implemented at the site. All of the facts presented in Section 2.4 support the notion that the
groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil
structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive agricultural operations. Although most
on-site soil series are classified as poorly drained, the ditching and lowering if the groundwater table
on-site has caused these soils to be effectively drained.
Z5 Endangered l Threatened Species
A search was conducted on March 30, 2006 of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data for
Chowan County, NC. This search produced a list of plant and animal species with various federal and
state statuses. Upon further review, it was determined that only one of the species listed for Chowan
County was listed as either federally endangered or threatened. That species is Haliaeetzrs
leucocephalus or commonly known as the bald eagle (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006).
A description of the bald eagle and its habitat provides background information that aids in the
understanding of the review process that was conducted. The bald eagle is a sea or fish eagle that has
re-established breeding territories in each of the lower 48 states except Vermont. The bald eagle
breeds in forested areas near large bodies of water and it winters in coastal areas, along large rivers
and large unfrozen lakes. The bald eagle is an opportunistic feeder that will feed upon large birds,
mammals, carrion, and fish. Adults weigh 8 to 14 pounds and have wingspans of 5'/z to 8 feet with the
female being larger than the males. Bald eagles typically build large nests in mature, old-growth trees
or snags. There has been noted increases in the use of power poles and communication towers to
build nests. The trees selected for nesting are usually very tall and strong as the nests can weigh more
than 1,000 pounds. The nests usually include a perch with a clear view of the water.
The project site was reviewed using GIS data and field observations to determine the presence or
likely presence of the bald eagle on or near to the site. This review was conducted to determine if
project activities might significantly disturb the bald eagle. GIS data was reviewed and it was
determined that the site is more than one mile away from the nearest large body of water. Some ponds
are closer to the site, but they are all less than 30 acres in size. The most recent North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program's Natural Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO), updated March 2006,
dataset was also reviewed within the GIS. That data shows no element occurrences on or near to the
site.
Although large water bodies are far from the site, a site reconnaissance was conducted to determine if
other aspects of likely habitat exist. The site is mostly open farm fields that are actively farmed. The
ditch network has relatively young trees growing along them. A cellular telephone tower exists near
the site. A visual observation was made of the surrounding trees and communications towers and no
obvious nests of raptor size were observed. The landowner stated that some older trees had been on
the site, but they were destroyed in a hurricane a few years ago.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 6
E N 0 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Therefore, it is concluded that no major elements for bald eagle habitat exist on the site and no
evidence of bald eagles has been found. It is the professional opinion that this project will have no
effect on Haliaeetus leucocephalus, bald eagle.
2.6 Cultural Resources
2.6.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The categorical exclusion document was followed in order to address any cultural resource issues.
The site is not located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
The site is not federal or Indian lands and thus compliance is reached for the Antiquities Act,
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Indian Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007. The
National Register of Historic Places was searched and no sites were identified near the site.
2.6.2 Field Evaluation
The project site is primarily made up of actively farmed agricultural fields. The project area was
plowed approximately one week before a site visit. The project site was reviewed in five transects.
Three soil borings were conducted along each transect to a depth of one (1) meter. The upper 12
inches of soil indicated typical alterations due to plowing and farming activities. No other indications
of disturbance were noted.
2.6.2.1 Potential for Historic Architectural resources
The site has no buildings within the proposed easement and project area. Additionally, the project site
does not contain any known historic trails. Based on the information collected to date, the likelihood
of historic architectural resources within the project area is low.
2.62.2 Potential for Archaeological resources
The project site is almost entirely made up of an active farm field. The field was plowed one week
before a site visit. No evidence of archaeological artifacts was observed. Additionally, the site is
located more than one (1) mile from the Chowan River and is composed of relic hydric soils. These
soils were drained in the early 1900's for agricultural purposes. There is no locally high spot that
would have provided dry land for use in the past. It is unlikely that the project site would have been
suitable for inhabitation prior to being drained for agricultural purposes. There is a small Carolina
Bay shown on the USGS topographic map (Figure 1) that is almost entirely off of the project site.
This Carolina Bay is very small and would probably not have offered enough resources for habitation.
2.6.3 SHPO/THPO Concurrence
A letter and maps of the project were submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for
review and comment on March 21, 2006. A SHPO response letter was received on April 21, 2006
stating that no registered historic properties were within the project area. SHPO, however, also
requested additional investigation in the southern area of the project that lies at the edge of a former
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 7
E N ? I N E E R 1 N ? 1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Carolina Bay, which is depicted on Figure 1. A follow-up meeting with the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) Chowan County representative on May 3, 2006 produced a resolution for the
concerns expressed by SHPO. During this meeting NSE, presented additional detailed project
information that allowed OSA to rescind the comments regarding the need for additional
investigation. NSE sent a letter to SHPO on May 9, 2006 documenting the results of the meeting. On
May 26, 2006 NSE received a letter from SHPO that recommended clearance for this project in terms
of cultural resources.
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property _Ownership and Boundary
This project will affect the following parcels. The main project parcel is the Carlton Perry property
owned solely by Carlton N. Perry and wife, Alice W. Perry. A 30 foot access easement is held by
t United States Cellular Corp. for the purpose of access to a cellular communications tower located on
the adjacent parcel to the south, also owned by Carlton N. Perry and wife, Alice W. Perry.
2.7.2 Site Access
The access easement follows the existing entry road from NCSR 1200 Macedonia Road. There is
adequate primary access to the site via a 20 foot wide gravel entry road from Macedonia Road. A
low grade access exists via a turnout on to NCSR 1208 Wildcat Road from a field on the northern
boundary of the property. A secondary gated access road also exists along Wildcat Road. This road
allows access to the eastern boundary of the main project parcel; however, this road crosses over an
adjacent parcel owned by Mr. Carlton Perry.
2.7.3 Utilities and Easement
The following utilities were found to exist on or near the Carlton Perry parcel located in the vicinity
of the intersection of NCSR 1208 Wildcat Road and NCSR 1200 Macedonia Road. The utilities were
identified by surface observation, local research, and contact with the current property owner. Local
power exists on the property via overhead service lines. These service lines follow the northern and
western boundary of the parcel and enter the property along the northern side of an existing gravel
access road from Macedonia Road. Water exists on the property via a two (2) inch service line that
extends from the main distribution line along Macedonia Road. This service line enters the property
coincident with the centerline of the existing gravel entry road and terminates at the existing farm
structures. No sewer lines are in existence. Underground telephone cable extends from Macedonia
Road along the gravel entry road's southern side and then follows an existing 30 foot access easement
south to a cell tower easement on the adjacent parcel. The telephone cable is located within the
access easement, under the access road. Electricity for the cell tower enters the property via an
underground cable along an existing ditch that extends from Macedonia Road to the project terminus.
This cable lies outside the proposed easement area although it parallels the southernmost end of the
easement boundary for approximately 300 feet.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 8
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.7.4 Hydrologic Trespass
Hydrologic trespass is one of the most significant design constraints for this site. The area where
hydrologic trespass is of greatest concern is the beginning of the project area where a 24-inch
reinforced concrete pipe culvert conveys the project stream under Wildcat Road. There are two
concerns at this location. The first concern is increasing the water elevations at the upstream
property. The second concern is increasing the water elevations at the road, which could cause the
roadway to flood on a more frequent basis. There are home sites adjacent to the project area,
although flooding is not expected to be an issue even though the water table may be raised slightly as
part of this project. Hydrologic trespass concerns after the beginning of the project site are minor and
are not expected to adversely affect the restoration design.
The part of the site north of the former hog lagoon access road is extremely flat and reconnection of
surface water to existing land surface will be limited. The invert of the pipe carrying the unnamed
tributary to Pembroke Creek has an elevation of 17.1 feet and the water surface elevation measured at
the culvert was 18.0 feet. All elevation references are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83)
using GRS 80 ellipsoid. The edge of pavement in the location of the culvert has an elevation of 21.2
feet. Following the natural valley of the site from the beginning of the project and continuing
southwest for approximately 600 feet, ground surface elevation is typically 20 feet f 1 foot. The
remaining 200 before the access road has an elevation of that ranges between 18 to 17 feet. To avoid
permanent hydrologic trespass upstream of the project and across Wildcat Road (SR 1208), the design
invert elevation for any headwater wetland Swale feature must be set at an elevation no higher than
18.0 feet. This will re-establish the connection between groundwater and surface water flow while
not increasing base water surface elevation upstream of Wildcat Road. See Section 5.3 for more
information regarding the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
3.0 Proiect Site Wetlands and Streams (existing conditions)
The restoration site is located within an active farm operation. The farm is currently planted with
soybeans. Two drainage ditches exist within the project area one running along the west edge of the
restoration site and the other running near to the middle and eastern edge of the restoration area. The
western ditch flows into the eastern ditch toward the lower third of the project area. Before flowing
into the eastern ditch, the western ditch flows into and out of a small, minimally wooded pond. The
flow path of both ditches is generally in a north to south direction. A one lane dirt access road enters
the project area from the west and approximately bisects the project area in half. The access road then
splits with one fork exiting the project area to the east and the other forking to the south and
paralleling the eastern ditch all the way to the southern terminus of the project area. The southern
access road eventually leads to an active cell tower that is on the same farm, but outside of the project
limits. During site visits, ongoing farm activities were observed and they included plowing, planting,
spraying herbicide and some ditch maintenance.
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The restoration site was evaluated for jurisdictional wetlands. This evaluation was conducted based
on the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual 1987. In general, the
investigator assessed the restoration site to determine those areas which currently met the three
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 9
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
criteria listed in the delineation manual for wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic
vegetation (USACE 1987).
The wetlands within the restoration area are isolated onto two drainages on the site which primarily
exist along the western and eastern boundaries of the site and drain from north to south. The western
drain flows through a small pond near the middle of the site before entering the eastern drainage.
Excluding the small pond, the jurisdictional wetlands within the restoration and enhancement areas
are isolated to linear ditch features. See Figure 6 for a map of the jurisdictional wetlands.
3.2 Hydrological Characterization
3.2.1 Preliminary Groundwater Characterization
Collection of groundwater elevation data at the site began in April of 2006 to enable the evaluation of
pre- and post-project site conditions. The data collected during this initial period represents site
conditions from April 13, 2006 to June 20, 2006. Recorded precipitation amounts during the initial
monitoring period were 3.24 inches and 9.51 inches for May and June, respectively. The typical
average rainfall for in Edenton is 4.22 inches for May and 4.48 inches for June. Therefore, 2006 May
rainfall was below average while 2006 June rainfall was well above average.
The preliminary groundwater well results located in Exhibit Table 4 and Appendix 10 illustrate the
affect of the precipitation that occurred during May and June 2006. Long term data collection of pre-
and post-project site conditions will assist in evaluating the groundwater at the site.
3.2.2 Surface Water Investigation
The wetland restoration site is separated into western and eastern drains which join together as
discussed above in the Jurisdictional Wetland section. The eastern drain enters through a culvert
under Wildcat Road and flow is contained in a man-made ditch throughout the entire restoration site.
The eastern drain flows through two other culverts where an on-site access road crosses the ditch.
One culvert is located near the middle of the project area and the other crossing is located at the very
end of the project area. The western drainage begins as overland flow within the project area and
gradually grades into a man-made ditch. This ditch then flows through a culvert under the access road
which crosses through the middle of the site. The western ditch then flows into a small pond. The
ditch exits the pond and then flows through a culvert and enters into the eastern drainage ditch.
Additionally, a wetland area exists to the east of the site and contains the project's Reference Wetland
1. This wetland area is depicted as a Carolina Bay on the USGS map with an open end to the west.
This opening to the west, located approximately 300 feet before the end of the project area, provides
surface flow into the main channel within the project area. The observed surface water slowly
migrates toward the main channel through a series of -Tallow depressions. Since this area has not
been ditched, it flows at much higher levels. It empties into the sites eastern drainage ditch by
concentrating flow over a very short distance and spills down to the level of the drainage ditch. The
restoration project will seek to keep this existing flow at its current elevations and bring the rest of
this lower portion of the site to similar levels. Two flood events were recorded at the site and are
depicted in Figure 15.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 10
E N G 6 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
3.2.3 Water Budget for Restoration Site
A water budget was developed for the project to assess the viability of establishing wetland hydrology
in the site area. The water budget was based upon methods given in Planning Hydrology for
Constructed Wetlands (Pierce, 1993) and the Engineering Field Handbook (USDA, 1997).
Calculation of the water budget requires knowledge of hydrologic inputs and outputs as well as
approximate site dimensions and characteristics of the soils present. The water budget results verify
that there is an ample amount of water to meet proposed wetland hydrology criteria for the majority
of the site. Calculations indicate excess water when inputs were compared to outputs (OS/At =
1,791,046 ft3). It was assumed that stormwater inflow/runoff was zero and that channel base flow in
and out of the site was zero. Even with these extremely conservative assumptions, calculations
indicated excess water at the site. The water budget is located in Appendix 11.
South of the access road, wetland hydrology can be easily achieved based on site observations. North
of the access road the sight is constrained by NCSR 1208, Wildcat road. NCSR 1208 at that location
has an elevation of 21.2 feet. This constraint limits how high the water table can be raised because of
the possibility of flooding the road during a high water event. Additional analysis of the site
monitoring data, incoming water flow, stormwater runoff, surface flow, and rainfall data is necessary
to determine whether or not this section of land will have a water table close enough to the surface to
support a wetland.
3.3 Soil Characterization
3.3.1 Taxonomic Classification (including series) eries)
The restoration site was investigated to determine the soil types on the site as well as the hydric
nature of those soils. More than 40 soil borings were conducted during the soil mapping process
(NRCS, 1986). Five (5) soil series were found to exist within the restoration area. These soils are as
follows:
Cape Fear fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Dragston coarse, loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aerie Endoaquults
Portsmouth fine-loamy over sandy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Roanoke fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
Tomotley fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
3.3.2 Profile Description
Based on the numerous soil borings completed throughout the site, the following profile descriptions
are provided that typify the five (5) soil series found within the restoration area. Dragston is the only
soil that is not a hydric soil. The soil survey shows a large portion of the restoration site to be
Dragston, but the on-site soil investigation found that Dragston only makes up very small areas of the
site and the rest of the site's soils are hydric.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 11
E N D 1 N E E R 1 N O
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

Table 2. Cape Fear Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
l OYR 3/1 sandy loam, medium granular structure, friable, common roots, common clean sand
Ap 0-5 inches
grains, common medium faint 2.5 YR 3/6 soft iron masses.
I OYR 511 sandy clay loam, weak subangular blocky structure, firm , slightly sticky, slightly
Btgl 5-17
inches plastic, common fine roots, many medium prominent 2.5YR 3/6
soft iron masses.
17-36 10YR 511 clay, medium subangular blocky structure, very firm, moderately sticky, moderately
Btg2 inches plastic, may prominent 10 YR 5/8 and 2.5YR 3/6 soft iron masses.
3646 1 OYR 511 clay, medium angular blocky structure, very firm, moderately sticky, moderately
Btg3 inches plastic, many prominent 10 YR 518 and 2.5YR 3/6 soft iron masses.
BCg 46-53 10YR 5/2 sandy clay loam, weak medium subangluar blocky structure, friable, slightly sticky,
inches slightly plastic, common prominent 10 YR 5/8 soft iron masses.
Cg 53-57 10YR 6/2 sand, single grained, loose.
inches

Table 3. Dragston Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
0-6 Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, few fine
A
p inches roots, common fine pores.
6-12 Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
Btl inches sticky, common fine pores.
Bt2 12-20 Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) sandy clay loam, weak subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
inches sticky, common medium distinct brownish yellow (1 OYR 6/8) soft iron masses.
BO 20-26 Light yellowish brown (2.5 YR 6/3) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure,
inches friable, slightly sticky, many coarse prominent yellowish brown (I OYR 5/8) soft iron masses.
BCg 26-32 Grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, nonstick,
inches nonplastic, many coarse distinct yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
C 3242+
inches Light yellowish brown (2.5YR 6/4) sand, single grain, common subround quartz gravel.

Table 4. Portsmouth Soil Series
Soil
Depth Description
Horizon
A
p 0 to 9 Dark gray (IOYR 3/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium
inches roots.
A 9 to 30
inche- Black (IOYR 2/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium roots.
E
g 30 to 38 Very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few
inches medium faint dark reddish brown (2.5YR 2.5/4) soft iron masses.
38 to 46 Gray (1 OYR 511) sandy cay loam with pockets of sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky
Btg inches structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, few medium faint
yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
BCg 46 to 50 Brown (IOYR 5/2) loamy sand, weak medium subangular blocky structure, very friable,
inches nonsticky, nonplastic, many medium prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) soft iron masses
Cg 50 to 56+ Gray (IOYR 6/1) sand, single grained, loose.
inches

NATURAL SYSTEMS 12
®
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

Table 5. Roanoke Soil Series
Soil
Depth
Horizon Description
A 0 to 7
p Dark gray (IOYR 3/1) sandy loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly
inches plastic, common fine roots, few fine distinct red (2.5YR 4/6) soft iron masses.
7 to 10 Dark gray (IOYR 4/1) sandy clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
Btgl inches slightly sticky, slightly plastic, few fine roots, common medium prominent yellowish brown
(IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
10 to 17 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay, moderate medium angular blocky structure, firm, moderately
Btg2 inches sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots, common coarse distinct yellowish brown (10YR
5/6) soft iron masses.
17 to 47 Gray (10YR 511) clay, weak medium subangular blocky structure, firm, moderately sticky,
Btg3 inches moderately plastic, few medium roots, common medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR
6/6) soft iron masses.
47 to 58+ Light gray (10YR 7/1) sandy clay, massive, common coarse distinct light greenish gray (10Y
Cg inches 7/1) soft iron depletions, common medium prominent brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) soft iron
masses.
Table 6. Tomotley Soil Series
Soil

Horizon Depth Description
A
p 0 to 6 Grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, few
inches fine roots, common fine pores.
Btgl 6 to 12 Gray (10YR 511) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly sticky,
inches common fine pores, few medium distinct yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
12 to 26 Dark gray (10YR 4/1) sandy clay loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
Btg2 inches slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common medium distinct brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) soft
iron masses.
BCg 26 to 32 Gray (10YR 6/1) sandy loam, weak fine subangular blocky structure, friable, nonsticky,
inches nonplastic, many coarse distinct yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
C
Cg 32 to 42 + Gray (10YR 6/1) sand, single grain, commn medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6)
inches soft iron masses.
3.4 Plant Community Characterization
The restoration site primarily consists as an active farm field. It is currently being grown in soybeans.
Some trees do exist along the eastern drainage ditch. There is also an area along the eastern drainage
area near the northern most extents of the project that was clearcut after Hurricane Isabelle (2003).
This area is a very thick early successional shrub area. Some small trees also exist around the small
on-site pond. The plant lists below indicate the plants found in these areas. Even though no woody
material is growing along the western drainage area, a plant list was developed for general interest
purposes as well as for invasive species issues.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 13
E N 0 1 N E E R I N 0
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Table 7. Eastern Drainage Area north
end of Project Area
Community Type - Disturbed
Woody
Acer rubrum frequent
Arundinaria gigantea frequent
Baccharis halimifolia occasional
Juncus spp. occasional
Liquidambar styTaciflua frequent
Lonicera japonica frequent
Nyssa biflora occasional
Pinus tacda dominant
Toxicodendronradicans occasional
Ligustrum sinense occasional
Quercus nigra
Quercus phellos occasional
frequent
Rhus copallina occasional
Rubus spp. occasional
Salix nigra frequent
Sambucus canadensis occasional

Table 9. Western Drainage Area
Community Type - Disturbed Herbaceous
Juncus spp. occasional
Myriophyllum aquaticum dominant
Typha latifolia frequent
Amaranth spp. frequent
Ranunculus spp. frequent
Table 8. Eastern Drainage Area
south end of Project Area
Community Type
Woody - Disturbed
Acer rubrum occasional
Alnus serrulata occasional
Lonicera japonica common
Rubus spp. occasional
Salix nigra common
Sambucus canadensis occasional
Saururus cemuss pools only
Solidago spp. common
Table 10. Small Pond
Community Type - Disturbed Mixed
Baccharis halimifolia occasional
Hydrocotyle spp. frequent
Juncus spp. frequent
Lonicerajaponica frequent
Microstegium vimineum present
Rubus spp. occasional
Saccharum giganteum frequent
Salix nigra frequent
Sambucus canadensis occasional
Solidago spp. frequent
Typha latifolia frequent
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 14
E N 0 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.0 Reference Wetlands
4.1 Target Reference Conditions
The site is currently under cultivation. There are drainage ditches and underdrains throughout the site.
There was little evidence of the historical wetlands that would have existed on the site. Therefore,
physical parameters of the site were used as well as other reference materials to ascertain the target
wetland types. In essence, an iterative process was used to develop the final information for the site
design.
To develop the target reference conditions, site physical parameters were reviewed. This included
inlet watershed size, outlet watershed size, soil mapping units from the Chowan/Perquimans Soil
Survey for the watershed and site, as well as general topography. The "Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential community types that would
have existed at the site(Schafale Weakley 2003).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
Located within the Physiographic Region - Outer Coastal Plain (OCP)
Minimal hydrologic alteration (H)
Jurisdictional Wetland Status (JD)
Watershed size between 30 and 300 acres (with the three sites spanning the range) (W)
Climax Community - Small Stream Swamp or Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (C)
Similar watershed soil types (WS)
Similar site soil types (SS)
Minimal impervious surfaces within watershed (I)
Similar topography (T)
Minimal presence of invasive species (Inv)
4.2 Reference Site Search Methodology
All of the parameters listed in Section 4.1 were used to find appropriate reference wetland sites.
Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in
locating suitable references sites for the project. For this project, a total of three (3) reference
wetlands were desired. At the outset of the project, the first reference wetland was already discovered
and approved through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program. This first reference wetland is located to
the east of the restoration area and on the same farm property. This site was partially used to aid in
establishing parameters for finding the other two (2) reference wetlands.
A GIS based search was initially conducted for the identification of reference wetland sites in the
outer coastal plain. The GIS process was first based on an automated procedure which included the
overlay of CAMA wetland data, Chowan Soil Data, NCGAP data, and public land. No eligible sites
were found on public land. After potential sites were identified, sites near the project area were
manually reviewed using other available GIS data such as aerial photography and topography. Once
sites were identified, some were visited that could be easily viewed from public roads. Neither
Chowan County nor Edenton have GIS based parcel data; therefore, candidate reference site
information was acquired at the Chowan County Tax office and Register of Deeds office.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 15
E N - 1 N E E R I N O 1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
In 2003, Hurricane Isabelle hit Chowan County and caused widespread damage. This storm knocked
down many trees. Even more trees were taken down as the landowners undertook clearcut operations
in an effort to clean up the downed trees. Several potential reference sites identified during the
reference site search suffered tree loss from Hurricane Isabelle and were subsequently clearcut.
Ultimately two (2) reference wetlands were identified in addition to the one reference wetland on-site.
The following table shows a general assessment of each reference wetland as they relate to the
parameters laid out above.
Table 11. Reference Wetland Compatibility Codes
Wetland OCP H JD W C WS SS I T Inv
Reference Wetland 1 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Mostly Some Some None Yes None
Reference Wetland 2 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Mostly All No Little Yes None
Reference Wetland 3 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Young All All Little Yes None
4.3 Reference Site Parameters
Wetland determination forms have been completed for each reference wetland and can be found in
the appendix. Each reference wetland has one form from within the wetland boundary and one
prepared from outside of the wetland in the transition zone.
4.3.1 Reference 1
4.3.1.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 1. The wetland soils were found to be:
Portsmouth - fine loamy over sandy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Reference Wetland 1 can be seen in Figure 4. The following is the typical soil description for
Reference Wetland 1.
Table 12. Reference Wetland 1 Soil Description
Soil

Horizon Depth Description
A 0 to 6
inches Black (1 OYR 2/1) loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, many fine medium roots.
Eg 6 to 15
inches Gray (IOYR 6/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium roots.
15 to 24 Light gray (IOYR 7/1) sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
Btg1 inches sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, few medium faint brownish yellow (IOYR 6/6) soft
iron masses, common medium prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) soft iron masses.
24 to 34 Light gray (IOYR 51I) sandy clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
Btg2 inches slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, many medium distinct brownish yellow
(I OYR 6/6) soft iron masses.
BCg 34 to 48 Grayish brown (I OYR 5/2) loamy sand, weak medium subangular blocky structure, very friable,
inches nonsticky, nonplastic, many medium prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) soft iron masses.
Cg 48 to 56+
inches Gray (IOYR 6/1) sand, single grained, loose

NATURAL
E N G I N SYSTEMS 16
E E R 1 N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.1.2 Vegetation
Reference Wetland 1 was in fairly good condition for vegetation analysis. However, many trees had
been knocked over from Hurricane Isabelle and the transition area had a fairly high number of pinus
taeda. The following table shows the community types and plant species list found at Reference
Wetland 1.
Table 13. Transect 1- Wetland
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype
Subcanopy Canopy ("/o)
Acer nibrum 5%
Liquidambarstyracii lua 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 5%
,'Magnolia virginiana occasional
Nyssa bii fora 50%
Pinus taeda 5%
Quercus laurifolia 25%
Quercus michauxii 5%
Ilex opaca occasional

Table 15. Transect 2 - Wetland Area
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype)

Subcanopy Canopy
("/o)
Acer rubrum 25%
Nyssa aquatica 20%
Nyssa biJlora 40%
Pinus taeda 5%
Quercus laurifolia 10%
Ilex opaca occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana occasional
Table 14. Transect 1- Wetland Edge
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed)
Subcanopy Canopy ("/o)
Acer rubrum 5%
Carya glabra 10%
CornusFlorida occasional
Liquidambarstyracii lua 10%
Liriodendron tulipifera 25%
Magnolia grandiflora occasional
Pinus taeda 40%
Quercus alba 10%
Quercus nigra occasional
Vaccinium atrococcum occasional
Prunus serotina occasional
flex opaca occasional

Table 16. Transect 2 - Wetland Edge
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed)
Subcanopy Canopy ("/o)
Acer rubrum 15%
Liriodendron tulipifera 15%
Magnolia virginiana occasional
Nyssa biJlora 10%
Pinus tacda 40%
Quercus michauxii 10%
Quercus nigra 5%
Quercus phellos 5%
Ilex opaca occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana occasional
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 17
E N G 1 N E E R I N G

UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS llUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.1.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference Wetland cross sections are shown in Figure 5 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 1 is 45 acres and significant ponded and flowing water was evident during the
survey. Average land slope down the wetland valley was 0.5% and water surface slope was 0.2%.
The flat portion of Cross Section 1 was 143 feet long and 58% of the distance was wet or had
standing water. The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 133 feet long and 76% of the distance was
wet or standing water. Reference Wetland 1 is located in a former Carolina Bay and a significant
portion of its upstream watershed was a former sandpit (Figure 1). Accordingly, a large portion of
the watershed has the soil designation Udorthents (Figure 3) (USDA, 1986) indicating an area where
natural soil has been altered.
4.3.2 Reference 2
Refer to Section 4.2 for information showing how Reference Wetland 2 compares to the restoration
site. Reference Wetland 2 is depicted on Figure 9.
4.3.2.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 2. The wetland soils were found to be:
Chowan fine-silty, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents
The following is the typical soil description for reference wetland 2.
Table 17. Chowan Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6 Dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) silt loam, weak granular structure, very friable, common
inches medium distinct yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Cgl 6 to 36 Gray (IOYR 511) silty clay, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common medium distinct
inches yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
20a 36 to 55+ Black (1 OYR 2/1) sapric material, massive, very friable.
inches
The site soil series for l.oference Wetland 2 is not one of the on-site soil series. NSE strived to
achieve a 100% match for each reference wetland. However, this was not possible due to budget
constraints, Hurricane Isabelle impacts, and landowner authorization problems. Even though the
Chowan soil series is not on the project restoration site, it is located on the restoration sites drainage
about 1,000 feet below the project limits. Therefore, the Chowan soil series is associated with the
projects soil types. Also, the Chowan soil series and the majority of the site soils have high clay
contents in the B horizons and thus should perch water in a very similar manner. Also, the soils
within the watershed of Reference Wetland 2 and the restoration site are very similar. This is even
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 18
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
more important as this controls how water moves toward the site (deep groundwater, perched water,
overland flow, surface flow). Reference Wetland 2 also has another very similar characteristic to the
site in that it has an approximately 280 acre watershed which basically matches the bottom end of the
project site. Reference Wetland 2 has a similar watershed size, watershed land cover, and similar
soils which made it an excellent candidate as a reference site. These similarities allowed Reference
Wetland 2 to be used to provide strong evidence as to whether the bottom end of the restoration site
should have a defined stream channel or not. Reference Wetland 2 is very wet, but it does not have a
defined stream channel. Therefore, this is reflected in the proposed restoration efforts as no defined
stream channel is proposed.
4.3.2.2 Vegetation
The canopy of Reference Wetland 2 was impacted by Hurricane Isabelle. However, all of the plant
species are still represented. They are just present at lower densities. Overall, reference wetland 2
appeared to be very representative of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest community type.
Table 18. Wetland Area
Community Type - Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Liriodendron lulipifera 21%
Liquidambarsl}raciilua 12%0
Acer rubrum 15%
Carpinus caroliniana 21%
Quercus laurifolia 3%
Nyssa aqualica 9%
Nyssa bii fora 12%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3%
Fraxinus caroliniana 3%
Diospyros virginiana 3%
Table 19. Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Fagus grandifolia 20%
Nyssa biora 40%
Liriodendron lulipifera 30%
Liquidambar styracii lua 10%
4.3.2.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference cross sections are shown in Figure 14 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 2 was 279 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference
Wetland 3. Average land and water surface slope down the wetland valley was 0.5%. The flat
portion of Cross Section 1 was 133 feet long and 53% of the distance was wet or had standing water
The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 87 feet long and 28% of the distance was wet or standing
water. The drainage area for Reference 2 (279 acres) is similar to that of the site (254 acres) and the
slope values for both sites are also similar; therefore, Reference 2 is considered an exceptional
reference for the site.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 19
E N a I N E E R 1 N G 1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.3 Reference 3
4.3.3.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 3. Reference Wetland 3 is depicted on Figure
9. Refer to Section 4.2 for information showing how Reference Wetland 3 compares to the
restoration site. The wetland soils were found to be: Roanoke - fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
Typic Endoaquults
The following is the typical soil description for Reference Wetland 3.
Table 20. Roanoke Series Soil
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A
p 0 to 3 Grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly
inches plastic, common fine roots.
A 3 to 12 Gray (IOYR 6/1) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic,
inches few fine roots, common medium prominent yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
12 to 30 Gray (IOYR 6/1) silty clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, firm,
Btgl inches moderately sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots, common coarse distinct yellowish
brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Btg2 30 to 42 Dark gray (IOYR 3/1) sandy clay, weak medium subangular blocky structure, firm, moderately
inches sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots.
Cg 42 to 48+ Gray (IOYR 6/1) loamy sand, massive, loose.
inches
4.3.3.2 Vegetation
Reference Wetland 3 is a younger forest than the other two reference wetland sites. This appears to
have helped save the trees as they were more protected during Hurricane Isabelle. Even though it was
younger, it still has an enclosed canopy and no real invasive species problems.
Table 21. Wetland Area
Community Type - Non-Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Acer rubrum 25%
Carya glabra 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 60%
Liquidambarstyracii lua 5%
Ulmus americana 5%
Carpinus caroliniana 80%
(subcanopy)
i
Table 22. Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Plant Species Canopy
Carya glabra 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 20%
Liquidanibarstyracii lua 20%
Ulmus americana 20%
Querus pagoda 5%
Fagus grandifolia 30%
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 20
E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wctland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.3.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference cross sections are shown in Figure 14 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 3 was 30 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference
Wetland 2 with no standing water. Small channels were evident at the lower end of the reference (see
Cross Section 3 Figure 14). Average land surface slope down the wetland valley was 1.6%.
Assuming flow in the observed channels, a range for valley width of 14 to 47 feet for this reference.
This reference was considered to be applicable to the drier portions of the site.
5.0 Proiect Site Restoration Plan
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on
reference conditions, with the intent to restore its primary wetland functions such as nutrient cycling,
flood storage, and providing wildlife habitat. The ideal end product will be a self maintaining
vegetated corridor containing a diversity of native plant and animal species. The current base flow
conditions will be managed to emulate reference conditions and to ensure that the necessary success
criteria are met. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005;
USACE, 1987) and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Physical
restoration and the return of the overall biological and water quality functionality will be
accomplished by fulfilling the following objectives:
• Improve water quality downstream by allowing nutrients and sediment to settle and be
processed in the wetland.
• Buffer flood flows downstream by increasing infiltration and storage areas.
• Design a waterway through the wetland complex with the appropriate cross-section, slope,
and pattern as to provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the wetland.
• Collect and appropriately apply reference data to develop the design for the project site.
• Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat diversity.
• Establish a contiguous buffer along the project that can serve as a migration corridor for local
fauna.
• Ensure hydraulic stability of the restored waterway through the use of natural materials (i.e.,
log sills) to create the desired hydrology within the project site as guided by reference data.
• Use natural materials and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design to the
greatest extent possible.
• Establish a native forested riparian plant community within the non-wetland buffer area.
• Establish a headwater wetland community.
• Integrate the removal of exotic vegetation during construction implementation.
• Provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 21
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification (narrative) and/or Wetland Type
The restored wetland will function similarly to a bottomland hardwood forest, but will consist of Non
Riverine Wet Hardwood plant community, transitioning into a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
plant community, according to reference data.
5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities / Buffer Communities
The wetland restoration will consist of two communities within the wetland area and one community
in transition areas as well as on hummocks within the restoration area. The two communities that will
be represented within the wetland area will be the Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum
Slough Subtype) and the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The community type on hummocks and
transition areas will the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype). In general the project
site will be restored as a bottomland hardwood wetland. Section 5.7 discusses the plant communities
in greater detail.
In addition to the restored areas, an area to the east of the restoration site will be preserved and left
undisturbed. This area includes Reference Wetland 1. The preservation area has no significant
invasive species issues.
5.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site was conducted to assist in restoration design and also to
document pre-restoration site conditions. As part of comprehensive pre-restoration monitoring two
(2) crest gauges (Rantz et al., 1982) were installed at the site (Figure 2). These gauges have a dowel
inside that holds granulated cork at approximately one-foot intervals. As flood levels rise, water
enters the crest gauge which suspends the granulated cork within the cylinder. As flood waters
recede, an adherence ring is left on the dowel. During manual inspection the distance between the top
of the dowel and the adherence ring is subtracted from the known elevation of the top of the dowel to
yield the maximum flood stage. These gauges have been monitored on a regular basis and also
correlated with rainfall events to thoroughly understand the effects of rainfall on the site with regard
to flooding (Exhibit Table 5).
Two flood events are illustrated on Figure 15 which indicates that the site currently floods on a
regular basis. The storm event occurring on June 20, 2006 produced 2.23 inches of rain in six (6)
hours which nearly equates to a 2-year return period storm (2-yr storm = 2.9 inches in 6 hours). The
resulting flood elevation at Crest Gauge 1, located at the ninety-degree bend in the existing channel
near the start of the project indicated that flood water has reached a peak stage of 19.93 feet. The
existing edge of Wildcat Road at the culvert location is 21.5 feet. Based on the information collected
to date, it is likely that the roadway temporarily floods during significant rainfall events.
Existing and proposed conditions were examined during the hydrologic analysis of the site.
Preliminary contours of the wetland valley were created to determine the difference in storage volume
between existing and proposed conditions. Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of additional water
storage will be created between the elevations 18 and 20 feet, assuming that all excess soil material
not used to fill the existing ditch is placed outside of Area 1.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 22
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
To restore wetland hydrology at the site, it will be necessary to remove the existing 24-inch culvert
below the access road. To convey stormwater during intense periods of rainfall, it is proposed that
the existing access road be modified to also act as a stormwater conveyance device. Two sections of
the roadway, approximately 40 feet long and set at an elevation of approximately 18.0 feet, will
provide adequate hydrology upstream, while also conveying stormwater at high flows. Near the
downstream end of the project two additional sections of roadway will be placed at a lower elevation
to allow movement of surface water during intense precipitation events. Sheet 2 illustrates the
location of the proposed ford crossings along the access road and at the end of the project.
5.3 Best Management Practices
Due to the rural nature of this project, individual stormwater best management practices (BMPs) have
not been required. If the opportunity presents itself during detailed design, stormwater BMPs will be
implemented. Stormwater management issues from future development of adjacent properties will be
governed by the applicable local and state ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any
future stormwater entering the site maintain pre-development peak flow. Any future stormwater
diverted into the project area should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions or
degradation of the project in any way.
A swine lagoon closure is being conducted approximately 500 feet east of the restoration project
easement area. This closure is expected to occur during the winter of 2006. Water and sludge will be
removed from the lagoon area and land applied in accordance with guidance provided by Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the North Carolina Division of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Agronomic Division. Crop application will be based upon the amount of nitrogen
present in the sludge, soil types, and types of crops present for land application.
5.4 Hydrologic Modifications (for jvetland restoration or erthaitcentent)
5.4.1 Narrative of Modifications
This Restoration Plan for the UT Pembroke Creek site outlines a method for restoring the existing
agricultural property into a natural headwater wetland feature. The project goal for this restoration
plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on reference conditions, with the intent to
restore its primary wetland functions such as nutrient cycling, flood storage, and providing wildlife
habitat. A pool and hummock complex will be restored at the site to disrupt flow and retain water on-
site to the greatest extent possible. Native vegetation will be incorporated into the design using
reference conditions as a guide. A schematic of the design concept is presented on Sheet 2.
The Restoration Plan for the site will be described in two parts to simplify discussion. The first
portion of the site is extremely flat and begins where UT Pembroke Creek flows under Wildcat Road
(SR 1208) and ends where the access road to the hog lagoon passes over UT Pembroke Creek. The
second portion of the site has minor relief and begins where the access. road passes over UT
Pembroke Creek and ends at the project terminus where the cell tower access road crosses UT
Pembroke Creek.
Near station 1+00 a wetland valley feature will be used to divert the existing flow from the main ditch
onto the site. The proposed wetland valley dimensions were based on reference data (Exhibit Table
6) and yielded a bottom width of 10 feet and side slopes of 1:8. The design invert was set at the
measured water surface elevation of 18.0 feet. As depicted on Sheet 3 the invert of the culvert under
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 23
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Wildcat Road is 17.0 feet, and the top of the pipe has an elevation of 19.0 feet. Setting the proposed
wetland valley invert at 18.0 feet allows 2.5 feet of water storage above the design invert, before
water extends onto Wildcat Road. More importantly, the design elevation of 18.0 feet is based on
measured water surface elevations therefore the project will not be creating a water surface increase
for any upstream offsite properties or rights-of-way.
Filling the main ditch feature north of the access road will require approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
fill material. The wetland valley will generate approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Placement of excess fill material outside of Area 1 or on areas above 21.0 feet within Area 1 will
ensure that a net gain of water storage capacity is achieved.
At station 11+00 the wetland valley will transition into the existing land surface. Small channels,
hummocky areas and pools will be created throughout the wetland area. Reference cross-sections
indicated that approximately 30 percent of the "flat" wetted width had standing water or pools;
therefore, it will be specified that approximately 30% of the project area have standing water or pools.
Pool dimensions are based on reference data. Material pushed aside to make pool areas will be used
for the creation of hummocky areas.
At station 40+00 to 50+00 the surface will be roughened and minor earthwork will occur to promote
sheet flow. Small channels (6" to 12" deep by 6" to 12" wide) will be created along the axis of Area
1B and also perpendicular across the valley. The conveyance of water across the valley will promote
wetland hydrology near station 12+00 and possibly stations 11+00 and 10+00. The existing access
road will be modified to have a constant elevation with two low areas that will convey flow during
large storm events. The proposed elevation of these areas is 18.0 feet. A Geowebv or equivalent
material will be used to construct the low areas in the road.
Downstream of the access road it is expected that the groundwater table will be at or near the surface.
I The existing pond will be integrated into the wetland design. The two wetland valleys will continue
south until they combine near main ditch station 24+00. Once the two valleys combine, the easement
area becomes narrow for the remainder of the project. Two low areas in the road, similar in design to
the areas along the access road, are proposed at the end of the project. The first low area in the road
will allow flow from Reference Area 1 into the project site. The second low area will be higher than
the first, but will convey large storm events.
5.5 Soil Restoration
5.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment
As mentioned earlier, more than 40 soil borings were conducted on the restoration site. All borings
found that an acceptable topsoil layer exists throughout the site. After construction activities, the
subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over
the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site
during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth.

® NATURAL SYSTEMS 24
it ? E N G I N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration!
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is a very important aspect to the restoration of the site. Many
sources of information have been used to determine the most appropriate species for this restoration
project. The selection of plants has been based on the three (3) reference wetlands, the "Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" Third & Fourth Approximations as well as the sites
designed drainage characteristics. The three reference wetlands showed a mix of three community
types. These are Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum
Slough Subtype), and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Coastal Plain Subtype. The reference
wetlands had drainage areas ranging from 30 acres to 280 acres which matches the range in drainage
from the beginning to the end of the restoration site. These references showed nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests to be higher up in the drainages with smaller watershed sizes. The references also
showed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp to be lower and be associated with the larger watershed
sizes. The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest was located on the fringes of the wetlands and on larger
hummock areas.
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was found in Reference Wetland 2 and it has a drainage area
similar to the outlet of the project site. Therefore, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was selected for
the area below where the Reference Wetland 1 drainage flows into the eastern drainage area. This will
provide the maximum drainage into the restored wetland and will be subject to more frequent
flooding. The remaining hydric soil areas of the site will be nonriverine wet hardwood forest. This
community type is represented by Reference Wetlands 1 and 3. Reference Wetland 1 has a larger
drainage area and is more representative of the central portion of the project site where the eastern
and western drainage areas are brought together just above the access road. Reference Wetland 3 has
a very small drainage area and is most representative of the upper portions of the project site.
The mesic mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain subtype) was commonly found on the non-hydric
soils surrounding the reference wetlands. Therefore, the mesic mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain
subtype) will be used for non-hydric soil areas within the project area as well as for a buffer around
the site.
Based on the information stated above as well as the plant species information from each reference
wetland, the restoration site will be zoned into these three (3) plant communities. A specific plant
species list has been developed based on these community types and can be found in Table 6. A
schematic layout of where these three community types will be located is shown on Sheet 4.
The preservation area will not be disturbed. Based on the Reference Wetland 1 data, which is within
the preservation area, the majority of the preservation area is nonriverine wet hardwood forest with
some mesic mixed hardwood forest on higher locations. The following lists the estimated acreage for
each area:
Table 23. Acreage for Vegetative
Communities
Community Acreage
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 27.5
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 1.5
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 4
Preservation Area 26
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 25
E N G 1 N E E R I N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
Some invasive species have been noted on the site. These include Lonicera japonica, Microstegium
vimineum, Ligustrum sinense, and Myriophyllum aquaticum. These species are currently isolated
along or within the drainage ditches themselves. The farm fields are currently grown in soybean and
are actively controlled for weeds by the use of herbicide. The movement of the topsoil will also stir
up weed seeds. However, some weeds will be inhibited due to the increased water tables on the site. It
will be important during monitoring site visits to check for any significant encroachment of invasive
species and to develop a plan of action to control any such problem.
6.0 Performance Criteria
6.1 Wetlands
Headwater wetland systems have a variable water table. The restored wetland will function similarly
to a bottomland hardwood forest (USACE, 2005), but will consist of a Non Riverine Wet Hardwood
plant community, transitioning into a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp plant community, according
to reference data. Plant community selection was based on the reference data (Section 4.0).
Therefore, the wetlands restored on this project site shall target establishing water tables near or at the
surface. More specifically, the water table shall be within 12 inches of the soil surface continuously
for greater than 5% of the growing season under normal rainfall conditions (USACE, 1987). The
water tables will be monitored by using two automated groundwater gauges located on the site.
Performance criteria may be defined more specifically based on long term reference data (USACE,
2002).
6.2 Vegetation
The restoration site will be planted with species appropriate for the three targeted community types on
the site. For each community, the vegetation will be monitored on an annual basis to determine
survival. This monitoring process will be conducted in an effort to show the survival of a diverse
target community such that the restored site has survival at a density of 320 stems/acre after three
years. This data will be monitored using sample plots (USACE, 2003) and in accordance with the
most recent version of the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP
Monitoring Reports".
6.3 Flow Features
Two swales crossing the access road will be installed to promote wetland hydrology; one in the
vicinity of station 18+00 and the other near station 33+00. The swale will be monitored for overall
aggradation/degradation through the measurement of cross-sections.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 26
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
6.4 Schedule /Reporting
Activities for the first year of monitoring will begin at the completion of major construction activities.
This initial work will involve establishing monitoring stations, plots, and cross-section for all future
monitoring. A field investigation will be conducted to establish all monitoring locations. This will
include the establishment of fixed photo points, cross-sections, and stem counts for the planted areas.
The appropriate number of monitoring wells will be installed/re-installed, immediately after
construction, in a similar pattern to the pre-construction configuration. The establishment of
monitoring features and the collection and summarization of monitoring data will be conducted in
accordance with the most current version of the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports". As requested by EEP, a monitoring protocol similar to
pre-construction will be adopted for post-construction monitoring. NSE will continue monthly
monitoring until the due date of the First Year Monitoring report, unless directed otherwise by EEP.
Once the appropriate time has passed, the first annual post-construction site monitoring will be
conducted. A monitoring report of findings as it relates to identified success criteria will be prepared
and submitted to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 27
E N 0 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
7.0 References
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). July 2002. Basinwide
Assessment Report: Chowan River Basin. Division of Water Quality.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2005. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. Report Date 9/30/05.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2006. Surface Water
Classifications. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html
Pierce, Gary J. 1993. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands. Wetland Training Institute, Inc.
Poolesville, MD.
Rantz, S.E., et al. 1982a. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow, Volume 1, Measurement of
Stage and Discharge, U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Water-Supply Paper 2175.
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. 2003. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Fourth Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Copy obtained through Carolina Vegetative Survey. Website obtained July 2006.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, 1986. Soil Survey of Chowan
and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997. Engineering Field Handbook. 210-EFH, Part 650,
1/92, revised 1997.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1974. North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2005. Information Regarding Stream Restoration In The
Outer Coastal Plain Of North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Regulatory Division and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality December 1, 2005
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. Chowan County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
and Federal Species of Concern. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/chowan.html.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 28
' E N O 1 N E E R 1 N G j
U'I' Prmbtol,c AVctland ?=nd Stream I;etot atir_n • C'Si iti I IUC 030?0105
IZCturation Phut - C-hmcan County, North C!n,Iina • Scntcmba 2006
!
Section 8.0 ESection 8.0

NATURAL_ SYSTEMS
L 14 13 1 1`4 L. 1 is 1 r+ u
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 1. Restoration Structure and Objectives
UT to Pembrok e Creek - D06102S
Designed
Restoration
Linear
Segment/ Station Range Restoration Type Comment
Footage or
Reach ID
Acreage
This area may qualify for restoration depending
1+00 to 6+16 Wetland Enhancement 6 acres post-project conditions. Monitoring will yield
Area 1 additional insight.
Proposed groundwater elevations in this areas arc
11+00 to 6+16 Wetland Restoration 11.5 acres expected to be at or near ground surface.
Area IA 6+16 to 17+70 Headwater Wetland 1220 ft. These valleys were selected based on historical
information, existing conditions 0.5'-topography
Area 1B 1+6 to 10+64 Headwater Wetland 954 ft. and historical topography (1927, Appendix 13).
Proposed groundwater elevations in this area is
18+00 to27+50
2 Wetland Restoration 4.3 acres expected to be at or near ground surface.
Area Wetland valleys will combine in this area to form
18+00 to 27+50 Headwater Wetland 1692 ft. one valley.
27+50 to 34+30 Wetland Restoration 1.1 acres In this area significant standing water is expected.

Area 3
A transition back to the pre-project surface water
27+50 to 34+30 Headwater Wetland 622 ft. elevation will occur in this area.
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 93 1 N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS lIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 2. Drainage Areas
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Reach Drainage Area (Acres)
Project Start 50
Halfway between slant and access road 96
Main Stem - 1 A at access Road 112
Tributary 1 B at start 19
Triburaty 1 B at road 42
Below access Road (I A & 1 B combined) 161
Project End (includes Reference 1 area) 254

Reference 1 45
Reference 2 279
Reference 3 (upper end) 26
Reference 3 (lower end) 30
*See Design Sheet 2 for Reach Designation
Exhibit Table 3. Land Use of Watershed
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Landuse Acreage Percentage
Farmstead 38 15%
Row Crop 105 41%
Water 2 1%
Woods 104 41%
Woods/Grass 6 2%
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R I N 13
L
h
O v
CA ?.0. N
C ? O
" E U
a
p
L' ? L
O w
r? Q
R w ?
d y H
H pu,? ?
A
y
.o
s
K
w

u
._ ,?.
O O ct'
V vl Do
O l? O
N D\
t- O l?
l?
?O
C O ?' ?' M M N N N M N ^' M M N --? --?

`D
L [? 1- 00
N M N M r-
N --M v
--N N N O
N ?D ?O m
N M
O
Q Q
ci
C
O

•? ? ?t N ? ^r O v'? ?O v1 ?n M ?o N ?i' M ? ? vl M
Q
y [? O \.o .--i 00 01 N O [? ?

u
p
M IT eM
M N N
M C?
N M
M N .
-i
I
C
^
N
W) N
N
N
M O M

i
.q. O
,
Q,

M~_,
i

.?-00
N

N
Q i i

C .C
?i' N ?t -r O W) ?.o vl N M ?o N en ?o ? in m

B O O M 'c7 Vl oo O t` O N D\ 07
l n O v'1 M A N
p rM M CV N N C? ? --
N C M N --

s
u
C ?
^' O O
?O o0 00
M v'i oo
M N t`
a\ a, ? _
M N .-. .-" .-. N N ^. .--N N M --. i .-.
c
M

to ?o O V
? ? N
Vi i •-•
M •-• ?
•--? O [ ? C, vl
1 M ?.?
M
?p
,•_

w
-4 r
s O O O N
Y `C M M 't \D
M N N Q\ N Q? 00 O \o O •? ,_, Q A
u
?l O O
z z
0
M O O
M 'T r? O N M
C? N N ?O --
--M M t-- Vl N
^ N N O kn
M 'cr
'""' c?
Q c7
0
z z
IT
L ? N O O?
M N ?O D\ a0
N V N?
N N M --M 00 O O
N .-. Q Q
0 0
z z
•r N en of to -D t` 00 a O '.r N M "It In z r 00
I I I I I I I I I >>> >>> > > >

.? N M er to
rn C t: C C C ? N M
O C .o
:. 0
;r 0
y 0
w o
:. u
u u
u u
u
O
U u u u u u C

u C

61 C

u
t
%
1

%1

?

%1

]

?
.

s
.
V] h N Vyi !y/1 y W W i

u U U U U
N
u
0
CA
'w
t:
0
b
b
L
a
L
Q
G
O
.O
CI1
•L
y
C
0
U) E3
2 z
N
W
N W
J
?Q z
LL '
l7
Q z
ZW
ECOWAI,
Lai
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 5. Crest Gauge and Rainfall Summary
UT Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Crest Gauge 1 (elevation 2 2.25 ft)
Month Date Crest
Gauge
Checked Distance from
top of Gauge to
cork Water
elevation Previous 5 days of total
rain from when crest
gauges checked 6 hr. Max
of rain for
the month
(ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in.)
April no data no data no data 0.58 0.25
5/1/2006 no change low 0.42 0.25
May 5/30/2006 no change low 0.38 0.29
6/13/2006 3.44 18.81 3.07 0.62
June 6/20/2006 2.32 19.93 2.80 2.23
Crest Gauge 2 (elevation 1 5.14 ft)
Month Date Crest
Gauge
Checked Distance from
top of Gauge to
cork Water
elevation Previous 5 days of total
rain from when crest
gauges checked 6 hr. Max
of rain for
the month
(ft.) (ft.) (in.) (in.)
April no data no data no data 0.58 0.25
M 5/1/2006 no change low 0.42 0.25
ay 5/30/2006 no change low 0.38 0.29
J 6/13/2006 2.24 12.90 3.07 0.62
une 6/20/2006 0.52 14.62 2.80 2.23
Monitoring well locations are provide on Figure 2
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N G
Unnamed Tributary to Pembroke Creek
Wetland and Stream Restoration
Chowan County, North Carolina, Project #D06102S
Final - Restoration Plan
t.t i _ tl K..'t * ?? ,+; {
K' _ { R't? ?'t ? I ? ??t'?; v 1? y'{, ?.: Y ? s'4 ? a 9 * I ? `'I •.?,?
;, u '
w? ?,/r r tt l i? X44 17.u. f .;? rr °t
41
?. ?. •_:
I .?. ??
_ ti-
'CosystelII .
l1t lo
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR-EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Submitted September 8, 2006
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Cho«an County, North Carolina • September 2006
Executive Summa
This restoration site contains an unnamed tributary to Pembroke Creek (UT Pembroke Creek) and has
been selected for wetland and stream restoration by the North Carolina Department of the
Environmental and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR-EEP). The
purpose of this restoration project is to restore and enhance the headwater wetland/stream complex
located hydrologically within the Pasquotank River Basin.
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton, in Chowan County, North
Carolina as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The project lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
03010205 120010 (USGS, 1974) and within NC DWQ Chowan River Subbasin 03-01-04 (NCDENR,
2002). For discussion and planning purposes the site has been divided in to three areas. The first
area, referred to as Area 1, is located north of the access road that bisects the site. Area 2 begins at
the access road and follows the valley south until a point approximately 1,000-feet below the road.
Area three begins where Area 2 ends and continues to the end of the project site (Sheet 2).
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on
reference conditions, with the intent to restore its wetland functions to that of pre-disturbance
conditions. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005;
USACE, 1987) and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success.
The primary project objective is to design a waterway through the wetland complex with the
appropriate cross-section and slope as to provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria
for the wetland. Additional project objectives, such as ensuring hydraulic stability and establishing a
native wetland plant community, are listed in Section 5.1 along with several other project objectives.
Currently the site consists of farmland and wooded areas. The total easement area for this project is
59.4 acres of which 26.7 acres is wooded and will be designated for preservation with the remaining
32.8 acres being used for agriculture. Two channelized features exist on the site. One drainage
feature is located along the eastern edge of the easement and another more prominent feature begins
at Wildcat Road in the north and continues southward to the end of the project area. The part of the
site north of the access road that bisects the site is extremely flat and reconnection of surface water to
existing land surface in that area will be limited.
The primary actions to restore the site will be reversal of drainage caused by the main ditch and the
re-establishment of native vegetation. Through these actions, approximately six (6) acres of wetland
enhancement and 17 acres of wetland restoration is expected. Approximately 4,488 feet of headwater
wetland corridor will also be restored.
In Area 1 the existing ditch will be filled and flow will be diverted to a natural valley on site. Minor
excavation will be necessary to divert water to the new location. The new wetland valley will allow
conveyance of runoff while providing a naturalized headwater wetland feature. The construction of
the valley feature will follow natural topographic relief. The earthwork necessary to construct the
headwater wetland valley will begin at approximate station 1+00. At approximate station 11+00 it
will connect to an existing valley feature and from that point and downstream, the restored headwater
wetland valley will follow existing ground surface. The access road will be modified to
accommodate occasional flow over the road. The small tributary located along the western portion of
Area 1 will be slightly modified to promote sheet flow down the valley and across Area 1.
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N D 1 N E E R 1 N o
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Area 2 will only need minor earthwork, pool/hummock creation, and conversion of the pond to a
more naturalized wetland feature. South of the access road, water table elevations are expected to be
near the ground surface for the remainder of the project. The creation of pool/hummock complexes
throughout the site will be part of the final design plans.
Area 3 is the location where the wetland valley feature must transition back to a drainage ditch. In
this area it is the goal to implement a naturalized transition over a distance of 50 to 100 feet. This
feature must be effective in making the elevation transition while also having a natural appearance
fitting for the Coastal Plain setting. A stabilized swale through the road will hydrologically connect
the reference wetland to the natural valley. This area will be designed to ensure that the existing
roadway is not adversely impacted during storm events.
Tables 1 through 20, within the text of this document, primarily apply to soils and vegetation and are
referred to as "Tables", while tables referenced in an attached appendix are referenced as "Exhibit
Tables". Exhibit Tables 1 through 8 present the project restoration structures and objectives, project
restoration structure and objectives, drainage areas, land use of watershed, groundwater monitoring
summary, crest gauge and rainfall summary, reference sites data summary, designed vegetative
communities (by zone), and a restoration summary. Figures 1 through 15 primarily depict site and
reference wetland conditions, and also contain information regarding historical aerial photographs,
and site specific flood maps. Sheets 1 through 5 illustrate existing conditions, proposed site
conditions, a longitudinal profile (cross-section view of the site), and designed vegetative
communities.
This report contains Appendices 1 through 13 which contain a multitude of information varying
subjects. Appendices 1 through 9 contain photographs and data forms for the site and the reference
sites. Appendices 10 through 13 contain gauge data and charts, the water budget for the site, a tile
drain map of the site dated 1927, and a map showing former "prior converted" areas of the site.
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
1.1 Directions to Project Site
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles west-northwest of Edenton in Chowan County, North
Carolina as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The site is specifically located approximately 3
miles west-northwest of the Route 17 Bypass and Route 32 Interchange (exit 227). To reach the site
from the Route 17 Bypass, take Route 32 north approximately 1.2 miles then turn left onto Wildcat
Road. Continue north on Wildcat Road for 1.8 miles. Approximately 1,000 feet before reaching the
end of Wildcat Road where in intersects Macedonia Road, UT Pembroke Creek and the site will be
on the left (south) (Figure 2).
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NC DTVQ River Basin
The site lies within the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03010205 120010 (USGS, 1974), which falls
hydrologically within the Pasquotank River Basin. The NC DWQ River Subbasin for the project area
is listed as the Chowan 03-01-04 (NCDENR, 2002).
NATURAL SYSTEMS
9 N D 1 N E E R 1 N 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area for this project, measured at the downstream end where the cell tower access road
crosses UT Pembroke Creek, is 0.4 square miles (265 acres). The drainage area at the beginning of
the project is 0.08 square miles (50 acres).
The easement totals 59.42 acres and is broken into three easement areas. Easement area 1
encompasses 22.51 acres, beginning from the start of the restoration project extending south and west
to the gravel access road. Easement area 2 has 9.36 acres and extends from the gravel access road
south and west into the field to project end. Easement area 3 covers 27.55 acres, extending from the
gravel access road south and east of the restoration site to project end, creating the largest easement
area to ensure a buffer zone around restoration project. The land use in the watershed of the project
area is approximately 15% farmstead, 41% rowcrop, 1% surface water and 43% woods.
2.2 Surface iYater Classification
The current State classification for Pembroke Creek (Stream Index # 26-1-1) from its source to
Edenton Bay, is Class B and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) waters (NCDENR, 2005). Class B
waters are used primarily for recreation and have no restrictions on watershed development or types
of discharges. The NSW waters classification is intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
(NCDENR, 2006).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The site is located on the Edenton 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map. No blue line
streams are shown on the site; however, an incomplete oval of a Carolina Bay is depicted near the
southern end of the site and to the east of the planned project limits. A small pond is depicted within
the project limits. The site is located very near to the western boundary of the outer coastal plain of
North Carolina. The site is underlain by Castle Hayne Limestone composed of middle Eocene
sediments known as the Albemarle Embayment.
The site has five primary soil mapping units. These units are the Cape Fear, Conetoe, Dragston,
Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley. The Cape Fear, Portsmouth, Roanoke, and Tomotley are listed
as hydric by the NRCS. The following are brief descriptions of all of the on-site soil mapping units
(NRCS, 1986).
Cape Fear (Cf)
Nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in slight depressions on
marine and stream terraces. They formed in clayey marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy
surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is moderate.
Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1-foot. These soils are subject to rare flooding.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 3
?? E N O I N E E R I N Q
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Conetoe (013)
These nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well drained soils are on uplands and stream terraces.
They formed in loamy and sandy marine and fluvial deposits. The surface and subsurface layers are
sandy and range from 20 to 40 inches thick. The subsoil is loamy. Permeability is moderately rapid
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.
Dral?ston (Ds)
These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils are on stream terraces and uplands.
They formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediments. They have a sandy surface layer and a loamy
subsoil. Permeability is moderately rapid and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table
is within a depth of 1 to 2.5 feet.
Portsmouth (Pt)
These nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in slight depressions.
They formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil.
These soils are underlain by sandy deposits at a depth of 40 inches or less. Permeability is moderate
and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1-foot.
Roanoke (Ro)
These nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils are on broad flats and in depressions on marine
and stream terraces. They formed in clayey marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface
layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is slow and shrink-swell potential is moderate. Seasonal high
water table is within a depth of 1-foot.
Tomotley (To)
These nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils are on flats and in depressions on stream and
marine terraces. They formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments. They have a loamy surface
layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is within a depth of 1 foot.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 4
E N O 1 N E E R I N O
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.0 Reference Wetlands
4.1 Target Reference Conditions
The site is currently under cultivation. There are drainage ditches and underdrains throughout the site.
There was little evidence of the historical wetlands that would have existed on the site. Therefore,
physical parameters of the site were used as well as other reference materials to ascertain the target
wetland types. In essence, an iterative process was used to develop the final information for the site
design.
To develop the target reference conditions, site physical parameters were reviewed. This included
inlet watershed size, outlet watershed size, soil mapping units from the Chowan/Perquimans Soil
Survey for the watershed and site, as well as general topography. The "Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina" was also used to narrow the potential community types that would
have existed at the site(Schafale Weakley 2003).
Targeted reference conditions included the following:
Located within the Physiographic Region - Outer Coastal Plain (OCP)
Minimal hydrologic alteration (H)
Jurisdictional Wetland Status (JD)
Watershed size between 30 and 300 acres (with the three sites spanning the range) (W)
Climax Community - Small Stream Swamp or Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (C)
Similar watershed soil types (WS)
Similar site soil types (SS)
Minimal impervious surfaces within watershed (I)
Similar topography (T)
Minimal presence of invasive species (Inv)
4.2 Reference Site Search Methodology
All of the parameters listed in Section 4.1 were used to find appropriate reference wetland sites.
Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in
locating suitable references sites for the project. For this project, a total of three (3) reference
wetlands were desired. At the outset of the project, the first reference wetland was already discovered
and approved through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program. This first reference wetland is located to
the east of the restoration area and on the same farm property. This site was partially used to aid in
establishing parameters for finding the other two (2) reference wetlands.
A GIS based search was initially conducted for the identification of reference wetland sites in the
outer coastal plain. The GIS process was first based on an automated procedure which included the
overlay of CAMA wetland data, Chowan Soil Data, NCGAP data, and public land. No eligible sites
were found on public land. After potential sites were identified, sites near the project area were
manually reviewed using other available GIS data such as aerial photography and topography. Once
sites were identified, some were visited that could be easily viewed from public roads. Neither
Chowan County nor Edenton have GIS based parcel data; therefore, candidate reference site
information was acquired at the Chowan County Tax office and Register of Deeds office.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 15
E N O 1 N E E H 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
In 2003, Hurricane Isabelle hit Chowan County and caused widespread damage. This storm knocked
down many trees. Even more trees were taken down as the landowners undertook clearcut operations
in an effort to clean up the downed trees. Several potential reference sites identified during the
reference site search suffered tree loss from Hurricane Isabelle and were subsequently clearcut.
Ultimately two (2) reference wetlands were identified in addition to the one reference wetland on-site.
The following table shows a general assessment of each reference wetland as they relate to the
parameters laid out above.
Table It. Reference Wetland Compatibility Codes
Wetland OCP H JD W C WS SS I T Inv
Reference Wetland 1 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Mostly Some Some None Yes None
Reference Wetland 2 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Mostly All No Little Yes None
Reference Wetland 3 Yes Minimal Yes Yes Young All All Little Yes None
4.3 Reference Site Parameters
Wetland determination forms have been completed for each reference wetland and can be found in
the appendix. Each reference wetland has one form from within the wetland boundary and one
prepared from outside of the wetland in the transition zone.
4.3.1 Reference 1
4.3.1.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 1. The wetland soils were found to be:
Portsmouth - fine loamy over sandy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Umbraquults
Reference Wetland 1 can be seen in Figure 4. The following is the typical soil description for
Reference Wetland 1.
Table 12. Reference Wetland 1 Soil Description
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6 Black (IOYR 2/1) loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, many fine medium roots.
inches
Eg 6 to 15 Gray (IOYR 6/1) sandy loam, weak medium granular structure, friable, few fine medium roots.
inches
Light gray (10YR 7/1) sandy loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure, friable, slightly
Btg 1 15 to 24 sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, few medium faint brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) soft
inches iron masses, common medium prominent red (2.5YR 4/6) soft iron masses.
Light gray (10YR 511) sandy clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, friable,
Btg2 24 to 34 slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common fine pores, many medium distinct brownish yellow
inches (10YR 6/6) soft iron masses.
34 to 48 Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loamy sand, weak medium subangular blocky structure, very friable,
BCg inches nonsticky, nonplastic, many medium prominent yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8) soft iron masses.
Cg 48 to 56+ Gray (10YR 6/1) sand, single grained, loose
inches
® NATURAL SYSTEMS 16
E N a 1 N E F. H I N [3
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan - Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.1.2 Vegetation
Reference Wetland 1 was in fairly good condition for vegetation analysis. However, many trees had
been knocked over from Hurricane Isabelle and the transition area had a fairly high number of pinus
taeda. The following table shows the community types and plant species list found at Reference
Wetland 1.
Table 13. Transect 1 - Wetland
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype
Subcanopy Canopy (%)
Acer rubrum 5%
Liquidambarstyracii lua 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 5%
Magnolia virginiana occasional
jbyssa bii fora 50%
Pinus taeda 5%
Quercus laurifolia 25%
Quercus michaurii 5%
Ilex opaca occasional

Table 15. Transect 2 - Wetland Area
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum Slough Subtype)
Canopy
Subcanopy (%)
Acer rubrum 25%
i yssa aquatica 20%
iVyssa biJlora 40%
Pinus taeda 5%
Quercus laurifolia 10%
Ilex opaca occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana occasional
Table 14. Transect 1 - Wetland Edge
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed)
Subcanopy Canopy
(%)
Acer rubrum 5%
Carya glabra 10%
Cornus forida occasional
Liquidambar styraciflua 10%
Liriodendron tulipifera 25%
Afagnolia grandii fora occasional
Pinus taeda 40%
Quercus albs 10%
Quercus nigra occasional
Vaccinium atrococcum occasional
Prunus serotina occasional
flex opaca occasional
Table 16. Transect 2 - Wetland Edge
Community Type - Non-Riverine Wet
Hardwood Forest (Transitional Disturbed)
Subcanopy Canopy
(%)
Acer rubrum 15%
Liriodendron tulipifera 15%
Afagnolia virginiana occasional
Nyssa bii lora 10%
Pinus taeda 40%
Quercus michauxii 10%
Quercus nigra 5%
Quercus phellos 5%
Ilex opaca occasional
Fraxinus caroliniana occasional
NATURAL SYSTEMS 17
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N O
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.1.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference Wetland cross sections are shown in Figure 5 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 1 is 45 acres and significant ponded and flowing water was evident during the
survey. Average land slope down the wetland valley was 0.5% and water surface slope was 0.2%.
The flat portion of Cross Section 1 was 143 feet long and 58% of the distance was wet or had
standing water. The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 133 feet long and 76% of the distance was
wet or standing water. Reference Wetland 1 is located in a former Carolina Bay and a significant
portion of its upstream watershed was a former sandpit (Figure 1). Accordingly, a large portion of
the watershed has the soil designation Udorthents (Figure 3) (USDA, 1986) indicating an area where
natural soil has been altered.
4.3.2 Reference 2
Refer to Section 4.2 for information showing how Reference Wetland 2 compares to the restoration
site. Reference Wetland 2 is depicted on Figure 9.
4.3.2.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 2. The wetland soils were found to be:
Chowan fine-silty, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents
The following is the typical soil description for reference wetland 2.
Table 17. Chowan Soil Series
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A 0 to 6 Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, weak granular structure, very friable, common
inches medium distinct yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Cgl 6 to 36 Gray (10YR 511) silty clay, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic, common medium distinct
inches yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) soft iron masses.
20a 36 to 55+ Black (10YR 2/1) sapric material, massive, very friable.
inches
The site soil series for Reference Wetland 2 is not one of the on-site soil series. NSE strived to
achieve a 100% match for each reference wetland. However, this was not possible due to budget
constraints, Hurricane Isabelle impacts, and landowner authorization problems. Even though the
Chowan soil series is not on the project restoration site, it is located on the restoration sites drainage
about 1,000 feet below the project limits. Therefore, the Chowan soil series is associated with the
projects soil types. Also, the Chowan soil series and the majority of the site soils have high clay
contents in the B horizons and thus should perch water in a very similar manner. Also, the soils
within the watershed of Reference Wetland 2 and the restoration site are very similar. This is even
NATURAL SYSTEMS 18
F. N a 1 N r E H 1 N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Cho«an County, North Carolina • September 2006
more important as this controls how water moves toward the site (deep groundwater, perched water,
overland flow, surface flow). Reference Wetland 2 also has another very similar characteristic to the
site in that it has an approximately 280 acre watershed which basically matches the bottom end of the
project site. Reference Wetland 2 has a similar watershed size, watershed land cover, and similar
soils which made it an excellent candidate as a reference site. These similarities allowed Reference
Wetland 2 to be used to provide strong evidence as to whether the bottom end of the restoration site
should have a defined stream channel or not. Reference Wetland 2 is very wet, but it does not have a
defined stream channel. Therefore, this is reflected in the proposed restoration efforts as no defined
stream channel is proposed.
4.3.2.2 vegetation
The canopy of Reference Wetland 2 was impacted by Hurricane Isabelle. However, all of the plant
species are still represented. They are just present at lower densities. Overall, reference wetland 2
appeared to be very representative of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest community type.
Table 18. Wetland Area
Community Type - Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Liriodendron tulipifera 21%
Liquidambarstyracii lua 12%
Acer rubrum 15%
Carpinus caroliniana 21%
Quercus laurifolia 3%
Nyssa aquatica 9%
Nyssa biflora 12%
Fraxinus pennsylranica 3%
Frazinus caroliniana 3%
Diospyros virginiana 3%
Table 19. Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Fagus grandifolia 20%
N)ssa bii fora 40%
Liriodendron tulipifera 30%
Liquidambar styracii lua 10%
4.3.2.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference cross sections are shown in Figure 14 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 2 was 279 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference
Wetland 3. Average land and water surface slope down the wetland valley was 0.5%. The flat
portion of Cross Section 1 was 133 feet long and 53% of the distance was wet or had standing water.
The flat portion of Cross Section 2 was 87 feet long and 28% of the distance was wet or standing
water. The drainage area for Reference 2 (279 acres) is similar to that of the site (254 acres) and the
slope values for both sites are also similar; therefore, Reference 2 is considered an exceptional
reference for the site.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 19
E N a I N E E R I N 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan - Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.3 Reference 3
4.3.3.1 Soils
Soil borings were conducted within Reference Wetland 3. Reference Wetland 3 is depicted on Figure
9. Refer to Section 4.2 for information showing how Reference Wetland 3 compares to the
restoration site. The wetland soils were found to be: Roanoke - fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic
Typic Endoaquults
The following is the typical soil description for Reference Wetland 3.
Table 20. Roanoke Series Soil
Soil Depth Description
Horizon
A
p 0 to 3 Grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly
inches plastic, common fine roots.
A 3 to 12 Gray (10YR 6/1) loam, weak fine granular structure, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic,
inches few fine roots, common medium prominent yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) soft iron masses.
12 to 30 Gray (IOYR 6/1) silty clay loam, moderate medium subangular blocky structure, firm,
Btg 1 inches moderately sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots, common coarse distinct yellowish
brown (10YR 5/6) soft iron masses.
Btg2 30 to 42 Dark gray (IOYR 3/1) sandy clay, weak medium subangular blocky structure, firm, moderately
inches sticky, moderately plastic, few medium roots.
Cg 42 to 48+ Gray (IOYR 6/1) loamy sand, massive, loose.
inches
4.3.3.2 Vegetation
Reference Wetland 3 is a younger forest than the other two reference wetland sites. This appears to
have helped save the trees as they were more protected during Hurricane Isabelle. Even though it was
younger, it still has an enclosed canopy and no real invasive species problems.
Table 21. Wetland Area Table 22. Wetland Buffer Area
Community Type - Non-Riverine
Wet Hardwood Forest
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Acer rubrum 25%
Carya glabra 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 60%
Liquidambar styracii lua 5%
Ulmus americana 5%
Carpinus caroliniana
(subcanopy) 80%
Community Type - Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
Plant Species Canopy (%)
Carya glabra 5%
Liriodendron tulipifera 20%
Liquidambar styraciflua 20%
Ulmus americana 20%
Querus pagoda 5%
Fagus grandifolia 30%
NATURAL SYSTEMS 20
r N 13 1 N E E R 1 N a
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
4.3.3.3 Hydrology and Topography
Several parameters were collected during the reference reach surveys to better understand the
physical setting of the reference area and to integrate the collected parameters into the restoration
design. Reference cross sections are shown in Figure 14 and Table 6. The drainage area for
Reference Wetland 3 was 30 acres and had the appearance of being slightly drier than Reference
Wetland 2 with no standing water. Small channels were evident at the lower end of the reference (see
Cross Section 3 Figure 14). Average land surface slope down the wetland valley was 1.6%.
Assuming flow in the observed channels, a range for valley width of 14 to 47 feet for this reference.
This reference was considered to be applicable to the drier portions of the site.
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
5.1 Restoration: Project Goals and Objectives
The project goal for this restoration plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on
reference conditions, with the intent to restore its primary wetland functions such as nutrient cycling,
flood storage, and providing wildlife habitat. The ideal end product will be a self maintaining
vegetated corridor containing a diversity of native plant and animal species. The current base flow
conditions will be managed to emulate reference conditions and to ensure that the necessary success
criteria are met. The design will be based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005;
USACE, 1987) and criteria that are developed during this project to achieve success. Physical
restoration and the return of the overall biological and water quality functionality will be
accomplished by fulfilling the following objectives:
• Improve water quality downstream by allowing nutrients and sediment to settle and be
processed in the wetland.
• Buffer flood flows downstream by increasing infiltration and storage areas.
• Design a waterway through the wetland complex with the appropriate cross-section, slope,
and pattern as to provide function and meet the appropriate success criteria for the wetland.
• Collect and appropriately apply reference data to develop the design for the project site.
• Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat diversity.
• Establish a contiguous buffer along the project that can serve as a migration corridor for local
fauna.
• Ensure hydraulic stability of the restored waterway through the use of natural materials (i.e.,
log sills) to create the desired hydrology within the project site as guided by reference data.
• Use natural materials and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design to the
greatest extent possible.
• Establish a native forested riparian plant community within the non-wetland buffer area.
• Establish a headwater wetland community.
• Integrate the removal of exotic vegetation during construction implementation.
• Provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 21
E N 0 I N E E R I N O
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification (narrative) and/or Wetland Type
The restored wetland will function similarly to a bottomland hardwood forest, but will consist of Non
Riverine Wet Hardwood plant community, transitioning into a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
plant community, according to reference data.
5.1.2 Target Wetland Communities / Buffer Communities
The wetland restoration will consist of two communities within the wetland area and one community
in transition areas as well as on hummocks within the restoration area. The two communities that will
be represented within the wetland area will be the Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum
Slough Subtype) and the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The community type on hummocks and
transition areas will the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype). In general the project
site will be restored as a bottomland hardwood wetland. Section 5.7 discusses the plant communities
in greater detail.
In addition to the restored areas, an area to the east of the restoration site will be preserved and left
undisturbed. This area includes Reference Wetland 1. The preservation area has no significant
invasive species issues.
5.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site was conducted to assist in restoration design and also to
document pre-restoration site conditions. As part of comprehensive pre-restoration monitoring two
(2) crest gauges (Rantz et al., 1982) were installed at the site (Figure 2). These gauges have a dowel
inside that holds granulated cork at approximately one-foot intervals. As flood levels rise, water
enters the crest gauge which suspends the granulated cork within the cylinder. As flood waters
recede, an adherence ring is left on the dowel. During manual inspection the distance between the top
of the dowel and the adherence ring is subtracted from the known elevation of the top of the dowel to
yield the maximum flood stage. These gauges have been monitored on a regular basis and also
correlated with rainfall events to thoroughly understand the effects of rainfall on the site with regard
to flooding (Exhibit Table 5).
Two flood events are illustrated on Figure 15 which indicates that the site currently floods on a
regular basis. The storm event occurring on June 20, 2006 produced 2.23 inches of rain in six (6)
hours which nearly equates to a 2-year return period storm (2-yr storm = 2.9 inches in 6 hours). The
resulting flood elevation at Crest Gauge 1, located at the ninety-degree bend in the existing channel
near the start of the project indicated that flood water has reached a peak stage of 19.93 feet. The
existing edge of Wildcat Road at the culvert location is 21.5 feet. Based on the information collected
to date, it is likely that the roadway temporarily floods during significant rainfall events.
Existing and proposed conditions were examined during the hydrologic analysis of the site.
Preliminary contours of the wetland valley were created to determine the difference in storage volume
between existing and proposed conditions. Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of additional water
storage will be created between the elevations 18 and 20 feet, assuming that all excess soil material
not used to fill the existing ditch is placed outside of Area 1.
rwV NATURAL SYSTEMS 22
1A C N 0 1 N E E R I N 0
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
To restore wetland hydrology at the site, it will be necessary to remove the existing 24-inch culvert
below the access road. To convey stormwater during intense periods of rainfall, it is proposed that
the existing access road be modified to also act as a stormwater conveyance device. Two sections of
the roadway, approximately 40 feet long and set at an elevation of approximately 18.0 feet, will
provide adequate hydrology upstream, while also conveying stonnwater at high flows. Near the
downstream end of the project two additional sections of roadway will be placed at a lower elevation
to allow movement of surface water during intense precipitation events. Sheet 2 illustrates the
location of the proposed ford crossings along the access road and at the end of the project.
5.3 Best Management Practices
Due to the rural nature of this project, individual stormwater best management practices (BMPs) have
not been required. If the opportunity presents itself during detailed design, stormwater BMPs will be
implemented. Stormwater management issues from future development of adjacent properties will be
governed by the applicable local and state ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any
future stormwater entering the site maintain pre-development peak flow. Any future stormwater
diverted into the project area should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions or
degradation of the project in any way.
A swine lagoon closure is being conducted approximately 500 feet east of the restoration project
easement area. This closure is expected to occur during the winter of 2006. Water and sludge will be
removed from the lagoon area and land applied in accordance with guidance provided by Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and the North Carolina Division of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Agronomic Division. Crop application will be based upon the amount of nitrogen
present in the sludge, soil types, and types of crops present for land application.
5.4 Hydrologic Modifications (for wetland restoration or enhancement)
5.4.1 Narrative of Modifications
This Restoration Plan for the UT Pembroke Creek site outlines a method for restoring the existing
agricultural property into a natural headwater wetland feature. The project goal for this restoration
plan is to modify the channelized water feature, based on reference conditions, with the intent to
restore its primary wetland functions such as nutrient cycling, flood storage, and providing wildlife
habitat. A pool and hummock complex will be restored at the site to disrupt flow and retain water on-
site to the greatest extent possible. Native vegetation will be incorporated into the design using
reference conditions as a guide. A schematic of the design concept is presented on Sheet 2.
The Restoration Plan for the site will be described in two parts to simplify discussion. The first
portion of the site is extremely flat and begins where UT Pembroke Creek flows under Wildcat Road
(SR 1208) and ends where the access road to the hog lagoon passes over UT Pembroke Creek. The
second portion of the site has minor relief and begins where the access road passes over UT
Pembroke Creek and ends at the project terminus where the cell tower access road crosses UT
Pembroke Creek.
Near station 1+00 a wetland valley feature will be used to divert the existing flow from the main ditch
onto the site. The proposed wetland valley dimensions were based on reference data (Exhibit Table
6) and yielded a bottom width of 10 feet and side slopes of 1:8. The design invert was set at the
measured water surface elevation of 18.0 feet. As depicted on Sheet 3 the invert of the culvert under
NATURAL SYSTEMS 23
E N D 1 N C E H 1 N a
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration - USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan - Chowan County, North Carolina - September 2006
Wildcat Road is 17.0 feet, and the top of the pipe has an elevation of 19.0 feet. Setting the proposed
wetland valley invert at 18.0 feet allows 2.5 feet of water storage above the design invert, before
water extends onto Wildcat Road. More importantly, the design elevation of 18.0 feet is based on
measured water surface elevations therefore the project will not be creating a water surface increase
for any upstream offsite properties or rights-of-way.
Filling the main ditch feature north of the access road will require approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
fill material. The wetland valley will generate approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Placement of excess fill material outside of Area 1 or on areas above 21.0 feet within Area 1 will
ensure that a net gain of water storage capacity is achieved.
At station 11+00 the wetland valley will transition into the existing land surface. Small channels,
hummocky areas and pools will be created throughout the wetland area. Reference cross-sections
indicated that approximately 30 percent of the "flat" wetted width had standing water or pools;
therefore, it will be specified that approximately 30% of the project area have standing water or pools.
Pool dimensions are based on reference data. Material pushed aside to make pool areas will be used
for the creation of hummocky areas.
At station 40+00 to 50+00 the surface will be roughened and minor earthwork will occur to promote
sheet flow. Small channels (6" to 12" deep by 6" to 12" wide) will be created along the axis of Area
1 B and also perpendicular across the valley. The conveyance of water across the valley will promote
wetland hydrology near station 12+00 and possibly stations 11+00 and 10+00. The existing access
road will be modified to have a constant elevation with two low areas that will convey flow during
large storm events. The proposed elevation of these areas is 18.0 feet. A Geoweb® or equivalent
material will be used to construct the low areas in the road.
Downstream of the access road it is expected that the groundwater table will be at or near the surface.
The existing pond will be integrated into the wetland design. The two wetland valleys will continue
south until they combine near main ditch station 24+00. Once the two valleys combine, the easement
area becomes narrow for the remainder of the project. Two low areas in the road, similar in design to
the areas along the access road, are proposed at the end of the project. The first low area in the road
will allow flow from Reference Area 1 into the project site. The second low area will be higher than
the first, but will convey large storm events.
5.5 Soil Restoration
5.5.1 Narrative & Soil Preparation and Amendment
As mentioned earlier, more than 40 soil borings were conducted on the restoration site. All borings
found that an acceptable topsoil layer exists throughout the site. After construction activities, the
subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over
the site. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the site
during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 24
E N CI 1 N E E R 1 N If
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration - USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan - Cho%%an County, North Carolina - September 2006
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is a very important aspect to the restoration of the site. Many
sources of information have been used to determine the most appropriate species for this restoration
project. The selection of plants has been based on the three (3) reference wetlands, the "Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" Third & Fourth Approximations as well as the sites
designed drainage characteristics. The three reference wetlands showed a mix of three community
types. These are Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest (Oak-Gum
Slough Subtype), and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Coastal Plain Subtype. The reference
wetlands had drainage areas ranging from 30 acres to 280 acres which matches the range in drainage
from the beginning to the end of the restoration site. These references showed nonriverine Wet
Hardwood Forests to be higher up in the drainages with smaller watershed sizes. The references also
showed Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp to be lower and be associated with the larger watershed
sizes. The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest was located on the fringes of the wetlands and on larger
hummock areas.
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was found in Reference Wetland 2 and it has a drainage area
similar to the outlet of the project site. Therefore, Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp was selected for
the area below where the Reference Wetland 1 drainage flows into the eastern drainage area. This will
provide the maximum drainage into the restored wetland and will be subject to more frequent
flooding. The remaining hydric soil areas of the site will be nonriverine wet hardwood forest. This
community type is represented by Reference Wetlands 1 and 3. Reference Wetland I has a larger
drainage area and is more representative of the central portion of the project site where the eastern
and western drainage areas are brought together just above the access road. Reference Wetland 3 has
a very small drainage area and is most representative of the upper portions of the project site.
The mesic mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain subtype) was commonly found on the non-hydric
soils surrounding the reference wetlands. Therefore, the mesic mixed hardwood forest (coastal plain
subtype) will be used for non-hydric soil areas within the project area as well as for a buffer around
the site.
Based on the information stated above as well as the plant species information from each reference
wetland, the restoration site will be zoned into these three (3) plant communities. A specific plant
species list has been developed based on these community types and can be found in Table 6. A
schematic layout of where these three community types will be located is shown on Sheet 4.
The preservation area will not be disturbed. Based on the Reference Wetland 1 data, which is within
the preservation area, the majority of the preservation area is nonriverine wet hardwood forest with
some mesic mixed hardwood forest on higher locations. The following lists the estimated acreage for
each area:
Table 23. Acreage for Vegetative
Communities
Community Acreage
Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 27.5
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 1.5
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 4
Preservation Area 26
?3] NATURAL SYSTEMS 25
.?.? E N a I N E E R 1 N E3
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration - USGS 11UC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
5.6.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
Some invasive species have been noted on the site. These include Lonicera japonica, Microstegium
vimineum, Ligustrum sinense, and Myriophyllum aquaticum. These species are currently isolated
along or within the drainage ditches themselves. The farm fields are currently grown in soybean and
are actively controlled for weeds by the use of herbicide. The movement of the topsoil will also stir
up weed seeds. However, some weeds will be inhibited due to the increased water tables on the site. It
will be important during monitoring site visits to check for any significant encroachment of invasive
species and to develop a plan of action to control any such problem.
6.0 Performance Criteria
6.1 Wetlands
Headwater wetland systems have a variable water table. The restored wetland will function similarly
to a bottomland hardwood forest (USACE, 2005), but will consist of a Non Riverine Wet Hardwood
plant community, transitioning into a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp plant community, according
to reference data. Plant community selection was based on the reference data (Section 4.0).
Therefore, the wetlands restored on this project site shall target establishing water tables near or at the
surface. More specifically, the water table shall be within 12 inches of the soil surface continuously
for greater than 5% of the growing season under normal rainfall conditions (USACE, 1987). The
water tables will be monitored by using two automated groundwater gauges located on the site.
Performance criteria may be defined more specifically based on long term reference data (USACE,
2002).
6.2 Vegetation
The restoration site will be planted with species appropriate for the three targeted community types on
the site. For each community, the vegetation will be monitored on an annual basis to determine
survival. This monitoring process will be conducted in an effort to show the survival of a diverse
target community such that the restored site has survival at a density of 320 stems/acre after three
years. This data will be monitored using sample plots (USACE, 2003) and in accordance with the
most recent version of the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP
Monitoring Reports".
6.3 Flow Features
Two swales crossing the access road will be installed to promote wetland hydrology; one in the
vicinity of station 18+00 and the other near station 33+00. The Swale will be monitored for overall
aggradation/degradation through the measurement of cross-sections.
NATURAL SYSTEMS 26
E N O 1 N E E R I N a
mwl I
mwlo
MIS We
!'4#
REFERENCE
REFERENCE WETLAND
MONITORING WELL
1998 ORTHOPHOTO (OFF SITE)
A v
600
0 300 600
SCALE:
V'= COO'
4,1
SITE
MW3
MW'
cr. I,
LEGEND
mw%uws
w
WATERSHED LINE
EASEMENT BOUNDAR
REFERFNCE SITE I BOUNDARY
EXISTING HYDROLOGIC FEATUPI--S
mw
A XW7
MW8 mwk
5�
MONIIORINGWELL
(-fvp(-
CRF S T GAUGE OR RAIN GAUGE
MARCH 24, 2006 ORTHOPHOTO
mw i 2,
mwl I
mwlo
MIS We
!'4#
REFERENCE
REFERENCE WETLAND
MONITORING WELL

SITE
AREA 1
SITE
AREA 2 � \
4
IVII I iu1a 1 1JN SUMMARY
ENHANCEMENT - 5.99 ACRES
RESTORATION - 17.03 ACRES
HEADWATER WETLAND (100' CORRIDOR) - 4,488 L1
PRESERVATION - 26.67 ACRES
TOTAL ACREAGE - 59.42 ACRES
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
RESTORATION AREA ,
HEADWATER WETLAND AREA
ENHANCEMENTAREA
WOODED PRESERVATION AREA
MARCH 24, '2006 ORTHOPHOTO
1998 ORTHOPHOTO (OFF SITE) SITE AREA 3
400 0 200 400
SCALU.1" 400'

z
C7
.-D
N
O
O
S
D
m
0
0
z
D
O
D

rFj C)
03
\\mm?v4?pE? O a
Apy^C D
pp
2 F ? ? ° j- \ DoD
c ado O
/ s Co :O?Ny O??? am /-;-? a
3? ?1 N r'o
s?( :t1 aC'••AOz?° 1?1 , xl;?-- ° Z -2W0
/ ? \ QL? ?af*10mm ?' ? N02g?t
\ jf? ?7 5 y O tau r ?"1t Zv
Cbfp N DyF N
> T Z
0) 7
G(A
D d
>r
u m
mo ?v D

i ? 0>

U
* e_
co =;
u
o fit °
o

`s <z

11 ?F4 n

'
1 o
P?NC

NO m Gl

i V

'? '?
t 111
\? 8 '•.1

1
N ---1 _' o
AfIUI m
;ou
°;5

?
? o
N z v ,
? ? z o x 0
F
m
m

cn
r
w N

_
1 ® {
I -r?
a
N
AO 0
?AZ?yO
00 0
•- Z a
m
a
?
zMu
1
-
?i»-tjy
-
M -q r - OS.Z(NOrAOy
2
Ng?`v
1

F -
O a
Z
> m
O r- av N
N N r V
1
"mow
JCa°i ?y
a m
m -< °
A
° a
m
r- °
0 r o °o
F 00 ax m z z m
c. Z. z 7
FNS ?
m8v ?? a y
D
v
N "
" 2
;u °
z N x ?n
F z yr m
o oo Z 12 au y o
r w z? 4

v
j m
F c
=
z
y
m
N
o
> vci pt*
° Ec
cci U) Z
0 m>
z 7 L s z?n
z?`ig
?
o z?
a
z
v
0
Z
m
( v
x
22
mo
00
czim
?
'a o
{ o
z
?l z v
Am
0 ZA oo 00=1
0

X p V1 ;UO NS Nz
y a-u 88 a
ox.
w

Z O
m
O
j
?
z

rn? 01> o
_zp-o
°
m
? ?
4
> X
0Z Z
>
?
?
m
D
o ?-
t
zA D
D
f
F rjcn
A
r a
°
m
0 z
6; sa
+ d
O L
0obO

'
';~?- OOH
NO
+> F
0 1 •: ?z_
d
[^m? \

Ir
I
i
If v
o °
a

®4c

o
y O
i • • D

m
,
P

ti + > N

'\,+ N
58+7y41 15 08 2a
v
n c f-
e `? Aa a o?u
?m?z ?v
c?
oo
N&a
Z
A ? O
a No?C
1\ ,\\ I FO z ?
'o m
?`\ Z V9 0
;u o
A O m
No ; a?oo ` y? ? F -4 X
"9 1 LYE a
n
m 9 zom
j '?+ ark
O ;u 01
D z
NO ii
O O
a?
O V
O W
N
DESIGNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT DATE: 943 -06 1 iNl AT U R .fl. L SYSTEMS
N
L]
MBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT NO.: EEP0601
'
"
tt tl1
.[?ti E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT PE =200
SCALE: 1 p 3719 Ronson Drive- Raleigh. North Carolina 27609• [phone] wwwnsol)c.com

"wn
ll?mj
m z
Z D
m
D
z
m r
N
m .?
AN
-m
2 K
c, N
n x d ? v? z ?? +c?a -' r r
a o
s?
x y

O
v :F
"S A
O
p to <
tv
C/1
=
Qa
CL ?' V] O O I ' eD O
`
'
.
O
O
?:
O (/)
A A LD mo
?-. 7
y? A
tD CD CD
W
CD ^ T. (A ?p ?
G . C a C __.----- b CD -
o c CD
W)
`° I

b
CD
S
T
CD
H
K
N

-?
C CD
A

d 0 N
J , I?
N
C O
o O
N Y
~
Q A o C
D
\O 0 At
+
rr
O J O? O
W A
o o as °
ry
<< y o
W N (?

00 0
w N

W oo O VJ
>
O
a' O .-- -- --......... -.
X a D\ CD \ \ _ .......
n
7
't "r
CD 0 A
N N
-L
?'
...
N
O?
`G O O .p. y CD
N 7y P +
cn
O °
G7 O

w
N
W
_
C
?
O
?-
rn C ? .? O V1 ?
L1 N ^* Y<
L'i
CD w
w ° W

`G N w C
CD ri tA

2 7 o w o a
w
N I p
A

b W
N
W
C
D
Cn C"D
n

d rD -1
.r °
X
CD ° No -
-
_ - ------ w
CD a O (
O
N v?
?
ti C
N .yy b7
H
? ?
p 0 ? CD O ? A'
-- '--

.4
00 c !
i

LD

cn In

C

C

.q

?
W N A
-4 O?

AD
C w
C _.
W
O^ x x = x
72, -
r x

o CD
C
b
0
C °
w
A
t
A L!o LA

^
??
o r
°? o O
X .. . orn o 4a. +
CD
d C

? ? ai
_ _
C, ?
n ?. J W

Z ? w
.ty O r
O w
° N O O O a' `? W N _
w .may

I w w w y O< w w ,
:; O G --t
0
o 1
p
N I
to i
o I
0 d
0 o CD nn?
Cl
' I I -OQ\ o o U M

?o o

0

00

00 o

o CD cc

W
rn
V]

O
C? J
O w
Q\ O
A O
N n
"
a\ 00
J
O
O
N m
O
v I w
v I I I I d 0 b
R v?? N r 1
???^C i" ?" '
ra < C o w - o n
J O O O J C ?
c W J N
?

?
c
x Q' c
C ar
C
D D CD
W
a
cc c
L W J
O
n
cN Q% CD O CD 00 CD
GD. CD O
CD O O
`D O
W

a
C
o ?
0
0 X*
. w
C7 c
c, a
o m
w p•
°c
00
w ?
o
C
5 cn
w
N (7
o
N O
go
o,
C?J
C
O
N
.a
y
V
w
N
O
rr
O
U A
7
w y
Q L
vU
L
c E
•? a
? O
A +'
? F
d
F
.0
s
w
4.
S
to
C
00 0
? ?
c
M
a,
b
0
s
.r
ca
o-r
O
O O O
h ci
O Qa 0?
a
0
L
L
N ?
40 O N
}, L N M
O
x
0
Q
C2 Tr
.L r7 ? ti
O C
rL^
V •?
?i
C
O
z
a
z
a
8 ?
U 00
c d
cC G
U .
d U
CLD U Q
ZZ:
C3 yam{
-
H V C
00 00 00 00
x x x x
00 00 00 00

"I C, C"i CIS
= = = m
W) O O O
M M M vl
E? E E= H
0
E
I U ?
c3
L 0. ,_, 0 v
3 C
o
O
Ct
i
L ti ? ? Q
41 01 01 j
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W 00 00 GO 00 00 00 OO
X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
'uN 'ad
N O O O O O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N iN
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,w
N O N O O N O N O O O'
0 0 0 0 0 0
U U U U U U
iv
IW)
M
O
Vl
V) O O O O
M M V1 Vn
ESE=HE~' ???
E=
d
O
U
i p
i ?
l
i
i W
L ?
v
i
i
L C
o ?
t
i O
i ?

Q S
y ?
Nn
1z
W _
N
W
N W
J
Q z
Q Z
Z W

UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Exhibit Table 8. Proposed Project Goals
UT to Pembroke Creek - D06102S
Mitigation Zones Acres Linear Feet
Nonriverine Wetland Enhancement 6.0
Nonriverine Wetland Restoration 17.0
Headwater Wetland 4,488
Nonriverine Wetland Preservation 26.7
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R 1 N O
U V PClnhmkc N1'CILvul and St:L7111 RcSIOTJOI111 • 11M 6 l IUC WON 105
Rc tuiation P!.m • Chmn' 111 Comity, North C;imlina • Scplcmbct 4000
Section 9.0 Fig-Ures,
Figures 9.0
NATURAL LiYSTEMS
P, r t " I.. r4 1-- 14 1 N ;J
SITS
� .. i lr ak -
f, r Sandpiro71
4 • q µ
Wild -1 Ch
S �• Nrr ,� ( ,y ,Ay.. p
o
36.089978.Nb
r ...
T6.6680876IV dpt Nor+•.. ' .,� s
j 11R Vo
N
AZ"
:' ';� ? «- i �RO , `r � H !Try 1, � � '~. "•+.. ++�.. I
•• t ,y1
r
�tEFEREIRC,p S1Tk 1 "x`5endpit
Cee
6,0
"•
� '.• ' "`• � EASEMENT BOUNDA -• -� .,� , s �`l� '
REFERENCE SITE'B -� :.. :re : • • ' \
it ' �" \'' ) `•- l i} .,* �- ' ..
`, s b...- ,� rt . . ; 1209 � i ... � `• :•. � � � ` �- y. -u. ����wN '=^ �..�jOndNit i
u�•• i • •tea +w
..►- .�^ � .,..,- taxa• � y »,>..-'J i "�:�tl✓y _'moi
Cama ° � TKMAI. FISH HATCk1E1+lY
71.
j i w
q7- E TON
00,
r .y
6 � _
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06 TITLE: PROJECT SITE AND REFERENCE 1 VICINITY
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN MAP, USGS EDENHOUSE QUAD
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601 PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK
r
NATURAL SYSTEMS FIGURE
E N G I N E E R I N G11 �t
E C'
II�
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com E. J1 C'Ii 11t

x. .
� V
m Z
600 0 300 600
SCALE: V= 600'
MW ti
SITE` `
y MW,
�1 Mw3^.
r
MW4 CGi�L
MWS
MW6
z
4�
Mw7 MW8 MWS
MW12�
MWI1
Mw1oti 6
1998 ORTHOPHOTO (OFF SITE)
Mw15 MW16
MW14 �
11W13Cr
fi
CG2
REFERENCE SITE 9
REFERENCE WETLAND
MONITORING WELL
LEGEND
WATERSHED LINE
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
R8
REFERENCE SITE 1 BOUNDARY
EXISTING HYDROLOGIC FEATUPI:S
LMwl
V
MONITORING WELL
CG/RG
CREST GAUGE OR RAIN GAUGE
MARCH 24, 2006 ORTHOPHOTO
Mw15 MW16
MW14 �
11W13Cr
fi
CG2
REFERENCE SITE 9
REFERENCE WETLAND
MONITORING WELL

SITEAL
2000 0 100( 2(00
SCALE: 1" 2000�s.—
REFERENCE SITE t
SEMFNT BO RARY
E SITE 1 BOUNDARY

1 vsx12VAC nvcRa3aNr - 1 rr
15.6
u
a
14.7
v
O
23
Fn
m
x
N
'o
M
O
zi
Fn
m
x
a
X
rV
o pp
o \
Fn
O (n
?m
292
N /
+
o
m m
m
rn
o Il)
x°o c + vo

REFERENCE SITE 1 CROSS-SECTIONS

UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8 06

PROJECT NO.: EEP0601
SCALE: AS INDICATED

eill ?
11 11; f 1 't'1) IV] )1 NATURAL SYSTEMS

E N O IN E E R I fV o

3719 Benson Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 [phone] www.nsepc.com

m m m
m
m
m

i
w
m
m
m

m m m
1Y

I Ij.r .. M -
I M ms's" -
X &O ?? REFERENCE E2
r?!!?
j NOTE: REFERENCE ITES"T J
!? ?L-OCATED O t=
PROPERTY NO ACC SS: I •' ?,;;
I WITHOUT OWNER P MISSION
r;
t
i
i 12 Mi. TO PROJECT SITE
I=
'G1r enf[eld ;
..;tocwrt GiOV! ?FEREN?CE SITE 3 . •
F t `e
lies - ,•? !
t!•< ,
71 7
, J
LEGEND - r r' ?•8 1000 i 500` --- 00
f - r-?
SITE AND ASUDARYj .4 CALE7 1" = 10001j
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06 TITLE: REFERENCE SITE 2 AND 3 VICINITY MAP,
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN USGS YEOPIM RIVER QUAD
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601 PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK
Y
NATO P. AL 5 Y S T E M S FIGURE
E N G I N E E R I N G 01 tem 9
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com 1,11 l,ll (Ill Wilt
r uoc: uMA
mz �
1
r
NOTE: REFERCNCE SITES
LOCATED ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY N , ACCFSS
WITHOUT OWNER PEKMISSION
4
y:2 MI. TO PRJECT SITE }j
..'f'o
z
1000 0 500. 10
MMSCALL.: 1" 1000' - -
\� REFERENCE SITE 2
3
LEbEND
WA,TE hi= D LINE �`� ,
E CE SITE 2 & 3 r UN15AR�' R FERENCE SITE �
A
1 $,ii RAKED c6LOR PHOTO
T

Q
z
REFERENCE SITE 2
NOTE: REFERENCE SITES
LOCATED ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY NO ACCESS
WITHOUT OWNER PERMISSION
LEGEND
REFERENCE SITE 2 & 3 BOUNDARY
12 Mi. TO PROJECT SITE
REFERENCE SITE 3
2000 0 1000 -,()OC
SCALE: V= 2000'

I

PRODUCTION DATE: 9-8-06 TITLE: REF ERENCE SITE 3 WETLAND DETERMINATION
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN SAMPLE LO CATION AND GAUGE LOCATION MAP
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601 PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK

NATURAL
SYSTEMS r
FIGURE
E N G I N E E R 1 N G ?tem 13
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] w ww.nsepc.com i
1{`.11 m it itch
p ROGRAM

o0
N + v
+ o0
m
N
O N
0m
20 ``
=1 - A ru
p o
r o
o
?m
N +?
V '
as
0? O
J
QA?A?L
N
• N
A
A
m('n AD
==I T
?m
ZA
PA
z4
? w
+
m
A "•-l/
N co
o 'I
T 14
A? I \
N i to p?
N p
o ' o
x
Ol
O X
W

to
p
00
OD

:6 1
a
A
IR
•o
A
A II
x?
N

II
a
4
X
s
Fri
mA
N
X
I
a
T
A
Fn
A
Nx
N

REFERENCE SITE 2 & 3 CROSS-SECTIONS
PRODUCTION DATE: 9-MS
PROJECT NO.:EEP0601
t . ' ' , ?
?
N A T U R A L S Y S T E M S
E N G I N E E R I N G
'p UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SCALE: AS INDICATED Li' OS Stem i
1 ,I ) 11, i I l(' t
3719 Benson Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 [phone] www.nsepc.com
YAW72CAL INCRA W - 1 17
0. VERTICAL IWRA30W - I FP

.?
¦

F RUUUG I IUN UAI L: 9-»-Ub HILL: KLb I UKA I IUN NIL F LUUU LVLN I MAH
NC COUNTY: CHOWAN PROJECT: UT PEMBROKE CREEK
NSE PROJECT No: EEP0601
NATO R AL SYSTEMS FIGUR
E N G 1 N E E R I N G 11 te pl 15
Raleigh, North Carolina [phone] www.nsepc.com 1' l l m eIl1C31t
rrcnGNAM
UT Pembroke Wetland and Streatrl Restoration • USGS IWC 03020105
Rcstoratiaon Plan - Chowan County, North Camlina • September 2006
Section 10.0 Desian Sheets
Design Sheets 10.0
`m NATURAL SYSTEMS
? E N !3 t N G !'_' R I N Q
w t Fm ® m
N T
T f
O \ °
' 4` _ ?//r?J 11
?T
Tu 1
m
u
l * r
V
fir(- N \A V-.

t ` 4"

? '3 Z
n
•J
3 m

?J
F1,p

u
41,
43
140
U) Y
lv
00
1
ig La W
W
D? 1
74
-1 0
f ox?x,
?1 iJ ? X N
/ oxx
?J ? = AJ? fJ 1
.,a t f sw 1
m ®fj A { r
n
fm
ZDA
25A M,;u
44 m
wm ?x x? ?
}' c N rn
mx
r2
k4m = ? ? ? £lp
J o 0 71
if ?? '\ ? G G w ? b ? b Ax x+t
II xN
o '
G` ?N
'd
\ 1 I
l?
lao
g dl` 4C
a

V 1

0?0o v-co ?0 -<
O
?
o
?
p
N
o
°
yr-fc?RR
{{JJ
m:i1 'a0??2SaO
?
A?
j
g
y
g?j$?°oDZO? °
N
S??mW? 0 N??
A?COp1 a -
Fao ; x0> (Ar,
r
N???
A
p \)
?
f*1
lp
O
f `-\
Z? C ?47p f<Zmy
Z
N
?
?O Z
v0 m
?=a Z2Z2 C? Z z ? 1 ?
M 0
r0a pm ?? O0a
QQ
Z
O
p Zy
Is
>
N
0
S0
g
u -u - ,

pN
• xp
134
r?

cn (n W to cn
=S=x2
mmmmm

XX mmmmm

T 0 ? j V -1?WN?
11111
ovrom

0
;a
C
N 2
_
1*1 2, mmomx
N N z (n (n
0
0
z
0 C ° a
Z O
0 0
0
m w N r zz9 zz
0 0 <,
-
.
i
?? m
R m z z o z
mAE! 6
0
2? C? o
\maocoo pp G7
m Zxcn
z
a ?'
z
?'
F
m o ? z -n
Z
(n ;0
o

Z

z r?*
m
0 i
? -
D o ?
c
o a
c0 0 mm
m0
A
c :
c
co m? 2 N v
DD?ro
0 m A
Z
°
m Z ? ?DZp
o
>
D 0
m to N !*1 I*1 F
C
-, m
m 7
, 6
Z
c 00
m z
A f
* 00 M
Ul
?
< Z

o=1z zz
Z o
Z
N (1)
- -~
N
O
O
(1) cn
_ (-)
m
-m °I m
_ O
Z s
v u
m
X N
O _
p O
- O
N
CD
O

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
DATE: s-a-os
E Y

NATURAL SYSTEM S
?
? NO.:EEPO6o1
ECT
PROJECT
C(S
Stel11
NO.: I E N O 1 N E E R 1 N C3
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION .
?
li
1
"
I .l Ic ; i (' 1? i ( 1
3719 Benson Drive- Raleigh, North Carolina 27609• [phone] www.nsepc.com

\ N
I m f I 7 -
z
0
N
N
O
0
D
n
m
0
O
Z
D
O
D
0

• z
? c
-0?0 N
m 0000
-rm? m ? cn? r
DmzN-u°Om 0
m D?S' ..412 ;mv > i
ao?vc??i D _ a
2D?121 fM*)z J Z- O
F??s C?J=a°?v(?o az ., c00a°-+?.o
C17 $ \QFn xf??r?° m ?? ?k5" mZ-4i°v
}/}?? ' "`? \ 3F R"5 sp zom ?z ??_1SzJ?.Izo
W `4 rN mz?? N m ®N co lp D?
- ° \ --
? obi
Cx $ f z
a ?x '\ N a+ z
??a{ + r? t ; ZP
m ?y G?z
A
??? D
? o
-cz 5?? ?F
m z I0 A ?t T?
,4 , P N c ,F ?
?z
zm4 o Z
z
0 o '1
rn o 0aPz
onOo
l' g Rr
N
LD
?o ,.
w 0? !'.. i
D ?v t
o 20 / 11
Ln ??Q\ I 1
A OON
O OAZ NO ',l t•,i
Na0 \ O p??- O()?J
8?0 0.:. v? ° ?,1ja29F
m-z ° ?z
mN
.; ez
mm °
n
?f
? v ?
° f
c^. o z ®?
;? 0 V) D N
D
`: P v
:.._ 1 is + 0 N
O " QNOy?
? v 02DOO
58+72,41 ?'1+00 A z Q
c-? c??z
c?

F O D i f
D m ZI
- C D m O O N v
i
m Z Z m
v _
F A v v
m
a
'
O o z `? R' r
N
>
N m
m -
zi
No m
u
F
z co
D Z
? 0 m
? o o ?C i4Nv
1 D
z z
z m z z a -cz
m ? D
m
v v c
i P
Z o
z Om C
'
v z
m
x m
z o
z
cn ? u to
o ?ZZ `2ta-t?o
?orzZ? r=aoz
NSA-•DO Oy O
??c?vN?z=a°?'>?o
°2-(o?0O?D$z"?,go?v----????
0 >??. A
Foo im> 0
erne ??n1 MI)
a o m?
4
Z?-°t 40 Qmy
2Fm ?w ?? tz,1Zr?i
il_$ z 2Z zQ
c? n
v
a?o z os z6Oz
??-0 08 V)
°z.
N
O
O
cn
n
D
r
m
O
N
O_ -'
O
O
N
O
O
? ' 1
30.}00` ?r=?7
r-:tTA?-~( cr
?i ? I
N
VO??
o.?o
Z0Q?
oZM;
A O
0a?g
C3?
m
W
DOZ
dog
a z
0Z
DESIGNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT DATE: 9 8-06 Y NATURAL SYSTEM S
N PROJECT NO.:EEP0601 ;
I
COS
St n ? E N G I N E E R I N G
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
SCALE: 1 "=200' _,
y
{
j' f J f t
f f „'t ' I 1 l i' l l
878-5444
w
nse
c
com
• R
l
i
h
N
rth C
li
27609•
919
3719 B
Dri
c ww
.
p
.
enson
g
,
o
aro
na
(
)
ve
a
e
Z;
??``-Z
'Wou
Q?voM
i >vPo
i @oF
W
?>
°zm

m
D
Z
m
X
D
-D
0
f 0
o(A
N Z
?)n
O8
?O
?F
0
M M o e t
-0
m

z 09 m
?<
?
z -u
m
-°D
O -0
m
O
O m
x

Z -o
m
-°D
0 m
x
N
Z O

M
o

=
m
m
D

O
z o

D
v
m
m

D
::A
O
Z o

p
c
o
N
c

M
D
C7
m

p
T7
D C

C
o
N
c

m
D
m )

p

o

D

M

M
D
0
z C)

c
o

D

m

m
<

Z
r
,n
M
z

O
z
0

1 °.•
O N W P CJ? rn v OD Ua p
= O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O 00+0 90ZL ?JSON
N ANI dWO
OV021VOOlM

C) D ANI dWO „tVZ
r 'ANI H0110 _
- c)2
om

;u
m
0 U) -n
? F
°m ?
r
Z
0 vm

Z
m'I
--A
0
Z m
00
O = I ZD

cn
c M Un
r

° (n
:I7 rn I

DZ
-n Da? ?v
00+9 I
o z c
Z
cv
I ?n
;u Do m ,
Or 0g
mz
r
r
Unc) m
-4 co
m
'ANI HOil
7
1 rl-?
OO+OL
00+91
OO+OZ
'ANI H0110
ca O N W i(J1
° O O O O O O
-----?CI?d?QO «t?Z- --
'AN[ dW0 Z
'AN[ ONOd NOW HO11O
t
ll
00+9Z
OO+02
9 MW
I:
v ? o
O O O O
-- ? 8 M W
OVO8 SS300V
w
103Sd 31N1 iN3WN011V
,k VONOp3S ONV 1N3WN011V NIVYi
0
?>N DT?co0(nrnC)
m;ucx;u
-
>
-0
u
ox
0
g xx-lommo
co * v

- D
D-O-<DZ
m
co
m
(1) m
Dv
?(nm(
-1 m m
?
T1
D ? <
z NoD?0
U z r _
+ ZN Zfn
o v
o
r
r
J OVO8 SS300V
9L MW
-
-L MN
ANI H0110
NI dViO „vZ
OV08 SS300V
Z6'CL+tp2 wti
ANI HO11O UD o ra w (n rn v a ca No
1V ON3 ° O 0 0 0 o O O 0 O 0 0 0
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE DATE: 9-8-06 - NATURAL SYSTEMS
?

EEP0601
NO.:
PROJECT

E N G I N E E R 1 N G
UT PEMBROKE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION l I_U,COS)'Sttlll
I
SHOWN
AS
l lli(')
'
)ll
l)
com
li
27609•
919
678-5444
w
n
c
i
h
N
th C
3719 B
D
i
- R
l
1
.
:\
u na
)
ww
.
sep
.
e
g
,
or
aro
(
enson
r
ve
a
mm m = = =? ==I = == = = = = m m =
m ® m m
tI 11'rull,ink? WoI; IlkI anal SIiuni Rcsiutaliun - 1'ti('S IIUC 0302010
ltt=?! nut7on flan • ('Ium in Ct,Ti v. Not Ih C.iiulit a• lllembrr 200?',
i
Section 11 Restoration Sits Photoq" rap nos

Appendix 1.0
?k NATURAL SYI?TEM``i 11 ._. L II I; I N L L _ 1 . r,_ 1 .i
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N O 1 N 6 E R I N O
Photo 2 - View from the northwest portion of the site. Buildings near former
hog lagoon visible in the distance.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
6 N 0 1 N C C R 1 N O
Photo 3 - View from the northern portion of the site looking south, directly in
line with the existing tree line.
Photo 4 - View looking east across access road that bisects the site.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N ? 1 N E E R 1 O
Photo 5 - View looking south-southeast. Note water in field. Cell tower in
the background.
Photo 6 - View looking north, directly in line with the existing tree line.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

1

Photo 7 - Photo at intersection of ditch and gravel road looking almost due south.
Photo 8 - Photo taken near beginning of small ditch feature, looking almost
due south. Project area is east of ditch feature shown on left of photo.
Water in right of photo is collected in farm equipment tire ruts.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N O 1 N C C R 1 0
UT Pclnwol:c %kcOanII and No -;mi Rcsioi;it!on • U`•(iS IWC 03020105
I!c toI.Itilm Plan • (I..oticaI It 'oil III y, NoIth (,;11 oIIGa • Scptcmhcr 2006
Appendix ?a0
f?lATURAL SYSTEMS
?tv--P. I. I l l3 1 11 I I I< 1 11 u
UT Pembroke Site
Flag 4015 - Wetland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Ur Date ' i ' I ,'?'
Applicant/ Owner: : County:
Investigator: ;n„ - , State 41C
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ? Plot ID: IW I-5 1.)
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. r Certe
r 10.

? 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). -':
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated

-"'No Recorded Data Available -- aturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
? -Drift Lines
Field Observations: vSediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
-/Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
II •..-r ,
Map Unit Name

(Series and Phase): l f_
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No n
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottlo Colors Mottlo Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structuro etc.
o-S A -- - 5 L
5/1 )0 P,0tn SI_ 5- k
/ )y s/I scL sgk
l

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sultidle Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
_i?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ? No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes --No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes -c No
Remarks:
e
s
e
e
s
s
a
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
e
s
t
e
UT Pembroke Site
Flag 4015- Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
I
Project / Site: I rt h P n,,h r n "I"/ CL
Date: t /CG
Applicant / Owner: F' F F
Investigator: County: C.1,'(!" Gn
State:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes u? No

Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No -=
(explain on reverse if needed)
Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spocies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 5..:<?•:Y :t?t? Tree 9.
2.:1c.?f rt4tij r. 10.
3.t??,;-,?, c 11.
4. /cYtit Pr 1 ~i') r ,.'?C7 ?r r" 1t-±:. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). ,?bo
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated

_L-""No Recorded Data Available -Saturated in Upper 12"
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: -'-°' (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
c -~ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
. , ' I

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): i ,
r > r'tio Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ! `Ins c_ "'+"! n• 0-5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No __!::?
Profilo Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottio Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure otc.
S-
/0
-7 IQ-
16T q

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histle Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colo rs -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ! Within a Wetland? Yes_ No _L:L
Hydric Soils Present? Yes -` No
Remarks:
l f f I ctuhn,l,c Wol.Ind :.nil t;nL-!m 11, ?Ioiaii n - U;:(611UC 030'111(6
G .?!olAiun [I'm • CCu Jn(y, Prurili (• `ic{'Otnidici 2006
RU,-ftstufflu ration it NfCf%5l)*-lq`C) ;r
Classificati'on Rwms
Appendix 3.0
C [AATUt=''AL. sYsTEMs
I North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
u
u
v
u
Data: /l Project 1a > ! .,
Latitude: t . 0?,C6 10 7
Evaluator. ,rt4r? >1?>'?"`r Situ: kui fie., rl t n'
Longitude: `76. Total Points: t
Stream tsatleastintermittent County: ?? L trt Other ;I3c3Lt 'E?
nZ 19 or vmnntaf tf x 30 e.g. Quad Name: 7. ?.
A. Geomo hol0 Subtotal = y S
1'. Continuous bed and bank Absent
0 Weak
1 Modorato
2 Strong
3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle=pool sequence -) 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting (0:} 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1, . 2 3
7. Bralded channel 0) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 17 2 3
9' Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Neadcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls Q? 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa 0 5 1 1:5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 47
Yes = 3
••••..,!.- vnv. w.s w V -W& 1 W[iV, J1."V V18W..1WViW III If kUIUJI
R_ Nvrirnlnnv hZ11hfnfM1 = /() f
14. Groundwater flow/dischargo 0 1 2
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or -growing season
0
i
2 ?
C r?
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris. 0 0.5
li 1.5
18.Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 E 1.5
19. Nydric soils (redoximo hic features resent? No = 0 Yes 1-P
C. Bioloav (Subtotal
20. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 (U` 0
21 : Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 t!
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 (y 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 ' 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 6..q> 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 t).> 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton i_o:_ 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizi bactenalfungus. 0 0.5 Cl 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL 1:5> SAV = 20; Other = O
1-1113 cu uflu c i focus on ufe presence of upiana plants, ttem zu focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
?Notes, (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
! f 11 "
'thy. LtYrtlgo4 S ail ?{ S :r.1 Qre A'60 jvy?el
t) r1C a . ??/ ??t' .0'(L -E?'nL(R'tft _14' ra "t' 4°ltM r{r^trtr
:?rti a??,';-;r.ri:>j _ ??rvrrtnrt a earf-i-?u?o(r_t•'s ?c??%fi -?1?4`.
•?r7Ch ?N?. `one Ct?"i%l?l'?' o t ic,.??cr- ?? c:r, ccr?u? -rr?-,»? ttt?. Ctrt?t? ?? +r')
rv'or?- J> tVL' ?j e C r^r^?terJr tf•S 4,r??CV 3e-r:;, Y ?I . ^ C1^1i} C Mj)lt OA,?
Ill' i':rijItIt4 c Wc'JaIId :ImI ?Inj I Hc,Wfutirr!t I '_;(6 111A, OION 0 ,
I'.r {oralirnI Pl.m • ('II(I1 ?:!I I( "aunty, No10 1--1iI I:i • ticplcn!hcr 2000
.,: j?
R V--k f e -1,A e ntc e S i t ®r P I i ? Lkog r y, ti, i s
Ajaj) radix 4.0
rj NATURAL_ ?3l`5TEM!3
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
C N O 1 N t t R I N O
Photo 2 - Reference Wetland 1
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

® NATURAL SYSTEM 9
N O 1 N 9 [ R 1 04 O
rnoto J - Icererence w ettana 1
Photo 4 - Keterence Wetland 1
t' I' I'cnilun c Al cll;ut,; mtd .`;twjlll 11c"Inuit ? ;I • (! US IIIi(`0 0"NOj
Kci,u:,ti,m 1'l;in • (6u.can Goucty, N„ilh I i,,lina • Sc,,Icmha X00(,
Reference Site 1 a uoAE Rc,utine
Wetland Determination ?ata arms

App(bndix 5.0
p t+JA,ruRAI- SYSTEMS
t
e
s
e
e
e
t
s
e
e
s
e
r
a
t
t
Reference Site 1
Wetland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)

t? 1?-?' ) ?
Project/ Site: Irr h?n,1 fa.?C ge-tr'-r' >,?.? , JJ yl_
Date:
?;' '1 db
Applicant/ Owner: .-N r County:
Investigator: r'..r')_?r", -} t; State: c .

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Spocios Stratum Indicator
1. A)Y-:5S 9.
2.rr. 10.

4. _,'P( 12.
T
5.!? -r?,a.• r%Z,orr,?; 7: e? 1L(r% 13.
6. r'r 1:3 i i '
r-' "r--
14.

8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
- Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
- Stream, Lake, or Tid Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
t-"'No Recorded Data Available ---Water Marks
- Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
_(,e-Drainago Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: fin.) +-?Water-Stalned Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ?• FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: f f

SOILS
Map Unit Name C
s:
Cl
i
`
(Series and Phase)•-'?-: x as
nage
Dra
c

Taxonomy (Subgroup)- ! i crf
'-t.5 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description;
Depth Matrix Colors
hiottlo Colors Mottlo Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munseil Molstl (Munsell Mloistj AbundancelCoo?ntre Structure, etc.

CCN

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
Histic Epipedon -Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
vSulfidic Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
/Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes v No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No - Within a Wetland? Yes t! No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Reference Site 1
Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: LiT l?F Lc' Date:
Applicant / Owner: t t county:
Investigator: T', 'on State: MIS

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes -No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No C---, Transect ID•
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: ?.-
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

o Ac_ 9.
e 10.
3r ; ,,.', ?n^. ?ti t. S?!y!?ril?tn 1: ? F-tci- 11.

C 13.
14.
7. ?4C 0 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). s'7
?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
•
No Recorded Data Available -,Saturated in Upper 12"
- Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: i_ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: _ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

X Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil:
30 (in.) ! FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS

Map Unit Name f
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class:
J
Taxonomy (Subgroup):^ ,,° •,`^ !?},S: rn, r- + lrrn= t Confirm Mapped Type? Yes._ No i!

Profilo Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottlo Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsoll Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. otc.

/0y
-2y-3a /bW 7/2 /0 W SL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol
Histic Epipedon _ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sultidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aqulc Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes L-- No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ?--? Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes - No '-
Remarks:
1! I' I'.mhrtidI 'Ao L] I _uld 4tlc:un I?C'10 1 • 1IS(IS IIIV I)."I),")10';
I:r.lwjtjoll I'lau • ('llov- r Cuuuty. Nolt!I !':?;, Ina • Sc'htcnil?rI '.006
Reference oga"Atu tgpb
Appendix 0„0
N ATURAt_._ EiY9TEMS
-y
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006

•
? y ? y ? t
y
sp
•
?

t"O'k C.

71

I ?T

Photo 1- Reference Wetland 2
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N O 1 N [ [ A l N O
Photo 2 - Reference Wetland 2
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL SYS'T'EMS
[ N O 1 N [ t R 1 N O
Photo 3 - Reference Wetland 2
Photo 4 - Reference Wetland 2
Ul IYMII;0I,- WCIkJILI 2111 50ewn Pc:;tu':Uiim • I'M I lUC 030211105
R( f,I;,tw q Plml - low-111 Comity. Nrilh C.uulwa • `;,--ptcmbcr 2000
Reference Site 2 - U SA103-E Routine
Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 7.0
NA-ruPA.1_ SYSTEMS
y L tJ f. 1 II C F- II 1 IJ (7

Reference Site 2
Wetland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
enc? ?Zz
b
/ Si
P It t-'?
D
t
r
o
roject
te: a
e:
Applicant/Owner: :mot'
Investigator: Sf i 4n County: ChCt.41"
State: "V c

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Nom Transect IQ:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: kt-_-t ' _?_ t,
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ?JY6St IJ.?- <srq F ?'. 9.
?'-.7 rrl r. ff-- ?+
10.
3.? 11.----
4.L' 12.
13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: _./_1? !(
Min] 1 M! `E-`7 t
T?L?a !`
??}`C?,?h /1 -r
T'trfr'•'??.1` ?%- :t.tl,"". `?v: I: j l?,l/??
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
_Z;-saturated in Upper 12"
?No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
-Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: /U (in.) = FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS

Map Unit Name r
(Series and Phase): / t

-Ali i"
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup)• Mapped Type? Yes_ No_
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottlo Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseli Moist)Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
4-

?, %Ir1n1I
/0111 ?I (I Z
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidlc.Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aqulc Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_!!?'Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes '--?No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes `-- No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes tf.- No
Remarks:

Reference Site 2
Upland
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Ge + 13 W)
ect /Site: (? 1 PL 4rC? tv
J ?
Pro Date: CZ
,r
.
j
Applicant/ Owner: F -E County: Ch tta?r
Investigator: nr'A-7 Ste; State: ,!?C

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes V/? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Nom Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes N Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

?
2.
•r 10.
3. i ric w - i ;J.? tr<? C- 11.
4..i91t r t Cr.. S 'r/:r. t'•Ci 'f 1' r_ e- 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tido Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: Secondary Indicators
_ Oxidized Roots Channels In Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Water-Stained Leaves

Ir Local Soil Survey Data
5 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: L-' FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS

Map Unit Name n,
.
(Series and Phase): rir? VC-7 r >?tic' I 'I ;
xh_- ?-.,ta'r) Drainage Class:,'" is {
i{1'?- ?
j
Taxonomy (Subgroup) '? (f C_ iLx n t5L Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottlo Colors Mottlo Texture, Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsoll Moist) AbundancolContrast Structure, etc.
c> r" ? I
j tJ 1?' Z,S
r'Pk07 L 5
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sa ndy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed On Local Hydrlc Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes r No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _ No r
Remarks:
s
s
IJ I' PC It IhnOx ,%cILl Itd .Ina ,' ft ('am Pc A( I. haul • l ,( iS I IU( ' 0',010105
P" Iof;IIIoil 1'I,.n • h•aH,w CoIII) NoI`II (.,1o na • SgI!cmllcI
%ft" h Reference S%itua% u r
Appendix 8.0
?', HATURAL_ L3Y5TENIE3
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
® NATURAL BYBTE M 8
i N O I K t C R 1 H 93
Photo 2 - Reference Wetland 3.
0105
2006
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N O I N [ E R 1 N D
I- nuw -i - D CICI VIAX VV CLIM u J.
Photo 3 - Reference Wetland 3.
Photo 5 - Reference Wetland 3.
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration - USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan - Chowan County, North Carolina - September 2006
1 ?
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
[ N D 1 N [ [ R 1 N D
rnoto - xeterence wetiana s.
Photo 8 - Reference Wetland 3.
[,I Pou:biul,c WLIhiid and 51u.nn Reani:it,( ;i • L!-;(6 IIt V 0307105
Rr,dinali'm Phn • ("lu,)..in Comely, Nnrll, ('mohi n • Scplcmh,i 006
I ?
Ll
0% OSAAO'hE R,,,-- ;j U U to
tin
1 Reference Site
1 Wetland Determination Data F""orms
I
I
I

1

I
I
1
Appendix 9.0
1
j NATURAL SYSTEMS
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Reference Site 3
Wetland
Project i Site (?L'_cti, Date:-
Applicant / Owner:-F C.
Investigator. TSUQ13-- 5, , Statetj• ?" ?CL?,
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Y03_L,-'' No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No C/ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No-__G_/ Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION

inan
Dom
nn
2.
3-_
? ?
5.

7
.
8.
Pe
rcen
Remar
t Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator If --n 9.
10.
C- 11. 12.
' N. i-A C 13. _-
15._
16.
t of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). ?di?/'?'l
ks:

HYDROLOGY
- Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
- Other _ Inundated

- -Saturated in Upper 12"
1,-
No Recorded Data Available _ water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
_(,,-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
_
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
oxidized Moots channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: c/Water-Stained Leaves
_ /Local soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: ?'FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remark _
s:
t
r
SOILS
E
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):?fc%????? ,
Drainage Class: 611(-J? ?, rJ}
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Io i c. ?y ? r r?c.10 eru s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No V1,
Protilo Doscrintion:
Dapth Matrlx Colors Mottla Colors Mottlo Toxturo, concrotions,
(inchos).- Horizon (Munsoll Moist) (Munsall Moist) AbundancefContrnst Structuro, otc.
?
A7

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_(?leyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes n-- No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes y' No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes t-- No
Remarks:
i
t
F
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes 4,-No

Project/ Site:
r Applicant / Owner, ?f-_F Coll nty:

n
Investigator:
State:_
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yos t!No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ?-?
Yes No L? Transect ID: _
Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Reference Site 3
Upland
vFr STATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

10
4. 12.
13.
.
6. 14.
7.-
15.
8.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). ?.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
Water Marks
? No Recorded Data Available
----- Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
r
Depth of Surface Water: ,_(in.)
Secondary Indicators:
in Upper 12"
l
s
Oxidized Roots Channe
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stainod Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
¦
Map Unit Name ,
(Series and Phase):__ ? --_
__ __.-___-_____Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No L?
Prorlo q- cription.
Depth Matrix Colors Mottl
o Colors Mottlo Toxturo, Concrotlonm
,
inchon Norizojn Munr>all Moistl _ _ _ (Munsoll Moist) Abundancolcontnst Structuro, otc.

#

_ 7 ! 7
5A
J
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
I wETL.AND DETERMINATION
I'H ydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ?? No Is the Sampling Point f
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No t.? Within a Wetland? Yes No 1?'
ydric Soils Present? Yes No

i I Remarks:
it PCIIIbII,I,c WohIIJ and tiu,?.III I;l'Sh)I; In)n • I S( is I It A* W020105
ItItioII PI;in -CI to,%au ('runty" NoI'II It :uUlJn;i • ScptcIII, c1 .,011 0
Preliminary Gamv Date dun°?r??ary
Appendix 10.0
NATURAI._ SYSTEMS
o ? o
oq
c1
Q?.
(ui) uol;ualdlaalj
kn o kn o k
M N N ^ O O
I ?
-------------- --
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. A I
c I
I
U I
a. I
Q I
I I
w
0
a.
Q
9o-unf-6I
90-unf-LI
90-unf-VI
90-unf- I I
90-unf-6
90-un f-9
90-unN7
90-unf- I
90-XB W -6Z
90-,(L'w-LZ
9o-AUtN-17Z
90-AL,W-ZZ
90-AL'IN-6I
90-xuw-9I A
90-AU W -b I
90-,(Bw-I l
90-XL'IN-6
90-Am-9
90-Am-£
90-AL, W- I
90-idd-8Z
90-ldd-9Z
90-ldd-£Z
9o-ldd-OZ
90-add-8 I
90-add-S I
90-1dd-£ l
O O O O O O O O
O N M IT 1?1 "?
(13) ialumpuno iE) o; il;daQ
N°
2 z
f'
U]
W
N
W
J
Q z
? n
F-
Q z
z W
rzlqgxl
Lxld
C) 0
_o
O N
N
O V
o E
? v
w N
a o
C U
O
' F
O O
vz
_%] C
c 3
c o
u
c u
v h
3 a.
0 0
E o
F u'
O vl O vl
;r ?n ? to
0
II
C7
(ul) uoijvj!dpa ld
O W) O vi
M N N --
O ? O
^ O O
l
I }
}
t =
I _ -
I !
I _ -
I i -
j -
j -
I j -
i =
Gl I s n =
I } _
I
I _
I i
90-unf-6I
9o-unf-L I
90-unf-bl
90-unf-I I
9o-unf-6
9o-unf-9
90-un f-f7
9o-unf-I
90-XE W-6Z
90-A'3W-LZ
90-At W-bZ
9o-Arw-ZZ
90-XB W-6I
w
90-xuw-9I A
90-AU W-b I
90-,(u W- I I
90-AUW-6
90-xuw-9
9o-A W-£
9o-AUW-I
9o-adV-8Z
90-jdd-9Z
90-adN-£Z
90-jdd-OZ
90-1dd-8 I
90-ldd-S I
90-ldd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
^ O ^ N ri ? vi ?D
(13) aapmpunoi!) o; ilidaQ
N a
2 z
F-
Ul
W
U1 W
J
Q z
? n
i-
Q z
z W
rzqk-lrl
LIA
[- vc (-, _ 0
C7 c3-S
I I
(Ul) UOIJUJ!dlaadd c4
o v? o v? o kn O kn O kn o
to ct' V M M N N ----O O
3 _ 90-unf-6I
90-unf-LI
90-unf-VI
90-unf-I l
1 90-unf-6
90-unf-9
90-unf-t7
i = 90-unf-I
1 90-hW-6Z
I 3
90-AUW-LZ
3
90-XU W-t7Z
3
90-Auw-ZZ
I 3
. 90-AEIN-6l
! = 90-,('W-9I A
_ 90-ALW-t7l
3 =
= 90-ALW-I l
F . 90-ABW-6
i -
i - 90-Anw-9
90-,CnyN-£
I 1>
N
i o 90-XLW-I
3 0 _ 90-idd-8Z
I ?
C? I i Ca 90-idd-9Z
- 90-1dd-£Z
90-1dN-OZ
j 90-1dd-8 l
90-idd-S l
I
90-ldV-£ l
O O O O O O O O
O ? N M '? U1 O
(a3) aaaumpunug o; illdaQ
IA °
z
(n ?
W
Ul w
J
Q z
Q z
z W
rgqi;xl
O Wn o Wn
W) V V m
N
C-j
C7
(ui) uopuildpi Id
o v, o
M N N
?n o kn o
I ` -
t
i j _
=
I ?
4. I t . C -
U i a a-
Q
I
S?
90-unf-6I
90-unf-LI
9o-unf-VI
9o-un f- I I
9o-un f-6
90-unf-9
90-un f-l,
90-unf-I
90-Au W-6Z
90-AuW-LZ
90-Au W-bZ
90-xu W-ZZ
90-Xu W-6I
90-xuW-9I A
9o-xu W -t,I
90-xuW-I I
90-Xu W-6
9o-xu W-9
9o-XuW-£
9o-Xu W- I
90-.idd-8Z
9o-jdd-9Z
9o-ldd-£Z
90-idd-OZ
90-ldd-8 I
9o-idV-S I
9o-ldd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
C N M V vi ?O
(11) .ia;untpunoag o; gldaQ
N o
2z
N
W
N W
J
Q z
? n
Q z
z W
LM
v
M -Y ?n GA
I
(ul) uoljujIdlJO-ld
o ?n o v, o v? o ?n o v,
Vl '?7 M M N N --? O
0
O
i -
i -
i
f
f I
i ?
I r-
I
I
I
C ( i
I i
i
4
I
r
I
I
I
U I a,
Q I L? -
c
I
i -
i -
9o-unf-6I
90-unf-L t
90-unf-tii
90-unf-I I
9o-un f-6
90-unf-9
9o-unf-t7
go-unf - I
90-SuN-6Z
90-XL'W-LZ
9o-AnVI-t7Z
9o-XL,vi-ZZ
90-AE W-6 t
v
90-Auw-9t A
90-XVN-J71
9o-,(UIN-I t
90-XBIN-6
90-xuw-9
90-xvw-£
90-AE W-t
90-ldd-8Z
90-ldd-9Z
9o-ldd-£Z
9o-ldV-OZ
9o-ldd-8 t
9o-ldV-S I
9o-idd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
C? IT 1?1
(as).miumpunoat) o; Il;daQ
Lrl
z
F-
W
N
W
J
Q z
? n
F-
Q z
z W
R:qQq
Lxkj
m
a?
r-- CIO
M cu
L C2,
(7
(ui) uopupdpaij w
o v, o n o W) O vn O W) O
N M M N N ^-^ O O
} 90-unf-6I
90-unf-L I
I E
90-unf-t7l
i
-. -- j 90-unf-II
90-unf-6
90-unf-9
I `
90-unf-17
90-unf-I
I E
90-Xu W-6Z
E
90-Xu W-LZ
90-An W-t7Z
90-xn W-ZZ
I
E 90-AU VI-61
I f
90-xuw-91 A
I ?
i 90-XVW-bI
I
90-,(L W- I I
I E
90-A W-6
s
I € 90-A W-9
cum
90-AW-£
I \>
w 90-xuW-I
E o
U ( ? ~? 90-idH-8Z
a I ! O 90-ldd-9Z
Ea I E
90-add-£Z
I
90-jdH-OZ
E 90-ady-8 I
I E
I '
90-ldd-S I
I E
90-1dd-£ I
O O O O O O O O
^ O N M vl lJ
(11) JOJUMPUMID o; il;doa
Ul a
2z
F-
Ul
W
Ul u
J z
Q
? u
Q z
z W
WIWI
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Gauge Data Summary
Groundwater Elevation Information
Note: All data reported in inches from ground surface
DATE MW I NIW 2 NIW 3 MW 4 MW 5 NIW 6 NIW 7 MW 8 MW 9
04/13/06 -33 --- -30 -28 -21 -20 -16 -27 -28
04/14/06 -33 --- -30 -28 -21 -20 -16 -28 -29
04/15/06 -34 --- -31 -29 -21 -20 -16 -29 -30
04/16/06 -34 --- -31 -30 -22 -22 -17 -30 -31
04/17/06 -35 --- -31 -30 -22 -22 -18 -31 -32
04/18/06 -36 --- -31 -31 -23 -24 -18 -31 -33
04/19/06 -37 --- -32 -31 -23 -24 -18 -32 -34
04/20/06 -37 --- -32 -32 -24 -24 -19 -33 -35
04/21/06 -38 --- -32 -32 -24 -25 -19 -34 -36
04/22/06 -38 --- -32 -32 -24 -25 -19 -34 -37
04/23/06 -39 --- -32 -32 -23 -25 -18 -34 -37
04/24/06 -39 --- -32 -32 -23 -25 -18 -35 -37
04/25/06 -39 --- -32 -32 -23 -25 -18 -35 -38
04/26/06 -39 --- -33 -32 -24 -26 -18 -35 -38
04/27/06 -39 --- -32 -33 -24 -26 -18 -35 -39
04/28/06 -41 --- -32 -33 -25 -26 -18 -36 -39
04/29/06 -41 --- -33 -34 -25 -27 -19 -36 -39
04/30/06 -41 --- -33 -34 -26 -27 -20 -37 40
05/01/06 -41 -41 -33 -34 -26 -28 -21 -37 -41
05/02/06 -41 -41 -33 -34 -25 -27 -21 -37 -40
05103106 -41 -41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -21 -37 -41
05/04/06 -41 -41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -21 -38 -41
05105106 -41 -41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -21 -38 -41
05106106 -41 -41 -34 -35 -26 -28 -20 -38 -41
05/07/06 -41 -41 -33 -34 -24 -27 -15 -30 -41
05/09/06 -30 -41 -28 -18 -11 4 -1 -6 -15
05110106 -28 -41 -29 -22 -16 -10 -8 -14 -18
05111106 -28 -41 -30 -25 -18 -14 -11 -18 -22
05/12/06 -29 -41 -31 -26 -19 -17 -13 -21 -24
05/13/06 -31 -41 -31 -27 -20 -19 -14 -24 -27
05/14/06 -32 -41 -31 -28 -20 -21 -16 -26 -29
05115106 -23 -41 -27 -15 -10 -4 0 -7 -15
05/16/06 -18 -41 -27 -16 -9 -2 0 -7 -9
05/17/06 -21 -41 -28 -22 -15 -8 -8 -18 -16
05/18/06 -23 -41 -29 -24 -17 -13 -10 -21 -19
05/19/06 -25 -41 -30 -25 -19 -14 -11 -24 -22
05/20/06 -27 -41 -30 -26 -19 -17 -13 -26 -25
05/21/06 -28 -41 -31 -27 -19 -19 -15 -28 -28
05/22/06 -30 -41 -31 -27 -20 -21 -16 -29 -30
05/23/06 -31 -41 -32 -28 -21 -22 -17 -30 -32
05/24/06 -32 -41 -32 -28 -21 -23 -17 -31 -34
05/26/06 -34 -41 -32 -28 -20 -23 -17 -32 -36
05/27/06 -34 -41 -32 -29 -21 -23 -17 -32 -36
05/28/06 -35 -41 -33 -30 -21 -25 -17 -33 -37
05/29/06 -36 -41 -33 -30 -22 -25 -18 -34 -37
05130106 -37 -41 -34 -31 -22 -26 -18 -34 -38
NATUR AL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R I N 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Gauge Data Summary
Groundwater Elevation Information
Note: All data reported in inches from ground surface
DATE
05/31 /0
06/01/0
06/02/0
06/03/0
06/04/0
06/05/0
06/06/0
06/07/0
06/08/0
06/09/0
06/10/0
06/12/0
06/13/0
06/14/0
06/15/0
06/16/0
06/17/0
06/18/0
06/19/0
06/20/0
MW1
-37
-38
-38
-19
-12
-5
-6
-12
-13
-8
-14
-7
-5
-5
0
-5
-9
-12
-15
-17
MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5 MW6 MW7
-41 -34 -31 -22 -26 -18
41 -34 -31 -22 -26 -18
-41 -35 -32 -22 -27 -19
-34 -22 -10 -8 -5 -3
-31 -23 -11 -6 0 -3
-31 -25 -4 -3 2 -2
-30 -25 -9 -6 1 -3
-34 -27 -17 -12 -1 -7
-34 -26 -15 -14 -2 -5
-21 -20 -11 -9 0 -1
-27 -24 -19 -14 -1 -6
-23 -22 -7 -10 2 2
-18 -20 -9 -9 1 0
-22 -23 -13 -11 0 -3
-5 -5 -5 -3 2 2
-13 -16 -12 -9 0 -4
-19 -21 -16 -12 -3 -7
-24 -24 -17 -14 -7 -8
-28 -26 -18 -14 -10 -9
-32 -27 -18 -15 -12 -10
MW8 MW9
-35 -38
-35 -38
-36 -38
-9 -10
-4 -3
-1 -1
-4 -3
-15 -8
-13 -10
-3 -3
-13 -7
-2 -2
-2 -2
-8 -3
1 -1
-7 -5
-16 -11
-19 -17
-20 -20
-22 -22
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G i N E E R 1 N G
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
DATE
04/13/06
04/14/06
04/15/06
04/16/06
04/11/06
04/18/06
04/19/06
04/20/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
04/23/06
04/24/06
04/25/06
04/26/06
04/27/06
04/28/06
04/29/06
04/30/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
05/05/06
05/06/06
05/07/06
05/09/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/12/06
05/13/06
05/14/06
05/15/06
05/16/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/19/06
05/20/06
05/21/06
05/22/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/26/06
05/27/06
05/28/06
05/29/06
05/30/06
NIW 10
-15
-16
-16
-18
-18
-18
-20
-21
-22
-22
-17
-18
-20
-20
-17
-15
-19
-22
-23
-23
-23
-23
-22
-19
-16
-2
-4
-6
-9
-13
-14
-1
-1
-4
-6
-6
Gauge Data Summary
Groundwater Elevation Information
Note: All data reported in inches from ground surface
NIW 11 I%IW 12 AIW 13 NIW 14 AIW 15 AIW 16 I%IW 17 MW 18
-14
-18
-20
-21
-20
-17
-17
-19
-20
-13 -16 -30 -41 -11 -1 ---
-14 -17 -30 -41 -11 -1 ---
-15 -19 -30 -41 -11 -1 ---
-17 -21 -31 -41 -12 -1 ---
-17 -20 -32 41 -13 -1 ---
-17 -21 -32 -41 -13 -1 ---
-18 -22 -33 -41 -15 -1 ---
-18 -24 -33 -41 -16 -1 ---
-19 -26 -34 -41 -17 -1 ---
-19 -26 -34 -41 -18 -1 ---
-17 -23 -35 -41 -17 0 ---
-16 -25 -35 -41 -19 -1 ---
-17 -27 -35 -41 -20 -1 ---
-17 -28 -36 -41 -20 -1 ---
-16 -26 -36 -41 -20 -1 ---
-15 -25 -36 -41 -20 -1 ---
-16 -28 -37 -41 -21 -1 ---
-19 -31 -37 -41 -22 -2 ---
-20 -32 -37 -41 -23 -2 ---
-20 -33 -38 -41 -23 -3 ---
-20 -34 -38 -41 -24 -4 ---
-20 -36 -38 -41 -25 -6 ---
-19 -37 -38 -41 -25 -6 ---
-16 -35 -39 -41 -24 -5 ---
-13 -34 -39 -41 -23 -5 ---
-4 -15 -30 -41 -9 1 ---
-6 -19 -28 -41 -10 0 ---
-8 -21 -27 41 -11 0 ---
-10 -24 -28 -41 -11 0 ---
-13 -27 -29 -41 -14 0 ---
-15 -29 -30 41 -16 0 ---
-3 -14 -25 40 -9 1 ---
-3 -12 -21 -37 -9 1 ---
-7 -17 -23 -38 -10 1 ---
-8 -20 -25 -39 -10 1 ---
-7 -20 -26 40 -10 1 ---
-11 -24 -27 -41 -11 1 ---
-14 -27 -27 -41 -14 0 ---
-16 -30 -28 -41 -16 0 ---
-18 -32 -29 -41 -18 -1 ---
-19 -33 -30 -41 -20 -2 ---
-18 -36 -31 -41 -21 -4 ---
-16 -37 -32 41 -21 -4 ---
-16 -38 -33 -41 -23 -6 ---
-16 -39 -33 -41 -24 -7 ---
-17 -39 -34 -41 -25 -9 ---
NATURAL SYSTEMS
RA E N O 1 N E E R 1 N 13
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Gauge Data Summary
Groundwater Elevation Information
Note: All data reported in inches from ground surface
DATE
05/31/06
06/01 /06
06/02/06
06/03/06
06/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
06/07/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
06/12/06
06/13/06
06/14/06
06/15/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
06/18/06
06/19/06
06/20/06
MW 10
-21
-21
-22
-5
-2
-2
-4
-4
-2
-5
0
-1
-1
0
-3
-7
-11
-13
-15
MW 11 MW 12 MW 13 MW 14 MW 15 MW 16
-17 -39 -34 -41 -26 -12
-18 -39 -35 -41 -27 -14
-18 -40 -36 -41 -28 -16
-2 -16 -25 -38 -13 -2
-2 -14 -18 -32 -8 1
0 -9 -13 -31 -7 2
-1 -9 -13 -29 -8 2
-4 -14 -18 -33 -9 1
-5 -13 -18 -34 -7 2
-1 -5 -12 -28 -6 3
-5 -8 -18 -32 -8 2
0 -3 -10 -27 -4 3
-1 -3 -9 -25 -7 3
-2 -4 -9 -28 -6 2
4 -1 -1 -11 -1 4
-1 -4 -7 -22 -5 4
-5 -7 -11 -26 -6 3
-7 -12 -15 -29 -6 3
-10 -15 -19 -32 -7 2
-12 -19 -21 -34 -7 2
MW 17 MW 18
-9 -12
-10 -14
-6 -10
-5 -8
-6 -9
-6 -10
-7 -12
-8 -13
-8 -14
-10 -16
-5 -10
-4 -7
-3 -7
1 1
-2 -1
-4 -3
-5 -5
-6 -7
-7 -9
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N O
i
i
i
i
i
I ? 1" PumI,ioke NNclland .nILf Strcam I,cmrnation • USGS Ill I(' 0302010i
Kc,fwation flan • (,lim an ('amity, NoiIh ('M01ina • Scplcmbcr -:000
UT to Pembroke Creek Wetland
Water Budget.
Appendix 11.0
' NATURAL SYSTEMS
?' L r+ u i r+ _ L a 1 r4 u
UT Pembroke Wctland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Water Budget
for the UT Pembroke Creek Wetland and Stream Restoration Project
A water budget was developed for the Ecosystem Enhancement Project in Edenton to assess
the viability of establishing wetland hydrology in the site area. The water budget was based
upon methods given in Pierce (1993) Planning Hydrology for Constructed Wetlands.
Calculation of the water budget requires knowledge of hydrologic inputs and outputs as well
as approximate site dimensions and characteristics of the soils present. The water budget
results verify that there is an ample amount of water to meet proposed wetland hydrology
criteria. South of the access road wetland hydrology can be easily achieved based on site
observations. North of the access road the sight is constrained by NCSR 1208, Wildcat road.
NCSR 1208 at that location has an elevation of 21.2 feet. This constraint limits how high the
water table can be raised because of the possibility of flooding the road during a high water
event. Additional analysis of the site monitoring data, incoming water flow, stormwater
runoff, surface flow, and rainfall data is necessary to tell whether or not this section of land
will have a water table close enough to the surface to support a wetland.
The following equations are from the Engineering Field Handbook (USDA, 1997).
OS/At = Qi - Qo
where: OS/At = change in water volume per change in time
Qi = flow rate of water entering wetland
Qo flow rate of water leaving wetland
Qi = P + Ri + Bi + Gi + Pi + Ti
where: P = direct precipitation
Ri = stormwater runoff from contributing drainage area
Bi = base flow from streams entering wetland
Gi = groundwater entering wetland
Pi = water pumped or artificially added to the wetland
Ti = tidal flow into wetland
Qo=E+T+Ro+Bo+Go+Po+To
where: E = evaporation from surface
T = transpiration
Ro = stormwater outflow
Bo = base flow leaving wetland
Go = groundwater leaving wetland
P, = water pumped or artificially removed from wetland
To = tidal flow out of wetland
S=Ss+SP
where: S = total volume of stored water
Ss = volume of stored surface water SP = volume of stored subsurface water
NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 0 1 N E E R 1 N 0
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Site Data
Table 1 - Soil Physical Properties
Depth Hydraulic Conductivity Porosity
Soil type (in) Texture (MM/11) (%
Roanoke 0-8 Silty loam 25 43
8-19 Silty clay loam 8 49
19-33 Silty clay 3 51
Tomotley 0-7 Fine sandy loam 25 43
7-12 Fine sandy loam 25 43
12-42 Sandy clay loam 8 49
Dra sg ton 0-7 Loamy fine sand 25 43
7-10 Loamy fine sand 25 43
10-20 Sandy loam 25 43
20-27 Sandy loam 25 43
Portsmouth 0-12 Black loam 12 47
12-16 Sandy loam 25 43
16-36 Sandv clav loam 8 49
Data obtained from Pierce, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, fourth edition
and Schwab, Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.
Table 2 - Soil Areas
Soil Type Area (ft)
Cape Fear 11,184
Dragston 84,398
Nimmo 37,478
Portsmouth 245,168
Roanoke 804,058
Tomotley 260,202
Total Area 1,442,487
Table 3 - Mean Temperature
Month Mean temp (°C)
January 6.1
February 7.4
March 11.4
April 15.8
May 20.3
June 24.3
July 26.6
August 25.6
September 22.7
October 16.9
November 12.4
December 7.9
Data obtained from NRCS website 07/06
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 6 1 N E E R 1 N 6
i
i
s
s
i
t
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Water StorajZe
Table 4 - Water Storage
Average Water Storage Capacity(ft)
Soil Type Depth(in) Capacity (in/in) (depth)*(capacity)*(area)
Cape Fear 0-17 0.185 5,704
17-36 0.17
Dragston 0-10 0.085 21,521
10-36 0.12
Nimmo 0-6 0.08
6-25 0.125 8,995
25-36 0.06
Portsmouth 0-16 0.15 110,325
16-36 0.17
Roanoke 0-8 0.17
410,070
8-36 0.175
Tomotley 0-7 0.125 97,575
7-36 0.15
Total 654,190
Data obtained from Soil Survey of Chowan County.
Using a storage depth of three feet a total subsurface storage capacity of 654,190 ft3 was
calculated. Due to the site constraints there will not be surface water in most of the
wetland, with the exception of the channels flowing through the wetland. In accordance
with this, a conservative estimation of no surface water was made for calculation purposes
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G 1 N E E R I N O
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Input
Precipitation
The average annual precipitation over the last 30 years was 48.6 inches. Over the square
footage of the property a volume of 5,842,072 ft3 is calculated.
Rainfall data obtained from the NRCS website (7/06).
Ground Water Flow
The ground water flow was calculated by an equation given in Applied Hydrology rology Third
Edition.
VX = - ( K / ne) * (dh/dl)
where:
VX = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
ne = soil porosity
dh/dl = change in vertical distance over change in horizontal distance
For all soils K was 25 or less and ne was 49% or less. A value of 20 was selected for K and
a value of 50% was selected for ne as conservative for calculation purposes. A total
volume of 93,171 ft3 per year was calculated to enter the wetland.
Articially added Water
There is no water artificially added to the wetland area.
Tidal Flow
The water level in the wetland is not influenced by the tides.
Base Flow
These calculations assumed base flow to be equal to zero.
Stormwater Runoff
Initial results fro the water budget indicate that the site has excess water. Furthermore, the
potential "dry" area on the site will be dry due to off-site constraints (Wildcat Road). To
simplify the water budget calculations, stormwater inputs are assumed to be zero.
0
0
a
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 6 1 N E E R I N G 4
1 UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS IIUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Output
t Evapotranspiration
The ET was calculated using the Thornthwaite Method, temperature data was acquired
from the NRCS website 7/06.
ET=1.6*(10*Ta/I)a
where: ET = evapotranspiration
Ta = mean monthly air temperature ff )
I = heat index over 12 months
a = 0.49 + 0.0179 * I - 0.0000771 * I2 + 0.000000675 * I3
I = sum of 12 i values
i = ( Ta / 5 )1.514
where: i = monthly heat index
Ta = mean monthly air temperature (°C)
Water loss due to evapotranspiration is 34.88 inches per year due to a heat index of 78.22.
The value of "a" is 1.741.
Ground Water Flow
The ground water flow was calculated by an equation given in Applied Hydrology, rology, Third
Edition.
I *
VX = - ( K / ne)
(dh/dl)
where:
VX = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
ne = soil porosity
dh/d1= change in vertical distance over change in horizontal distance
For all soils K was 25 or less and ne was 50% or less. A value of 20 was selected for K as
conservative for calculation purposes. Actual values of 43% and 50% were used for ne. A
total volume of 11,472ft3 per year was calculated to leave the wetland.
t Artiricially Removed Water
No water is artificially removed from the wetland.
Tidal Outflow
The water level in the wetland is not influenced by the tides.
Stormwater Outflow
Based on the decision to simplify the calculations and assume no stormwater flow inputs,
stormwater outflow will be zero.
Base Flow
These calculations assumed base flow to be equal to zero.
NATURAL SYSTEMS
®
E N 13 1 N E E R 1 N Q 'S
UT Pembroke Wctland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
Summary
Storage
Ss=0ft3
SP = 654,190ft3
S = 654,190ft3
Inflow
P = 5,842,072ft3
Ri = 0 ft3
Bi = 0 ft3
Gi = 93,171 ft3 from surface to a depth of 3 feet
pi = 0 ft3
Ti = 0 ft3
Qi = 5,935,243 ft3
Outflow
E + T = 4,132,725ft3
Ro = 0 ft3
Bo=0 ft3
Go= 11,472ft3
Po=0ft3
To = 0 ft3
Qo = 4,144,197 ft3
Change in volume
Qi= 5,935,243ft3
Qo 4,144,197ft3
AS/At = 1,791,046 ft3
The water budget results verify that there is an ample amount of water to meet proposed
wetland hydrology criteria for the majority of the site. Calculations indicate excess water
when inputs were compared to outputs (OS/At = 1,791,046 ft). It was assumed that
stormwater inflow/runoff was zero and that channel base flow in and out of the site was
zero. Even with these extremely conservative assumptions, calculations indicated excess
water at the site.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N G I N E E R I N G 6
UT Pembroke Wetland and Stream Restoration • USGS HUC 03020105
Restoration Plan • Chowan County, North Carolina • September 2006
References
Fetter, C.W. 1994. Applied Hydro eg ology, Third Edition.
National Cooperative Soil Survey 1995. Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina.
NRCS website. f I2:Hftl2.wcc.iires.usda. o? v/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37041.txt Internet
site accessed 7/06.
Pierce, Gary J. 1993. Planning hydrology for constructed wetlands. Wetland Training
Institute, Inc. Poolesville, MD.

1
Schwab, Glenn O.; Fangmeier, Delmar D.; Elliot, William J; Frevert, Richard K. 1995. Soil
and Water Conservation Engineering.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997. Engineering Field Handbook.
210-EFH, Part 650, 1/92, revised 1997.
® NATURAL SYSTEMS
E N 13 1 N E E R I N G
lJl 1'l 1111Mtke'XL11-1 nDI;IlifIi eniI'c.tni.,tii?n I.S4)S111VU,0UIO
Rcara:itialt Plan - l?hmran Coll, Il_,'. Pduith 0in?t • S4picitth,:r.TOO
`1927 T i I oi 0raii' M,qp
I

1

I
Apia-radix 12.0
I`IATuRAI__ 3Y5TcNI a
?i1 I: tl i i I ?I I., r2 I IJ U
s m ® ® ® ® m m ® m w m ® m m m
1 !
%.1)?.
?. 1
j •
1-9
;r
JL4 ? I 7 ? ( ,.
1
V I I ' a
rra? 1? i 1
71,
r
?? C F:'IS''? \ p
I

r

v
b
1
a
b
•

y .
,w
e

.
j ,

? tw

1
L„
'I
y.
• 7
I- t;y
1
i
L fl ?? r

IOLL,AND FdRA"I
6-0 UN Fs V c
N. G. EXTE << ON 1 ??C
,.
r U,"•: .'";ti

U I' Prnif i;nl_e 1 dlaild :uul Stu i n I,(- 4owIicn - (:`; i.S I ItV 03020105
1tc;lm"lio? flail • E'uunty, Noiih 1'-trout i • SCIllCmhcr 2000

C
I

Appendix 13.0
' NAT LlRAL EiYS TEMa

N
W B
J