20050715 Ver 1_Complete File_20050428

OF WA7'F9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
r? Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
v
r
Alan W. Klimek P.E., Director
Division d Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 5, 2005
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
c/o Wyatt Brown
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification
and Additional Conditions
Middle Swamp Creek streams and wetland
restoration
DWQ Project # 050715
Columbus County
Dear Mr. Brown:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions (WQC # 3495) to conduct the
following activity located in the Lumber River State Park, Fair Bluff, in Columbus County. This
approval allows you to:
1. Removal of a 6,500 linear foot berm road, installation of a ditch plug, grading and contouring the
stream bed and banks, installation of log vanes, weirs and other stream stabilization components,
and planting of natural wetland vegetation.
2. The work will be carried out in accordance with the Middle Swamp Creek Streams and Wetland
Restoration Plan included in the project application.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in you Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) application received as complete by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on April
29, 2005. After reviewing your application, we have determined that General Water Quality Certification
Number 3495 covers this activity. This Certification can also be found on line at:
http://l12o.eiir.state.iie.tis/ncwetl-,inds/certs.html. This Certification (#3495) allows you to use your 404
Permit when the Corps of Engineers issues it. Please keep in mind that there may be additional Federal,
State or Local regulations applicable to your project, such as (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations, NPDES Stormwater and Coastal
Stormwater. In addition, this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 Permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
Please be aware that if you change or modify your project, you must notify the Division
(DWQ) in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the
future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certifieation
and the additional conditions listed below and on the following page:
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper NorthCarolina
?C?tllr?'???
Page Two
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
c/o Wyatt Brown
DWQ Project # 050715
July 5, 2005
1. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-construction Notice
Application. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation,
and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall
be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules
occur;
2. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to
return the attached certificate of completion to this office and a copy to the
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North Carolina Division of Water
Quality,. 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Please notify this Office at the number listed below if any problem arises during the
construction of the project that may affect water quality.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To
ask for a hearing, send a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the DWQ Permit #050715 under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act.: if you have any questions, please telephone Joanne Steenhuis or Ed Beck at
910-796-7215.
Since ely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
to Division of Water Quality
Attachments: GC # 3495
Certificate of Completion
cc: Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office - Thomas Farrell
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit - Cyndi Karoly
Environmental Officer - Chuck Stanley
f:
WiRO p ???a V
JUL 1 2 2005
DENR SAHD gATER gLIgL1TY
tti
raRVWY TER BR4NCH
WQC #3495
STREAM RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT AND STABILIZATION AND WETLAND AND
RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND CREATION ACTIVITIES CERTIFICATION
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR STREAM RESTORATION. ENHANCEMENT AND
STABILIZATION PROJECTS AND WETLAND AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND
CREATION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 13 (BANK STABILIZATION) AND 27 (WETLAND AND
RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND CREATION) AND REGIONAL PERMIT 197800080
(CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BULKHEADS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 for the discharge of fill
material to waters as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (13) and (27) of the Corps of
Engineers regulations (i.e. Nationwide Permit Numbers 13 and 27) and Regional Permit
197800080. The category of activities shall include stream bank stabilization or stream
restoration activity as long as impacts to waters or significant wetlands are minimized. This
Certification replaces Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 3399 issued March 2003. This
WQC is rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize Nationwide Permits 13 or 27 or
Regional Permit 197800080 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ)::
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
Wetland and/or riparian area restoration and creation projects which are for
compensatory mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit (and not including
projects that only involve stream restoration or enhancement work described in
condition nos. 2 and 3 below) that are proposed under this General Certification
require written application to and approval from the Division of Water Quality. All
applications for written DWQ approval will be reviewed and a response will be
prepared within 30 days of stamped receipt of the application in the Division of
Water Quality's Central Office in Raleigh. This 30-day period does not include time
spent by the application or DWQ's response within US Postal Service or North
Cc'rolina's Mail Service Center mail systems;
Wetland and riparian area restoration and creation projects (not including projects
that involve work in or impacts to streams) which are not for compensatory
mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit proposed under this General
Certification do not require written application to and approval from the Division of
Water Quality. In these cases, the applicant is required to notify the Division in
writing with three copies of project specifications before the impact occurs. If the
Division determines that the project would not result in an ecologically viable wetland
and riparian area, then the Division shall prepare a response to notify the applicant
in writing within 30 days of DWQ's receipt of the notification. In such cases, the
applicant will be required to submit a formal application and pay of the appropriate
fee, and DWQ will be required to process the application through normal
procedures;
2. Proposed stream restoration projects (as defined and limited below), that do not
disturb wetlands and that are not being conducted for compensatory mitigation or
compensatory mitigation credit do not require written application to and approval
WQC #3495
Stream stabilization is defined as the in-place stabilization of an eroding stream
bank using measures that consist primarily of "hard" engineering, such as but not
limited to concrete lining, rip rap or other rock, and gabions. The use of "hard"
engineering will not be considered as stream restoration or enhancement;
6. Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico or Randleman River Basins
(or any other major river basins with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in
effect at the time of application) requires written concurrence for this Certification
from DWQ in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0200. Activities listed as "exempt"
from these rules do not need to apply for written concurrence under this
Certification. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide
riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not) within the Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico River Basins shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200. All new development shall be located,
designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance to protect water
quality to the maximum extent practicable through the use of best management
practices;
7. In order for the above conditions to be valid, any plans not requiring written
concurrence to use this Certification must be built according to the plans provided to
the Division of Water Quality. If written concurrence is required, then the project
must be built and maintained according to the plans approved by the written
concurrence and Certification from the Division of Water Quality;
8. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
whichever is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources at the
DENR Regional and Central Offices) shall be designed, installed and maintained
properly to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard
(50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by DWQ; 25 NTUs in
all saltwater classes and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs in DWQ-classified trout
waters);
9. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the original grade restored after the Division of Land Resources or
delegated program has released the project;
10. Any rip-rap shall be of such a size and density so as not to be able to be carried off
by wave or current action and consist of clean rock or masonry material free of
debris or toxic pollutants. Rip-rap shall not be installed in the streambed except in
specific areas required for velocity control and to ensure structural integrity of bank
stabilization measures. If rip-rap is to be installed within the streambed, the amount
and location must be approved in writing by the Division of Land Resources and
Division of Water Quality. However rock vanes, wing deflectors, and similar
structures for grade control and bank protection are acceptable;
11. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with freshwaters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
12. If a? environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding
of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
WQC #3495
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project shall result
in revocation of this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a formal
application for Individual Certification for any project in this category of activity if it is determined
that the project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality including state or
federally listed endangered or threatened aquatic species or degrade the waters so that existing
uses of the wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 31 December 2004
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
WQC # 3495
Certification of Completion
DWQ Project No.: County:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of Isolated Wetland Permit:
hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by
the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of
these.
Applicant's Certification
I,
used in the observation of the
compliance and intent of the 401
and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification.
I,
used in the observation of the
compliance and intent of the 401
and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically,
weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Date:
, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
Signature: Registration No. Date
05-0715, Middle Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration, Columbus Co.
Subject: 05-0715, Middle Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration, Columbus Co.
From: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:28:26 -0400
To: Wyatt Brown <[e-mail]>
CC: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
Wyatt - this application was received by DWQ Central on 4/28/05. As 30 days have
elapsed, the 401 is deemed issued.
1 of 1 5/31/2005 2:35 PM
c
tem
ECOSYS
n.
PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Cyndi Karoly
Wyatt Browne
0507.16.
L P-- nP
APR 2 2005
DENR - vv? i rr, c?u?? ,TY
WETLifdOS ?'dJD S7php?r??.;? i E? BP?fJCf i
Permit Application- Middle Swamp Stream & Wetland Restoration
4-27-05
Attached for your review are 2 restoration plans for the Middle Swamp Stream & Wetland
Restoration project in Columbus County. Please feel free to call me with any questions
regarding this plan (715-1616). We will also send 1 copy to the Wilmington Regional Office.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
attachment: Restoration Plan (2 originals)
".? ':??
?t?$t'G?'f.•? .. Cv 7 -tLrZ t'? .. 1 a
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
t
D
APR 2 8 2005
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
- CENFi - YJf>i e.f: QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STCRMNATER BRANCH C
I '- 07 USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 0.11, .?
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.
4. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because' written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
5. 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1616 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
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 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Middle Swamp Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: Columbus Nearest Town: Fair Bluff
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Lumber River State Park„ SR
1506 to Princess Ann Road.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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: Cypress
-Gum Swamp on NC State Park Land
7. Property size (acres): 23 ac
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Middle swamp, Lumber River,
9. River Basin: Lumber 03040203
(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/adniin/maps/.)
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream & Wetland Restoration
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: State Park-Cypress-Gum Swamp
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.
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:
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
Page 7 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach .a separate sheet.
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***

* 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 httn://www•.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: 23.0 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 23.0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (SEE PLANS)
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?
( leases eci )

* 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, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** 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.usgs.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
wvvw.mapquest.coin, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 7,070 FT
Page 8 of 13
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name 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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
SEE PLAN
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
Page 9of13
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/newetlands/stmigide.htm1.
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.
SEE PLAN
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:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):.
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Page 10 of 13
IX.
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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 )?
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.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* 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.
Page 11 of 13
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 2B .0242 or.0260.
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.
XII. 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.
XIII. 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
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).
Page 12 of 13

Applicant/Agent' Signature Date
(Agent's signatis valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
Diddle Swamp Creek
Streams and Wetlands
Restoration Plan Report
November 24 2004
BLWI Project: 020118
NCEEP Project: MSC/LW02
NCDOA File: 010552601
NCDENR Contract: EW03013S
06,07 5
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 2005
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM

Land
LUE Water
I nfrastructure. PA
PpR ??
D???ri' a ?%V??:;.•"?
`?S?qs W
Ecosystem Engineering Environmental Consulting
Environmental Engineering Geomatics
Aliddle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Platt
Columbus County, NC
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1
2. Goals and Objectives ................................................................. 1
3. Location Information ................................................................. 1
4. General Watershed Information ......................................................... 6
5. Description of Existing Conditions (Wetlands and Streams)
A. Hydrologic and Other Features ..................................................... 9
B. Soils .......................................................................... 9
C. Vegetation / Plant Communities .................................................... 9
D. Endangered/Threatened Species Report ............................................ 10
E. Stream Geometry and Substrate .................................................... 10
6. Stream and Wetland Restoration Studies
A. Stream Reference Restoration Background ........................................... 14
B. Reference Stream Investigation .................................................... 16
C. Reference Wetland Hydrological Characterization ..................................... 17
D. Reference Wetland Plant Community Characterization ................................. 18
E. Reference Wetland Soil Characterization ............................................ 18
7. Wetland Restoration Plan
A. Hydrologic Restoration .......................................................... 18
B. Vegetation Community Restoration ................................................. 18
C. Soils Restoration ............................................................... 19
8. Stream Restoration Plan
A. Stream System Restoration Design Approach Discussion ............................... 19
B. Analog Methodology ............................................................ 19
C. Empirical Methodology .......................................................... 20
D. Analytical Methodology ......................................................... 20
E. Project Analysis and Design Restoration Approach .................................... 21
Middle Swamp Creek- Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
a
F. Restoration Potential ............................................................ 21
G. Stream Dimensional Design ....................................................... 22
H. Stream Pattern Design ........................................................... 23
I. Stream Profile Design ........................................................... 23
J. Sediment Transport and Shear Stress ................................................ 23
K. In-Stream Structures ............................................................ 24
L. Riparian Planting Plan ........................................................... 24
M. Restoration Background Information References ...................................... 24
9. Typical Drawings ................................................................... 29
10. Wetland Performance Criteria
A. Success Criteria for Hydrology .................................................... 33
B. Success Criteria for Vegetation .................................................... 33 a
C. Success Criteria for Soils ......................................................... 33
11. Stream Success Criteria
A. Stream Geometry Success Criteria ................................................. 33
B. Stream Vegetation Success Criteria ................................................. 33 a
12. Monitoring Plan .................................................................... 34 n
MAPS
3A. Location Map ................... .................................................. 3
3B. USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map (Restoration and Reference Sites) ................ 4
3C. Hydrography .................................................... .................. 5
4A. Project Extents and Parcels ............................................................. 8
5A. Existing Soils ...................................................................... 12
5B. Existing Vegetation ................................................................ 13
8A. Proposed Stream Alignment, Structures, Vegetation, and Monitoring Plan ...................... 27
0
0
Afiddle Swamp Creek Scream and I*11and Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
FIGURES AND TABLES
3.1 Lumber River Background Information ................................................... 2
4.1 Waterhsed Land Use / Land Cover ....................................................... 7
5.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 11
6.1
6.2 Lumber River Background Information ..................................................
Reference Stream Conditions .......................................................... 15
17
6.3 Reference Soil Hydraulic Properties ..................................................... 18
7.1 Proposed Vegetation ................................................................. 19
8.1 Tractive Force Analysis ............................................................... 24
8.2
8.3 Wetland Seed Mix ...................................................................
Morphological Chart ................................................................. 24
26
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Photos
Appendix B. Onsite Soil Testing Report
Appendix C. Existing Site Data
Appendix D. Reference Site Data
Appendix E. Stream Restoration Design Details
1

s
i1
t
Middle Swamp Greek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Cokanbnrs Conu7ly, A'C
1. Introduction
The Middle Swamp Creek Restoration Project is an Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP, formerly known
as NC Wetlands Restoration Program) stream and wetland restoration project. The project is primarily located
in the Middle Swamp area of the Lumber River State Park in Columbus County, North Carolina. The site
currently consists of a number of elevated dirt roads that cut across the Middle Swamp wetland, and a
straightened and ditched stream that runs alongside one of the road segments. These features are negatively
affecting the natural hydrology of the site, and restoring the wetland area and the stream will improve
hydrology, habitat and natural water treatment. A natural community wetland restoration enhancement project
is proposed for the area north of the proposed stream and wetland restoration. This would be an NCDENR
Division of Parks and Recreation project. The roads in this northern area also negatively affect hydrology and
the planted loblolly pines prevent natural community establishment. Restoring the wetlands and natural plant
communities to this area will improve hydrology and habitat.
The Middle Swamp Creek site has complicated hydrology. The site directly drains a 2.3 square mile primarily
forested and agricultural watershed. However, during medium to high flow events, water from the Lumber
River enters the site. This creates a unique hydrologic system that is dominated by soil and surface water from
the river. Tailwater conditions often back up water into the Middle Swamp wetland for days or weeks after a
storm. The site is also heavily ditched due to attempts to drain it, significantly affecting the hydrology of the
site.
The proposed project consists of the realignment and reformation of the straightened stream, which parallels the
existing roadway. Approximately 7,070 linear feet of stream channel is expected to be implemented.
2. Goals and Objectives
The primary objective of the Middle Swamp Creek restoration project is to restore a stable stream and wetland
The Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project is located in the Lumber River State Park in
Columbus County, North Carolina (3A. Location Map). The site is located in the southern portion of the United
States Geographical Survey (USGS) Evergreen 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle and the northern portion of
the Cerro Gordo Quadrangle (Map 3B). It is in the Lumber River basin, within the USGS 8-digit hydrologic
unit 03040203. The site is primarily surrounded by a Cypress-Gum swamp called Middle Swamp that is
frequently inundated with flow from the Lumber River. The project site consists of two narrow strips of land
through the swamp that contain dirt roads raised approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet above the swamp bottom and a
ditched stream that runs alongside one road and crosses underneath it through culverts every few hundred feet.
The property was obtained by the State of North Carolina in June 2001 from SP Forest LLC. The state park
service has agreed to allow the project on their land because it will limit access to the site and will help to
1
Restore the natural topography of the wetland
•
• Restore natural wetland hydrology and vegetation
to 3. the site. Location This involves the Information following goals:
• Restore stream dimension, pattern and profile
• Restore habitat
• Improve water quality

0
Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC 0
restore the natural state of the wetland area. A significant number of drainage ditches run through the site giving
the appearance that there were attempts to drain the land (3C. Hydrography). However the swamp area
immediately around the site does not appear to have been timbered due to the existence of a climax community
containing mature trees. Aerial photography from 1972 shows that the current swamp site is completely
forested. The restoration site stream appears in the 1972 aerial photography. Currently, the Big Sandy Ridge
ditch runs from the main stream to the Big Sandy Ridge (3C. Hydrography). This ditch is more recent as it is
not on the USGS Topographic Map which was last edited in 1986. The following table lists baseline watershed
planning information for the Lumber River, since the stream onsite is unnamed tributary to the Lumber River. r,
Table 3.1. Lumber River Background Information
River Basin Lumber
NCDW Stream Index # 14-(1 3
NCDW Stream Class Rating C SW
NCDW Use Rating Full Su ortin
NCDW Use Basis Monitored
NCDW Subbasin # 03-07-51
USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit 3040203
USGS 14-Digit Hydrologic Unit 3040203190010
0
0
3A. Location Map
Middle Swamp Creek Stream
and Wetland Restoration
77- 77

Project Site
0
1
`? -- 76
N it Bluff
4 0 4 Miles
-f- vyj
Scale: 1" = 4 miles
July 2004
Land
Water
BLUE
Project UlLV = IlllfiisIrUl'IUIY
3
I
f
Map 3B. Middle Swamp Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration r _
USGS 7.5 Minute Evergreen, Cerro'"
r?
Gordo, Faribluff, and Farimont, _-
I
Topographic Quadrangles
(Project site is located on the Evergreen
and Cerro Gordo topoquads. Reference site is
;t rr_
located on the Evergreen topoquad)
t?
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Feet
Scale: V 3000'

Land _ a i t - r ,I .'y
BLUERe +Water feret?Cq
Infrastructure 4J yd J fl eam -J
Vztershe-d-
N
i f i ? .i 1? 't -rsr? -,-
%
•ry tt '. Jtoration ity L .N1 Y L
{
Watershed { . "
- v mfr s ? ? :?. 9 •, ,
_ ,1 r Onsrte f I 7 ? ;1
keferetlee - - kt?
edwid
73
Project ftio . ; ,; 1
'1 -4 X
s .? •_ ?.p _ `- ? 4? _- ? _ ( ,.`` . ,? _ ?` _ qtr k
L
,r?aj6 ;?lJ• ° * i : ii f ?,!*'{ t_ _ I•-- ? ti ? `?•.•- ?. _ .T.a
4

5
Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
4. General Watershed Information
The exact watershed area draining to the site is complex because it depends on an individual storm's magnitude,
the current stage of the Lumber River, and backwater conditions from nearby swamps. In small storms with low
runoff, the flow to the site comes from the small local watershed (Map 313). This watershed area ranges from
0.9 square miles at the top of the stream restoration site to 2.3 square miles at the bottom of the site. During
larger storm events, the area receives some flow from the Lumber River floodplain. When the stage of the
Lumber River is high enough, overflow enters the site by either seeping through the Big Sandy Ridge that
separates the Middle Swamp from River Swamp, by flowing through culverts that are installed underneath the
Big Sandy Ridge that connect the two swamps, or by creating tailwater conditions at points where the Middle
Swamp empties into the Lumber River floodplain. The area of the Lumber River watershed upstream of the site
is 1,270 square miles. Another hydrologic influence on the site is the flow through Porter Swamp to the east and
south of the site. The watershed draining to Porter Swamp is approximately 90 square miles. High water in this
swamp will be an additional cause of backwater conditions in Middle Swamp. The hydrology of the site can be
visualized from pictures taken during both low flow conditions and high flow conditions (Appendix A -
Photos). Pictures taken at the site on June 20, 2002, show baseflow conditions. Pictures taken on March 27,
2003, show high flow conditions when the Lumber River water had entered the site. Another picture shows the
Lumber River flow entering the site through culverts under the Big Sandy Ridge Road on March 27, 2003.
Because of the complexity of the drainage to the site, BLWI is performed further investigation as to the
frequency of inputs from the Lumber River watershed by monitoring water levels in the Middle Swamp
wetland, obtaining elevation data for locations where overflow from the Lumber River occurs, and obtaining a
historical record of flow from the Lumber River at the Boardman and Fairbluff USGS Gage Stations. These two
gage stations are upstream and downstream of the project site, respectively. The river stage data were correlated
with measured stage data of the onsite stream and wetland. Using a regression based on this information, BLWI
staff back-calculated the stage of the water in the wetland from 1929 to 2003.
The baseflow watershed draining to the site is predominantly forested. Analysis of the Land Use / Land Cover
(LULC) data collected in 1994 and published in 1996 and land cover generated form NCGAP data showed both
layers have inaccuracies. In the NCGAP data, the bare sandy areas of Big Sandy Ridge are identified as
agricultural fields and a large forested area in the northern portion of the watershed is also identified as
agricultural fields. The LULC put the majority of the land area in the watershed into the bottomland hardwood
category. Field investigation has shown much of this area is actually Cypress-Gum swamp. The NCGAP and
LULC data were not used to determine land use / land cover in the watershed. Instead, a land use / land cover
GIS layer was produced by digitizing 1999 Color Infrared (CIR) aerial imagery and 1994 digital orthoquad
(DOQQ) aerial imagery. Forested wetland is the dominant land cover at 43.8% of the watershed, followed by
38.6% mixed forest, 9.1% cultivated, 5.6% unconsolidated sediment, 2.7% residential, and 0.2% water bodies
(see figure 4.1)

Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
Figure 4.1. Watershed Land Use / Land Cover
Residential _
2.7% Water Bodies
Unconsolidated Sediment 2%
5.6%
Cultivated
9.1%
Mixed Forest
38.6%
Forested Wetland
43.8%
i
¦ Forested Wetland
¦ Mixed Forest
¦ Cultivated
? Unconsolidated Sediment
¦ Residential
¦ Water Bodies
The entire watershed is divided into 47 parcels (4A. Project Extents and Parcels). The largest parcel is owned
by the Lumber River State Park and accounts for 71% of the watershed. There is one parcel to the south of the
park, owned by Carl Meares Jr., that accounts for 5.4% of the watershed. The headwater region of the
watershed, to the north of the park, is divided up into the remaining 45 parcels, which is 23.6% of the land area
owned by 32 landowners. This upper watershed region is where the cultivated and residential land use is found.
There is little potential for future development in this area. Development as a result of immigration is unlikely.
Population has actually declined in many of the nearby towns while others have experienced a small increase
over the past 30 years. The watershed is not close to any major employment centers making it likely that
offspring of present residents will leave the area in search of jobs. If they remain, some of the larger parcels
may be divided up, although only 14 of the 45 parcels are larger than 10 acres.
7
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
5. Description of Existing Conditions (Wetland and Stream)
Hydrologic and Other Features
The ditches that flow through the vicinity of the site are indicated on the Hydrography Map (Map 3C Section
3). The main ditch of concern to the project is the one on which the stream restoration project is planned. It
intersects both road segment A and B and then meets up with road segment C where the road straightens out. It
runs along the eastern side of road segment C as well as the western side, passing under the road at a number of
locations. The ditch flows to the end of road segment C where there are two possible flow paths. It either takes
a sharp turn to the west or flows over the road and continues in a channel that only usually carries high flows.
Most of the flow, especially during low or baseflow events, makes a sharp turn to the west and flows to Big
Sandy Ridge. This ditch was not dug at the same time as the main ditch, as described in the Location
Information section, and is quite large (Appendix A - Photos). At the Big Sandy Ridge there are two culverts
that carry the flow into the River Swamp. During high flow in the Lumber River, backwater conditions occur at
these culverts. The other flow path for the main ditch at the end of road segment C is over the road and into an
older ditch. This appears to be the direction of the natural flow path. Other ditches in the vicinity are apparent
on the aerial photo on the Hydrography Map (Map 3C Section 3).
Soils
The soil series that are mapped on the site according to the Columbus County Soil Survey are Johnston, Leon,
Murville, and Torhunta (5A. Existing Soils). The entirety of the stream restoration project area and most of the
length of road segment C are mapped as Johnston soil, which is a floodplain soil. They are very poorly drained
and form in stratified loamy and sandy recent alluvium. The Murville series consists of poorly drained soils that
form in sandy marine sediment. Leon soils are also poorly drained soils that form in sandy marine sediments.
All three soil series are classified as hydric A soils and are in soil hydrologic group D. The Torhunta soils are
hydric A and are in soil hydrologic group C.
BLWI staff performed auger borings through the roads to measure the depth of fill material and assess the
underlying soil. Borings along road segment B revealed fill material to a depth of four feet. Underneath the fill
material a buried A horizon was found. Soil samples were taken from the buried soil material and from the soil
surrounding the road segments in June 2003. All samples were analyzed by the NC Department of Agriculture's
Soil Testing Lab. The soil under the fill material has an average pH of 4.1 (average BS = 15%). The soil around
segment C has a pH of 4.3 (BS = 34%) (Appendix B).
Vegetation / Plant Communities
Road segment C cuts through a Cypress-Gum swamp (513. Existing Vegetation). The trees provide a thick
overstory as they grow to the edge of the slope leading up to the road on one side and to the streambank on the
other side. The road and the side slopes are vegetated with herbaceous and young woody species. The dominant
herbaceous species are lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), chain-fern (lhoodwardia areolata), and common rush
(Juncus effuses). Other herbaceous species found include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Carex sp.,
Siuilax sp., cinnamon fern (Osmunda chmamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and sensitive fern (Onaclea
seusibilis). As the road grades into the Cypress-Gum swamp many young woody species have begun to take
root. None have reached canopy height although many are 5-6 feet tall. The most common woody species found
are titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), redbay (Persea borbonia), fetterbush
(Lyonia lecida), southern bayberry (Morella caroliniensis), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
These species are often found in Cypress-Gum swamps as classified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The
canopy vegetation is dominated by water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica). Other canopy species include blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatic), swamp tupelo (N. biflora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and bald cypress (Taxodium

a
Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC 0
distichutn). In flooded areas, where standing water is conunon for extended periods of time, the shrub layer is
sparse or absent. Most areas along road segment C experience extended periods of flooding. Some areas,
especially along the southern portion of the road are drier and have a denser understory. If the road is removed
and allowed to seed naturally, the resulting community will be a Cypress-Gum swamp.
Threatened/Endangered Species Report
No threatened or endangered species are located in the project area according to the Natural Element
Occurrence GIS data from the Natural Heritage Program. The sandy ridge adjacent to the wetland area serve as
habitat for the woody goldenrod (Chrysoma pauc j7osculosa), a state endangered species. One significantly rare
plant species, Leavenworth's goldenrod (Solidago leavenworthii) has been reported in the area. It grows in
savannas, pocosin borders, clay-based Carolina bays and peaty seeps. Southern bogbutton (Lachnocaulon
beyrichianuin) is currently on the watch list. This plant grows in sandhills and sandhill/pocosin ecotones.
There are no significant natural heritage areas in the project area. The sandy ridge adjacent to the project area is
a natural heritage area known as Big Sandy Ridge and Swamp. Natural communities found in the dry ridge area
of Big Sandy Ridge and Swamp are Xeric Sandhill Scrub and Coastal Fringe Sandhill. The swamp area, which
is located on the western side of the ridge, in the adjacent watershed, contains Bay Forest and Wet Pine
Flatwoods.
Stream Geometry and Substrate
The existing stream conditions were assessed using a Rosgen Level II Classification. The Rosgen classification
system was created for natural hydrologic systems predominantly in the western portions of the United States.
The channelized stream in this project did not fit well in the Rosgen classification due to influences from
Lumber River flooding, flow from surrounding watersheds entering through culverts and ditches, previous
channel straightening, and artificial increas in channel depth. Regardless, an effort was made to analyze these
reaches based on the Rosgen system.
The channel was determined to have a Rosgen classification of E5, primarily due to entrenchment ratio. As
mentioned above, channelized streams do not fit easily into Rosgen's classification system. The stream pattern
is straight and does not exhibit the sinuosity of a natural E channel. Meanders are nonexistent and belt width is
simply the width of the channel. The longitudinal slope of the stream is 0.0001. Stream depth varies from
approximately 0.5 to 3 feet deep and width at top of bank ranges between 7.5 and 25 feet. The road alongside
the stream is, on average, 1.5 to 2.5 feet above the wetland floor and is between 15 and 20 feet wide. Channel
dimension varies from 6 to 37 square feet. Although the channel is deep, this feature was not caused by flow.
The channel was most likely deepened artificially in attempts to drain the surrounding land and provide fill
material for access roads. The channel is not incised because it often flows into the floodplain which is intact
except for the road that runs parallel to the stream. The stream substrate is fine sand (Appendix Q. The
morphological features of the existing channel are summarized in Table 5.1.
10 1

Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
e
s
e
e
1
Tghln S 1 Pvktinrr Cnnditinnc
Existin g Stream
Parameter MIN AIAX AVERAGE
Drainage Area. DAs mi 0.9 2.3
Stream Length 6,500 feet
Stream Type Ros cn E5 C5c- L'5
Bankfull XSEC Area, Abkf s t1 6.07 37.1 23.58
Bankfull Width Wbkf ft 7.61 24.93 15.2
Bankfull Depth, Dbkf ft 0.51 293 1.7
Width to Depth Ration, W/D ft/ft 3.78 48.69 14.8
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a 11) 3453 4400 3900
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf fUft - - 213.9
Max Depth a, bkf, Dmax ft 1.08 3.54 2.13
Max Depth Ratio Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.25
Max Depth n tob Dmaxtob ft 1.08 3.54 2.13
Bank Height Ratio Dtob/Dmax ft/ft - - 1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
Meander Length Ration, LnVWbkf
tuft
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft)
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Belt Width, Wblt ft 7.5 20.5 14.37
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (fl/fl) - - 0.78
Sinuosity, K 1.00 1.00 1.00
Valle Slope, Sval ti/ft - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

D16 mm - - -
D35 mm - - 0.8
D50 mm - - 0.18
D84 mm - - 0.51
D95 mm) - - 1.89
*The existing channel is essentially straight. Sharp turns occur where the channel is routed back and forth under
the road via culverts.
11
LI,
12
A
tr

infrared aerial imagery d 1994 DOQQ
Rurestui Wctlxnd /IV Ilydrography N
' 5B. Vegetation Map
- Residential Project Area
Southern Yellow Pine Middle Swamp Creek Stream
- Mixed Hardwoods and Conifers and Wetland Restoration
Unconsolidated Sediment 0.2 0 0.2 Miles Laud
-Agriculture/Pasture BLUE Water
Scale: 1" = 0.2 miles Infrastructure
Lumber River State Park Boundary 13

Middle Swamp Creek Stream and 1Vetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
6. Stream and Wetland Restoration Studies
Stream Reference Restoration Background
To utilize reference streams for design of the Middle Swamp Creek project, or any other restoration project,
several conditions must be met:
1) The project watershed must match the hydrologic character of the reference watershed to a significant
degree (including boundary conditions).
2) The reference watershed and site must be stable and have been so for a significant time period.
3) The project watershed must be stable, have been so for a significant time period, and will continue to be so
for the design life of the project.
4) The project site parameters must match the reference site parameters to a significant degree (bank
vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc.).
This project is located in a sand dominated and high water table system. When working on these type of
systems that are primarily found in eastern North Carolina, several additional factors must be addressed which
are not typically primary considerations in other regions of North Carolina:
1) Vegetation is a primary development force in streams and cannot be replicated until many years after site
construction.
2) Surface water runoff is not the single forcing variable driving stage.
3) Water table interaction affects energy slope.
4) Water table interaction affects stage return intervals.
5) Backwater conditions affects stage return intervals.
6) The temporal length of a given stage event is important.
7) The bankfull event in many (if not most) eastern North Carolina streams is much less than 1.5 years.
8) The bankfull event is not correlated to a single return interval.
9) Effective discharge is not equivalent to bankfull discharge in sand bed streams.
10) The bankfull event is generally not equivalent to channel fonning flow.
Using the above outlined conditions and factors as guides, the following parameters were developed as
minimum requirements for a reference stream to be considered at this site:
1) The reference stream must be stable and have been so for at least the previous 20 years.
2) The reference stream watershed must be stable and have been so for at least the previous 20 years.
3) The reference site water table depth-duration frequency must be within 15% of the project site frequency.
4) The contributing watershed must be between 1.8 and 2.4 square miles (f15% of the project watershed size
at original extents).
5) The surface water runoff response relative to volume and flow rate must be within 15% of the project site
during low water table antecedent moisture conditions.
6) The surface water runoff response relative to volume and flow rate must be within 15% of the project site
during high water table antecedent moisture conditions.
7) The watershed land use distribution must be within 15% of the project watershed.
8) The downstream boundary must be directly connected to two watersheds of between 77 and 105 square
miles and 1,080 and 1,460 square miles (f15% of the downstream connected watershed sizes).
9) The reference site bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, and bed material can be
duplicated to within 15% at the project site.
14
e Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
No reference stream was found to meet all of these required minimum parameters. A search was performed in
the Lumber River and Cape Fear River basins for similar systems. A stream that was similar in watershed size
was found upstream of the site on an unnamed tributary of the Lumber River (Map 313 Section 3). Although the
tributary is unnamed, the area is referred to as Bluff Swamp on USGS 1:24000 topographic maps. The site is
just south of Wildcat Lake. The main limiting factor in meeting the above minumum requirements is the
influence from Lumber River overbank flow and flooding. The reference watershed is only similar in baseflow.
The following table lists baseline watershed planning information for the Lumber River, since the reference and
restoration streams are unnamed tributaries to the Lumber River.

JTahle 6.1 Immher River Background Information

Restoration Site Reference Site
River Basin Lumber Lumber
NCDW Stream Index # 14-(13) 14-(13)
NCDW Stream Class Rating C SW C SW
NCDW Use Rating Full Supporting Full Supporting
NCDW Use Basis Monitored Monitored
NCDW Subbasin # 03-07-51 03-07-51
USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit 3040203 3040203
USGS 14-Digit Hydrologic Unit 3040203190010 3040203190010
This reference site does not meet all of the above criteria, therefore more focus was placed on applying the
analytical methodology of stream design in combination with the reference, or analog methodology. The
analytical methodology is based on the application of physically-based mathematical models of natural
phenomena to the project site and wetland. It is not dependent on data sets external to the project. The
methodology is the primary one used by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Geological Service.
Three distinct, but interrelated, analysis and modeling efforts were undertaken for this project: 1) watershed; 2)
stream; 3) and wetland. The watershed effort addressed the character and response of the site stream watershed
as well as the larger Lumber River watershed. The on-site watershed was analyzed with NFF, TR-55, and
AnnAGNPS. NFF provided course flow frequency information. TR-55 provided more detailed surface flow
event response information. AnnAGNPS provided continuous simulation response estimates. The Lumber River
watershed was analyzed with a variety of in-house coded statistics applications. This provided estimates of
stage-inundation-duration for given frequencies. Field data was utilized for characterizing both watersheds.
Expected changes in the watershed and their potential impacts on this project were assessed as part of this
effort.
The stream effort addressed the character and response of the existing and proposed channels at the site. The
The wetland effort addressed the movement of soil water and surface water at the site. The site flood plain was
analyzed with MODFLOW and the SFWMD Wetland Package. This modeling system provided relatively
detailed soil water and surface water elevation and velocity estimates.
15
channels were analyzed with HEC-RAS, WinXSPRO, SAMwin, and GSTARS. HEC-RAS provided
stage-discharge estimates assuming fixed channel boundaries. WinXSPRO and SAMwin provided sediment
transport estimates for given cross-sections. GSTARS provided more detailed flow response, sediment
transport, and bank stability information.

dliddle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Cohimbus County, NC
The modeling effort provided much valuable insight into the character and response of the watershed, stream,
and wetland. In rough terms, it was found that the hydrologic character and hydraulic response of the site is
dominated by the controlling state of the adjacent Lumber River (and associated watershed), to which the site
drains. During high River flow, River water enters the site watershed through a series of culverts which cross
the natural separating ridge along the western boundary of the site watershed. Water may also enter the site
from the outlet of the site watershed, causing the water flow to essentially "flow upstream". This was the
primary natural River water input to the site watershed prior to the culvert installations. A secondary River
water input to the site watershed is through the sandy ridge along the western boundary of the site watershed.
The existing main channel at the site designated for removal does not follow the natural flood plain valley
bottom and is located generally to the east of this feature. Energy inputs to the channel are sufficient for
sediment and debris to be transported without significant deposition or blockage. This is partially due to the
incised nature of the channel, which directs energy along the channel without a more natural release to the
surrounding flood plain. The Lumber River watershed is approximately 1,200 square miles at the site outlet.
The Lumber River watershed is more than 520 times larger than the site watershed at this point. Though the
existing channel does contribute to soil water and surface water drainage at the site, it imparts an insignificant
effect on such during River induced inundation periods.
Reference Stream Investigation
The channel was determined to have a Rosgen classification of C5b. The longitudinal slope of the stream is
0.026. Stream depth varies from approximately 1.3 to 2.3 feet deep and width at top of banks ranges between 20
and 26 feet. Channel dimension varies from 34 to 46 square feet. The stream substrate is fine sand. Meander
length and radius of curvature were not measured at the reference reach. The reference did not meet all of the
above criteria and therefore was not used in the design process. An analysis of the stream bed revealed a fine
sand substrate (Appendix D - Reference Site Data)
16

Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
Table 6.2 Reference Stream Conditions
Reference Stream
Parameter MIN MAX AVERAGE
Drainage Area. DAs mi 2.5 2.5 2.5
Stream Type Roseen) E5b C5b E5b
Bankfull XSEC Area, Abkf s ft) 33.74 46.24 45.49
Bankfull Width, Wbkf ft 20.29 26.3 23.3
Bankfull Dc th, Dbkf ft 1.28 2.28 1.89
Width to Depth Ration, W/D ft/ft 8.9 20.51 14.32
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a ft 500 500 500
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbkf ft/ft - - 9.7
Max Depth a bkf Dmax ft 2.38 3.61 3.2
Max Depth Ratio Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.7
Max Depth (a, tob Dmaxtoh ft 2.38 3.61 3.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft - - 1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) N/A N/A N/A
Meander Length Ration, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) N/A N/A N/A
Rc ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ti/ft) N/A N/A N/A
Belt Width, Wblt ft 23.5 26.5 25
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf filft - - 1.07
Sinuosity, K 1.03 1.03 1.03
Valle Slope, Sval ft/ft) - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.026 0.026 0.026

D16(mm) 0.18 0.085 0.13
D35 mm 0.293 0.142 0.22
D50 mm 0.35 0.22 0.28
D84 mm 0.55 0.468 0.51
D95 mm 1.14 1.047 1.09
The reference site is a Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Vegetation surveyed in plots along the reference stream
showed the dominant canopy species to be sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua). Other canopy species include
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), water oak (Quercus nigra), redbay (Persea
borbonia), fetterbush (Lyonia hicida), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and red
maple (Ater rubrum). The dominant understory species is cane grass (Arundinaria gigantea). Vines include
greenbriar (Smilax sp.) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Bottomland Hardwood Forests grade into
Cypress-Gum swamps such as that found at Middle Swamp Creek. Although both cypress and gum are found at
the reference stream they are not dominate species. Cypress and gum trees usually dominate in wetter
floodplain areas. This site was selected as a reference for the stream only, it does not serve as a reference for the
vegetation. The reference wetland was used to detennine vegetation at the restoration site.
Reference Wetland Hydrological Characterization
The reference wetland is located near road segment C (Map 3B Section 3). It fits the qualifications for an
appropriate reference because it is in the same watershed and therefore has the same hydrologic influences that
the site will have when it is constructed. It is a well-established, Cypress-Gum swamp community that is unique
in its hydrologic relationship with the Lumber River.
17
0
Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC a
Reference Wetland Plant Community Characterization
The reference wetland is a Cypress-Gum swamp. The overstory includes several species. Water tupelo (Nyssa a
aquatica) is dominant and other species include blackgum (N. sylvatica), swamp tupelo (N. Mora), bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), and sweetgum (Liquidarnbar styraciflua). Ash (Fraxinus sp.) is found in the
understory. This area is flooded for long periods therefore the understory is sparse. n
Reference Wetland Soil Characterization
Soils on the reference site were assessed in June 2003. Soil descriptions were completed at each sample location
and a sample was taken for analysis. The reference site is entirely in the Johnston soil series. The Johnston
mapunit on the reference site consists of sandy soils with a 30 inch mucky loam topsoil.
Tahlo h-3 Rpforenre Nnil HvdraulicPronertiev from USDA-NRCS Columbus County Soil Survey
Property Johnston Soil Series
Hydraulic Conductivity 10.9 cm/hr 0-40 inches
Moist Bulk Density 1.43g/cc 0-40 inches
Organic Matter 3-8%
Classification Cumulic Huma ue is
7. Wetland Restoration Plan
Hydrologic Restoration
Removal of the road will reestablish hydrologic connectivity throuhgout the site and restore the stream's full
floodplain. In addition, the Big Sandy Ridge ditch will be plugged and this ditch will serve only as an overflow
ditch. Ditch plugs will be constructed according to the materials and spacing recommendations of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Vegetation Community Restoration
The targeted community for the project site is Cypress-Gum swamp. Natural regeneration is expected as large
water tupelo, bald cypress, swamp tupelo and blackgum trees are found adjacent to the restoration area. These
trees will provide seed over the years to the restored area. In addition to natural regeneration, 3-ft tall trees will
be planted. This is necessary as seeds that drop from the mature trees will not germinate underwater and a
portion of the plant must be above water to ensure survival. As wetland surface water often exceeds a foot in
depth, it is uncertain that enough seeds will find a dry spot to genninate. The planted trees will help meet
success criteria vegetation densities of 320 trees per acre. Bald cypress is not the dominant species in the
reference wetland possibly due to past disturbance. Cypress-Guin swamps recover slowly from disturbances
such as logging. Trees were most likely removed when the road was built. It is unclear how much of the area
was selectively logged. During recovery from disturbance, bald cypress regenerates poorly and Nyssa becomes
dominant. Over time, the bald cypress will most likely beome dominant. According to the Classification of of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale & Weakley 1990), bald cypress is the dominant canopy
species in the Cypress-Gum swamp. Therefore, a large percentage of the plant composition will be bald cypress.
18
0
III

t
diddle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
Table 7.1 Proposed Veaetation
Species Composition
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum 50%
Water tupelo N ssa a uatica 30%
Swam tupelo N ssa bi ora 10%
Black um N ssa s lvatic 10%
A native wetland seed mix will be used in the near overbank areas to provide immediate cover, root stability,
and to prevent sediment transport into the new stream. The wetland seed mix and straw cover will provide
cover and an organic material base. All planting and site preparation will be done in accordance with the
guidelines provided by EEP.
Soils Restoration
Soils investigations found that natural wetland floodplain soils exist under the road material. Once road material
is removed, soils may be tested for bulk density, chemistry, or other parameters. If the underlying soil is too
compacted it will be scarified or tilled to a depth of 6", or the compacted soil will be removed and fill will be
brought in. Soil amendments will be kept to a minimum, but may include broadcast fertilizer application, some
targeted fertilizer application, and possibly some organic matter addition.
B. Stream Restoration Plan
Stream System Restoration Design Approach Discussion
In the United States, most ecosystem restoration efforts focusing on streams and wetlands have been
unsuccessful. Many reasons have been given for these failures, with the lack of detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic investigation, modeling, and design being generally the most common cause. To be successful,
ecosystem restoration efforts (as with any planning and design effort) require various methodologies to be
employed dependent upon the individual type and character of the specific project.
Stream design methodologies can generally be separated into three categories: 1) Analog; 2) Empirical; 3)
Analytical. Each of these methodologies has strengths and weaknesses. As such, various aspects of each
methodology may be employed in any given project.
Analog Methodology
The Analog methodology is typified by the reference reach method popularized by Dave Rosgen of Wildland
Hydrology and is the most simplistic of the three methodologies. The Analog methodology is based on the
logical and statistical inference that if two systems are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be
alike in other respects. In this methodology, sets of geometric and hydraulic parameters are measured relative to
flow rate return intervals. This information is then applied to the design of the system being restored.
For a project to be successful using this methodology, several considerations must be met: 1) the project
watershed matches the hydrologic character of the reference watershed(s) to a significant degree; 2) the site and
reach parameters must match the reference site(s) to a significant degree (bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank
slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc); 3) The reference watershed(s) and site(s) must be stable and have
been so for a significant time period; 4) The project watershed must be stable, have been so for a significant
time period, and continue to be so for the design life of the project. If these conditions are not met, this
methodology is not applicable for project design.
19

0
Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC p
As such, this methodology is generally not applicable to projects in urbanizing watersheds, watersheds which
may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life, watersheds where agricultural a
practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, watersheds where reservoirs may be
constructed or removed, and various instances of watershed change. This method is generally suitable for sites
at which the hydrologic response of the contributing watershed is significantly stable and will remain such for
the intended lifetime of the project.
Empirical Methodology
As the name of this methodology suggests, the Empirical methodology is based on the application of
statistically derived parameters from large datasets and intensive system studies. This methodology is somewhat
similar to the analog method in that both methodologies are based on sets of measured data. The main
difference is that the Empirical methodology utilizes much larger, refined, and more focused datasets than does D
the Analog methodology. A secondary difference is that the Empirical methodology often utilizes mean annual
flow rate as the primary design parameter whereas the Analog methodology generally employs the bankfull
flow rate as the primary design parameter, with the consideration that the bankfull flow is the channel forming
discharge. The Empirical methodology is typified by the regime reach method.
As with the Analog methodology, for a project to be successful using the Empirical methodology, several
considerations must be met: 1) specific project watershed response parameters of the project watershed must
match specific watershed response parameters of the dataset watersheds to a significant degree; 2) specific
project site and reach parameters must match specific parameters of the dataset sites and reaches to a significant
degree (bank vegetation, channel slopes, bank slopes, water table depth, bed material, etc); 3) during the data
collection period, the dataset watersheds, sites, and reaches must be equivalently stable or varying as the project
watershed, site, and reach and continue to be so for the design life of the project (equal to, or less than, the data a
collection period if varying). If these conditions are not met, this methodology is not applicable for project
design.
With the proper dataset and considerable understanding of this dataset, watershed hydrology, and fluvial
geomorphology, it is potentially possible to apply the Empirical methodology to projects in urbanizing
watersheds, watersheds which may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life,
watersheds where agricultural practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, and
watersheds where reservoirs may be constructed or removed, and various instances of watershed change. This
however, is generally well beyond the limits of available datasets as well as the statistical validity of such
extrapolations. Again as with the Analog methodology, this method is generally suitable for sites at which the
hydrologic response of the contributing watershed is significantly stable and will remain such for the intended
lifetime of the project.
Analytical Methodology
The Analytical methodology is based on the application of physically based mathematical models of natural
phenomena to the project site and watershed. This methodology is quite different from the Analog and
Empirical methodologies as no dependence is placed on datasets external from the project. Temporally and
spatially distributed phenomena may also be addressed with this methodology, as opposed to Analog and
Empirical methodologies. The Analytical methodology is typified by the system simulation method and is the
primary methodology employed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Geological Survey.
To successfully employ the Analytical methodology, two considerations must be met: 1) the designer must be
able to adequately mathematically describe the relevant primary natural phenomena within the system; 2)
20
0
dliddle Swamp Creek Stream and !Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
adequate environmental parameters must be available to drive the mathematical model of the system. If these
conditions are not met, this methodology is not applicable for project design.
The Analytical methodology is the most flexible and robust of the three methodologies presented and the only
one that can be used to design and analyze the system for specific project functions such as pollutznt removal,
flood attenuation, and habitat development. This methodology can be applied to projects in urbanizing
watersheds, watersheds which may experience development or redevelopment during the project's design life,
watersheds where agricultural practices are changing or may change during the project's design life, watersheds
where reservoirs may be constructed or removed, and other various instances of watershed change as well as
significantly stable watersheds.
Project Analysis and Design Restoration Approach
The Middle Swamp Creek stream and wetland restoration project is located in the Coastal Plain of North
Carolina. The Coastal Plain is one of five distinct hydrophysiographic regions in the State. These are the
Mountains, Piedmont, Sandhills, Coastal Plain, and Tidewater regions. Individual regions vary from other
regions with regards to base flow, infiltration, heat flux, evapotranspiration, runoff response, and various other
hydrologic phenomena. Compared with the other four hydrophyisographic regions in the State, relatively little
surface water flow and stream stage data are available for the Coastal Plain region.
Undeveloped watersheds in the Coastal Plain region are typified by moderate to high infiltration potential,
sandy soil systems with low relief and moderate to high water tables. The runoff and response and stream base
flow are seasonally variable. The low evapotranspiration, high water table winter period results in higher runoff
and stream base flows than the higher evapotransporation, lower water table summer period.
When developing the analysis and design approach, the system location, project goals, and available project
timeline were particularly taken into consideration. A hybrid analysis and design approach was developed for
the project that utilized aspects of the Analog (reference reach) and Empirical (regime reach) methodologies
with the Analytical (system simulation) approach at the core. The approach developed involved a combination
of a variety of stream restoration and hydraulic design techniques. The specific methods used included natural
channel design, sandbed stream design methods, and other stable channel engineering methods. The approach
also included integration of advanced watershed hydrologic and stream hydraulic modeling, utilizing the
continious simulation model AnnAGNPS and the hydraulic model GSTARS to aid in the analysis. A few of the
main sources detailing these methods are referenced at the end of this section. Although fairly involved and
detailed as well as modified to account for site parameters as the project progressed, the general analysis and
design approach employed is as follows:
• Estimate watershed, stream, and wetland response using relatively simple models and methods
• Simulate continuous watershed response using AnnAGNPS
• Employ GSTARS for channel hydraulics and sediment transport analysis
• Set bankfull elevation at floodplain elevation
• Raise/lower bankfulliberm elevations and modify channel parameters and floodplain elevations as needed
and reanalyze
Restoration Potential
The project site has excellent potential for a high quality stream restoration project. The significant floodplain
available means that floodprone area requirements will be easily achieved. There is no adjacent development
that would restrict the design. Although there are three main soil roads through the Middle Swamp area (Map
21
L
Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Wctland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Cohanbus County, NC
4A. Project Extents and Parcels Section 4), this project involves the removal of the main road that parallels the
channel. The length and corresponding acreage of the road is 6,500 ft and 2.27 acres. The approximate area was
calculated using an average road width of 18 feet and generally verified with site topographic information.
Although this site has many advantages, there are several distinct challenges because the design requires
removing the road and changing the channel bed elevations. A detailed hydraulics analysis was necessary to
increase upstream flooding and to design for high shear stresses associated with velocity changes. Another
challenge to this project was developing a design for a sandbed stream system. Common natural channel design
procedures employed in North Carolina may have application to gravel bed streams, with higher slopes and
lower water tables, but have limited applicability in sand dominated and high water table systems.
Stream Dimensional Design
The reference stream was found to have an average bankfull width of 23.3 feet. The side slopes are supported
by dense vegetation on the channel banks including overhanging trees. Tree roots were prominent in the
channel banks. Due to the sandy, non-cohesive soils in the area, steep bank angles would not be stable without
dense vegetative root mass. This vegetative support will take years to develop and the proposed stream will
have to be constructed to remain stable independent of such devices. As a result, the restored stream will be
designed to remain stable based on its geometry and a limited amount of vegetative cover and protection.
Although the bankfull depth will be similar to the reference reach, the result is a stream with a larger cross
sectional area and sideslopes with a flatter, more stable repose angle.
Flat slopes, sandy soils, and high water tables create very different hydrologic system dynamics in the coastal
plain than in the piedmont and mountain regions. The interaction between streams and high water tables in
these areas affects stage return intervals and flooding frequency. Vegetation serves as a primary constraint to
stream geometry and evolution. These factors complicate the relationship between bankfull flow and channel
forming flow.
The stream restoration design may skew from typical templates for piedmont, mountain, and even coastal plain
streams. Cross sectional areas are larger than the reference due to sandy material and the absence of vegetation.
The size of the project dictates that flow rates and sediment loads will change along the length of the stream.
Therefore, the stream parameters will vary from upstream to downstream. The channel dimensions will be
balanced to maintain water depths that remain near the surface for lengthy periods during the year without
excessive drainage while providing for adequate sediment trasnport. The channel capacity (geometry and slope)
was designed to encourage overbank flow at frequent return intervals promoting extended flooding and storage
in the wetland. The balance between adequate sediment transport to prevent excessive deposition, nonexcessive
sideslope repose to prevent bank failure, and nonexcessive depth to prevent overdrainage of the site was the
primary challenge of design.
Initial dimensional designs were driven by bankfull flow rate detenninations. Peak flow rate and sediment
inflow were calculated using a continuos watershed model (AnnAGNPS) and 20 years of daily weather data.
Using the model results and engineering judgment, initial dimensions were chosen for further analysis and
testing with the final pattern and profile designs. The base width of the design channel will be set at 12 feet.
Sideslopes will be set to 2.5:1 (H:V) and will be protected with erosion control fabric. The bankfull depth will
be the set to approximately 2.25 feet, with some sedimentation expected that will reduce this depth over time.
Design top widths are set at approximately 21 feet. This will create an average width to depth ratio of 9.
Although this ratio is lower than at the reference site, it is consistent with data presented by various research
projects.
22
a
e
Afiddle Swamp Creek Stream and IVedard Restoration Project - Restoralion Plat
Columbus Counly, NC
Stream Pattern Design
The existing channel has no natural developed meander bends for channel analysis. The reference site does
exhibit meanders, however, it was found that the reference site is significantly supported by root mass and
dense stream side vegetation. The new stream must be stable for a long period of time prior until vegetation can
develop significantly enough to fully support the channel. Therefore, developed equations and ratios were used
to generate estimates for the design pattern information. The pattern design was then developed utilizing site
contours and a range of pattern values. The pattern design resulted in a restored channel length of 7,070 feet
(Map 8A).
Stream Profile Design
The reference stream average hydraulic slope is 0.026 ft/ft. This slope was used as a basis for slope analysis and
detennination. A profile chart showing the existing channel bed, existing ground surface, and proposed stream
bed is included at the end of this section.
As the restored stream will need to be stable under a variety of conditions, analysis was completed to determine
a range of stable slope possibilities. The restored stream reach slopes willbe 0.0001 ft/ft. A morphological table
comparing the existing, reference, and design stream is included at the end of this section.
Sediment Transport and Shear Stress
Stream analysis has been completed using a dynamic hydraulic model, GSTARS (Generalized Stream Tube
model for Alluvial River Simulation), which was developed by the US Bureau of Reclamation. GSTARS is a
numerical model for simulating the flow of water and sediment transport in alluvial channels. GSTARS
computes hydraulic forces similar to HEC-RAS, but also has the capability to complete a full sediment
transport analysis based on incoming sediment loads, shear stress, scour, and bank movement. This analysis
will be used to test the stability of the design stream dimensions and pattern during design stones and over a
long period of time. Predicted time series, modeled with AnnAGNPS, of inflows and sediment loads have been
routed through the model. This analysis not only predicts the stability of the stream on an event basis, but also
provide a test of stream response to more naturally occurring stonn shapes and frequencies.
It is especially difficult to apply tractive force methods to sand bed streams. Sediment transport in such systems
occurs regularly and stability is a delicate balance between incoming sediment load and deposition and
localized erosion and scour. In a sandy system, the potential for deposition and aegradation must be equally
weighed with the potential for erosion and degradation. Therefore, approaches to detennine channel stability
must utilize the above procedures, but also incorporate additional detailed methods to assess this balance.
® Both a limiting velocity and critical shear stress analysis were completed for the design stream. To improve
applicability, these calculations were initially completed for a range of possible flow rates, channel dimensions,
and slopes. The calculations were applied throughout the stream reach to account for localized slope and
meander conditions. Velocity and shear stress were calculated for a variety of storm events over the entire
stream reach using HEC-15 hydraulic analysis software. These values were compared to published thresholds.
Velocity thresholds for sandy materials typically range between 2-2.5 ft/s. Critical shear stress values are
typically 0.01 lb/sf. Higher velocities and shear may be allowable depending on incoming sediment supply and
bank protection. Additional protection measures such as cross vanes will also be used for grade control in
potential problem areas.
e 23
e
O
Aliddle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
Table 8.1. Tractive Force Analysis
Tractive Force Analysis Summary
inputs Output Thresholds Results
Flow Tested cfs 15-40 Depths (ft 1.4-2.4
Base Widths ft -
12 Velocities P .7-1.0 -2.5 TABLE
ideslo es ft/ft .5 hear Stre
(lb/sf)) .01 .07 TABLE
Profile Slopes ft/ft .0001
In-Stream Structures
In-stream structures will generally not be used along the length of the stream. Excessive deposition is a concern
at the site relative to channel stability and the effect of structures on such deposition could be problematic. The
reference site has an abundance of woody debris in the stream. Roots from streamside trees traverse the bed and
fallen trees and limbs were found frequently along the stream. This random development of structure in the
stream will develop over time and the effect of introduced structure would cause increase local stress on the
new channel and banks. Therefore, structure placement will be limited to ensure grade control and stability
while the streamside vegetative community develops.
Riparian Planting Plan
The stream riparian corridor will be planted with a wetland seed mix of herbaceous and woody species for
erosion control (Table 8.2). Additional woody vegetation will be planted in the floodplain adjacent to the
stream banks (Refer to Section 7 - Vegetation Community Restoration).
Table 8.2 Wetland Seed Mix
Species Composition
Lizards tail Saururus cernztus 30%
Rush Juncus e usus 30%
Sedge Carex s 30%
Southern bayberry Morella caroliniensis 5%
Titi C rilla racetni Lora 5%
Restoration Background Information References
Copeland, Ronald R, Dinah N McComas, Colin R Thorne, Philip J Soar, Meg M Jonas, and Jon B Fripp, 2001 0
Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (ERDC/CHL TR-01-28) US Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
r-,
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998 Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield,
VA
Millar, R G and B J MacVicar, 1998 An analytical method for natural channel design In: Proceedings of the
ASCE Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference, Denver, CO
Miller, D E and P B Skidmore, 2001 Natural Channel Design: How Does Rosgen Classification-Based Design
Compare with Other Methods? In: Proceedings of ASCE Wetlands/River Restoration Conference, Reno, NV
Pope, Benjamin F, Gary D Tasker, and Jeanne C Robbins, 2001 Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina - Revised (WR1R 01-4207) US Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC
24 Q
0
e
Aliddle Swamp Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
Rosgen, D L, 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO
Skidmore, P B, F D Shields, M W Doyle, and D E Miller, 2001 A Categorization of Approaches to Natural
Channel Design In: Proceedings of ASCE Wetlands/River Restoration Conference, Reno, NV
Thorne, Colin R and Philip J Soar, 2001 Channel Restoration Design for Meandering.*, Rivers (ERDC/CHL
CR-01-1) US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
Weaver, J Curtis and Benjamin F Pope, 2001 Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected
Streams in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, through 1998 (WRIR 01-4094) US Geological Survey,
Raleigh, NC
e
t
1

s
e
25
i
Table-1. Design stream morphological data table.
N
rn
Existing Stream Reference Stream Design Stream
Parameter MIN MAX AVERAGE MIN MAX AVERAGE MIN MAX AVERAGE
Drainage Area. DAs mi 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3
Stream Length 6,500 feet 7,070 feet
Stream Type Rosgen E5 C5c- E5 E5b C5b E5b E5 E5 E5
Bankfull XSEC Area, Abkf s ft 6.07 37.1 23.58 33.74 46.24 45.49 36.85 36.85 36.85
Bankfull Width Wbkf (ft)** 7.61 24.93 15.2 20.29 26.3 23.3 20.75 20.75 20.75
Bankfull Depth, Dbkf (fl) 0.51 2.93 1.7 1.28 2.28 1.89 2.25 2.25 2.25
Width to Depth Ratio, NV/D fUft 3.78 48.69 14.8 8.9 20.51 14.32 9.22 9.22 9.22
Width Flood prone Area, Wf a ft 3453 4400 3900 500 500 500 3453 4400 3900
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf fVf3 - - 213.9 - - 9.7 - - 188
Max Depth bkf Dmax ft 1.08 3.54 2.13 2.38 3.61 3.2 2.25 2.25 2.25
Max Depth Ratio Dmax/Dbkf - - 1.25 - - 1.7 1 1 1
Max Depth tob Dmaxtob ft 1.08 3.54 2.13 2.38 3.61 3.2 1.75 2.25 2
Bank Height Ratio Dtob/Dmax ft/ft - - 1 - - 1 0.78 1 0.89
Meander Length, Lm (ft) * * * N/A N/A N/A 180.08 481.09 334
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft) * * * N/A N/A N/A 8.7 23.18 16.1
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) * * * N/A N/A N/A 35.0 397.38 153
Re ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft) * * * N/A N/A N/A 1.7 19.15 7.37
Belt Width, Wblt ft 7.5 20.5 14.37 23.5 26.5 25 37.65 64.3 48.65
Meander Width Ratio, WbltAVbkf ft/ft - - 0.78 - - 1.07 1.8 3.1 2.34
Sinuosity, K 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.06 1.06
Valle Slope, Sval fL/ft - - - - - - - - -
Channel Slope, Schan ft/ft 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

D16 mm - - - 0.18 0.085 0.13 - - -
D35 mm - - 0.8 0.293 0.142 0.22 - - 0.8
D50 mm - - 0.18 0.35 0.22 0.28 - - 0.18
D84 mm - - 0.51 0.55 0.468 0.51 - - 0.51
D95 mm - - 1.89 1.14 1.047 1.09 - - 1.89
* The existing channel is essentially straight. Sharp turns occur where the channel is routed back and forth under the road via culverts
Sinuosity (K) is less than a typical E channel due to limits in construction corridor.
** Bankfull is equivalent to bank top stage in the plan details.
L r-1 D C C r--1 D D CG D D D]
m

I
i

9. Typical Drawings
LOG WEIR STRUCTURE (FACE AND PLAN)
(N.T.S.)
FACE
1/2 Timber Width
Compacted
Sealant Clay
Mchor wing timbers with 3/4'
PLAN diameter metal pins at 1/6,
2/6, 3/6, 4/6, and 5/6 along
the timber centerline through
each timber layer
_+- Bank Top Stage
Anchor wing timbers with 3/4'
diameter metal pins at 1/6,
3/6, and 5/6 along the
timber centerline through each
timber layer
I I I I
Bonk Top Stage
Cross timber and wing timber
length is twice bottom width of
channel
1/2 Timber Width
29
CHANNEL PLUG (SECTIONS)
(N.T.S.)
CROSS CHANNEL SECTION
Twice Channel Top Width
arth Fill
t?- Channel Top Width
isting Surface
Erosion Control Blanket
North American Green LONGITUDINAL CHANNEL SECTION
Anchor vertically in 0.5' deep trench ench at t
edge of berm and channel bottom fill 3.0'
elope toe
Channel Bottom-\
30
TEMPORARY TURN-AROUND
N.T.S.
SEDIMENT FENCE INSTALLED
ALONG TOE OF SIDE SLOPES
v-Sr-Sr
L
rsr - s

3:1 SIDE SLOPES

SA 0
N
W
?
N
n

3:1 SIDE SLOPES

L_cc - v-cr-cs-9

-1
1
U
31
STREAM CHANNEL (SECTION AND VEGETATION PLAN)
ats
W
N
+
01I, 1
1
1
1
0
1 ?
I
+
rrrr ?rrar.? ! i
i
1 1
00

1
i
i
i
I
1
001
r
D + +
rra+. ?rrpr?
+ 0

?rrar,? ?rrrr?
ira rr o?
Aliddle Swamp Creek Strcam and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
10. Wetland Performance Criteria
Success Criteria for Hydrology
A total of two continuous water level recorders are planned for monitoring the hydrology of the wetland area.
Recorders will be programmed to initially record water table data on an hourly basis. If water table changes are
not found to occur rapidly, the recorders may be reprogrammed to record at longer intervals. Water level data
will be compared with previous data recorded at the reference site to detennine if the water table changes after
restoration. The restoration site should meet USACE wetland hydrology requirements.
Success Criteria for Vegetation
Success for the vegetative plantings will be determined by the establishment of four permanent plots (10 X 10
meter) and sampling within these plots. The plots will be randomly placed along the old road bed. Data from
each plot pertaining to species composition, presence of volunteer or invasive species, percent survival, and
percent ground cover will be collected. An 80% survival rate of planted vegetation will be considered
successful at the end of the first year. A minimum of 320 trees/acre should be present at the end of the fifth year
of monitoring. It should be noted that the site is frequently inundated and successfully establishing vegetation
will be difficult. Regeneration from existing dominant species is expected to occurr during periods of low
water.
Success Criteria for Soils
As the soils beneath the existing road bed at the site are already considered hydric, no monitoring or success
criteria is proposed for soils.
11. Stream Success Criteria
Stream Geomorphology Success Criteria
Dimension and profile
One cross-section will be established approximately every 600 feet. The designed stream length is 7,070 feet
and 12 permanent cross sections will be established. At each cross section the width/depth ration, entrenchment
ratio, and low bank height ratio will be measured and compared with the designed stream geomorphology (the
as-builts) for dimension and profile. Photo reference points will be established at each cross section.
Pattern
Longitudinal profiles will be checked for sinuosity, meander width ratio, radius of curvature and compared with
the post construction as-builts.
Materials
Grab samples will be collected to determine the established d50 and d85.
Stream Vegetation Success Criteria
Success will be considered from the establishment of the wetland seed mix along the stream banks and an 80%
survival rate of planted vegetation in the floodplain at the end of the first year.

33

Middle Swamp Creek Stream and Welland Restoration Project - Restoration Plan
Columbus County, NC
12. Monitoring Plan
The site will be monitored once a month for the first three months and quarterly thereafter during the first
post-construction year. Each visit will consist of a visual inspection for general site conditions, presence of
eroding banks, condition of the installed structures, general stream stability and the condition of the ditch plugs.
Groundwater gage data will be downloaded and compiled. Vegetation will be assessed in four permanent plots
that will be established in the restoration area. Within each plot, data will be collected pertaining to species
composition, presence of volunteer or invasive species, and percent survival. Near the end of the first year of
project implementation the stream will be surveyed for existing conditions and general evaluations will be
made. Eleven (approximately one per 20 bankfull-width) cross-sections will be surveyed along the stream
channel (refer to map showing these locations) to determine stream development and for comparison to stream
design parameters. The ditch plugs will be examined for stability and sufficient ground cover. Any invasive
woody vegetation will be removed at this time.
Permanent photo stations will be established at key points for compiling a record of project success over the
monitoring period. A map of the proposed monitoring survey, gage, and vegetation plot locations is located on
map 8A at the end of section 8 of this report. A monitoring report will be submitted to the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program for submittal to USACE and the 401 Wetlands group at the end of the first
post-construction year. Any recommendations for remedial actions will be made at this time. The restoration
project will be monitored for an additional four years by an independent contractor.

0
34 a
0

II
aRp?g ,CpuuS Sig iapun 113nino g2nozq; durems
aIppryW olui SUIWOO Mo(;lano 13n?g joquml - £OOZ `LZ JUW

02p!-d xpuus Sig of axis loofoid luot3 gouQ - £OOZ `LZ Jew
moo g5iq Supnp puuilam puu qo;?p `puog - £OOZ `LZ ]uW
Mar 27, 2003 - Road, ditch and wetland during high flow
June 20, 2002 - Bridge downstream of the site
Mar 27, 2003 - Ditch from project site to Big Sandy Ridge
June 5, 2003 - Reference Cypress Gum wetland onsite
June 5, 2003 - Road overflow culvert onsite
Feb 11, 2004 - Reference stream
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®
NCDA A ronomic Division 4300 Reed Creek Road Raleigh, NC 27607-6465 [phone] Report No: 31807
Grower: Coleman, Amber Copies to: County Extension Director
115 E First St
t Clayton, NC 27520
3od eat Report
Farm:
6/18/03 SERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS Columbus Count
I Agronomist Comments: I -- 11, S
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T IA Crop or Year Lime N Us KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
S01 Hardwood,M 1st Crop: Hardwood,M 4T 80-120 50-70 40-60 $ 0 $ 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-l Zn-AI Cu-1 S-/ SS-1 NCB-N NH-N Na
M-0 4.32 1.19 7.4 14.0 6.4 33 7 15 10.0 3.0 14 17 21 44 15 0.0
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T IA Crop or Year Lime N W5 1¢0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
S02 Hardwood,M 1st Crop: Hard,wood,M 2.9T 80-120 40-60 50-70 $ 0 $ 11
2nd Crop:
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-l Mn-Al (1) Mn-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NCB-N Nfk-N Na
ORG 9.21 0.98 7.2 6.0 6.8 3.8 12 8 3.0 2,0 2 3 5 33 17 0.1
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T IA Crop or Year Lime N kOs &0 Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
S03 Hardwood,M 1st Crop: Hardwood,M 4,6T 80.120 60-80 50-70 $ 0 $ 11
2nd Cro
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-A1(1) Mn-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-Al Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NCB-N NH-N Na
MIN 2.44 1.08 7.6 7.0 7.1 3.5 4 11 4.0 2.0 4 22 22 41 16 0.1
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T IA Crop or Year Lime N 1105 KO Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
X S05 Hardwood,M 1st Crop: Hardwood,M 2,9T 80-120 0 0 0 0 0 11
2nd Cro
I est Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1) Mn-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NCB-N Nfb-N Na
M-0 3.57 0.86 8.3 34.0 5.5 4.3 47 52 20.0 11.0 14 71 89 69 108 0.3
NCDA Anronomir. Division 4300 Reedv Creek Road Raleiah. NC 27607-6465 [phone] Grower: Coleman, Amber Report No: 31807 PQ 2
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T/A Crop or Year Lime N k05 W Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
R01 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwood,E 1.7T 0.0 20-40 50-70 0 0 $ 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% WN CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mh-Al (1) Mh-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 NCB-N Nfb-N Na
M-0 4.56 1.00 6.2 31.0 4.3 4.8 25 30 17.0 11.0 11 9 11 43 37 0.1
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T A Crop or Year Lime N R05 W Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
R02 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwood,E 1.5T 0.0 0-20 50-70 0 0 0 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% WN CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mh-Al (1) Mh-Al (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-I S-1 SS-1 NCB-N NI-b-N Na
ORG 6.99 0.94 8.1 31.0 5.6 4.4 33 27 22.0 8.0 15 17 28 53 40 0.1
Field Information App lied Lime Recommendations
-
Sample No. Last Crop Mo Yr T IA Crop or Year Lime N R05 W Mg Cu Zn B Mn See Note
X R03 No Crop 1st Crop: Hardwood,E 2.4T 0.0 0 70-90 $ 0 $ 11
2nd Cro :
Test Results
Soil Class HM% WN CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1 Zn-AI Cu-1 S-1 SS-1 NCB-N NI-b-N Na
ORG 10+ 0.95 7.8 15.0 6.6 4.1 50 14 8.0 6.0 15 5 8 35 17 0.0
NOTE: X Denotes the results of soil samples at the Project Site.

Appendix C. Existing Site Data
Middle Swamp Creek Streambed Particle Size Analyses
Sieve Numbers
105 3/8 4 6 10 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
90
t
75
d
C
LL
c
d
60
a
45
30
1
Sample
•? ,_,?• NISI-BLWI
-5
10
t
25 'd
a?
N
O
U
c
40
IL
55
70
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
Sand Silt or Clay
Fine Coarse Medium Fine
G
?-i
I

r,
L
r
Appendix D. Reference Site Data
n
u
u
0
H,
I
f'
LJ
IJ
Reference Streambed Particle Size Analyses
Sieve Opening, inches Sieve Numbers
100 3 2 1-1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 4 6 10 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
80
s
60
.a
O
C
LL
r+
C
O
? 40
IL
20
0
20
s
a?
40 'd
N
R
O
V
C
60 v
m
a
80
01 '100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
Is Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Coarsa Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Samples
Bed Sample # 1
.v .,. Bed Sample # 2
L
F-1
Ll
L
u
L
F,

F',
L
L
L?!

E
2

Appendix E. Stream Restoration Design Details
N
-------------
,q
BLUE-------
Land
warn
f In&astruCt=, ee
i_
i
Land
BLUE Water
Infrastructure, PA
BLUE Land
water
l Infrastructure, PA
M ® ® ® M M = = = M ® ® = ® ® = = =
20-Year Middle Swamp Creek Watershed Daily Peak Flow Simulation
500 -i
450
i
400
350
300
250
0
200
I
150
100
i
50
0
00
05 10 15 20
Time (Years)
20- Year Middle Swamp Creek Watershed Peak Sediment Inflow
0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35
C
0.30
0
0.25

0.20
vi 0.15
0.10
0.05

r g
-
- - -' _ 1
I
F I Ll?
I Tul

0.00

., ,
00 05 10 15 20
Time (Years)
1z:Dcz:3 0= i 1::D === (-_::) ==== C a

GGGGG SSSSS T TTTTTTT
GGGGGGG SSSSSSS T TTTTTTT
GG GG Ss Ss TT
GG SS TT
GG GGGGG SSSSSSS TT
GG GGGGG SSSSSSS TT
GG GG SS TT
GG GG SS SS TT
GGGGGGG SSSSSSS TT
GGGGG SSSSS TT
GSTARS Version 2.1 - Jan 2002
INPUT FILE: Middle_Swamp_0810aa.dat
DATE OF RUN: 10 Aug 2004
TIME OF RUN: 16:44:27
Middle_swamp_0810aa.OUT
A RRRRRR SSSSS
AAA RRRRRRR SSSSSSS
AA AA RR RR Ss SS
AA AA RR RR SS
AA AA RRRRRRR SSSSSSS
AAAAAAAAA RRRRRR SSSSSSS
AAAAAAAAA RR RR SS
AA AA RR RR SS Ss
AA AA RR RR SSSSSSS
AA AA RR RR SSSSS
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Technical service center
Denver, Colorado
* 020118 Middle swamp Creek Stream Design Project
X * * * SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS
Number of cross sections: ............................ 21
Number of stream tubes: .............................. 2
Number of time steps: ....... .............. 573
Number of sediment time steps (NITRQS) :.............. 1
Duration of time step (days): .... ........... 5.0000E+00
Formula selected for conveyance calculations:........ manning
Formula selected for friction slope: ................. average
Formula for sediment transport : .............. Yang (1973) with gravel (1984)
NALT for active layer thickness :..................... 14
Transport parameter CFACTOR:......... .............. 1.00
Printout control is 3; print interval:........... 5
Number of time steps to generate x-sec plots:........ 1
Number of time steps for thalweg plots: .............. 1
No minimization requested.
sect. Location ISWITCH ITYP Thalweg Bed slope Loss NDIVI NPOINTS
# (ft) (ft) Coef.
------
1 --------------------
1.0000E+03 1 -------------------
1 6.9700E+01 -------------
4.0000E-04 -------------------
0.00 7 10
2 9.5000E+02 0 0 6.9680E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
Page 1
Middle_swamp_0810aa.oUT
3 9.0000E+02 0 0 6.9660E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
4 8.5000E+02 0 0 6.9640E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
5 8.0000E+02 0 0 6.9620E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
6 7.5000E+02 0 0 6.9600E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
7 7.0000E+02 0 0 6.9580E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
8 6.5000E+02 0 0 6.9560E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
9 6.0000E+02 0 0 6.9540E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
10 5.5000E+02 0 0 6.9520E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
11 5.0000E+02 0 0 6.9500E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
12 4.5000E+02 0 0 6.9480E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
13 4.0000E+02 0 0 6.9460E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
14 3.5000E+02 0 0 6.9440E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
15 3.0000E+02 0 0 6.9420E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
16 2.5000E+02 0 0 6.9400E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
17 2.0000E+02 0 0 6.9380E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
18 1.5000E+02 0 0 6.9360E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
19 1.0000E+02 0 0 6.9340E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
20 5.0000E+01 0 0 6.9320E+01 4.0000E-04 0.00 7 10
21
----- 0.0000E+00
-------------- 1 1
------------ 6.9300E+01
------------- 4.0000E-04
------------ 0.00
------- 7
--------- 10
-----
Coefficients used i n Exner equation and in
compu ting hydraulic
------------- properties
------------ for sediment
------------- capacity
------------
-------
---------
----- -
C1WP C2WP C3WP C1WPU C2WPU
0.250 0.50 0 0.250 0.750 0.250
C1Q C2Q C3Q C1QD C2QD C1QU C2QU

----- 0.000 1.00
-------------- 0 0.000
----------- 0.000
-------------- 1.000 1
------------ .000
------- 0.000
--------
-
Number of particle size classes: 5
Geometric Dry specific
class DRL DRU mean weight
g
# (mm) (mm) (mm) (lb/
tn3)
---------
-
-----
1 --------------
7.0000E-02 -----------
2.5000E-01 --------------
1.3229E-01 -
-
9.9260E+01
2 2.5000E-01 4.5000E-01 3.3541E-01 9.9260E+01
3 4.5000E-01 5.0000E-01 4.7434E-01 9.9260E+01
4 5.0000E-01 6.0000E-01 5.4772E-01 9.9260E+01
5
----- 6.0000E-01
-------------- 1.0000E+01
----------- 2.4495E+00
------------- 9.9260E+01
-------------
Percentage of bed material for each size fraction and for each cross section
section Bed material size fraction for each group
# 1 2 3 4 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
2 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
Page 2

® ® ® =
Middle_5wamp_0810aa.0UT
3 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
4 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
5 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
6 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
7 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
8 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
9 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
10 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
11 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
12 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
13 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
14 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
15 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
16 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
17 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
18 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
19 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
20 12.0 13.0 27.0 46.0 2.0
21
------ 12.0
-------- 13.0
------ 27.0
-------- 46.0
------- 2.0
------------------------------------------
Page 3
Triage Check Dist
Date: 4/29/05 Project Name: Middle Swamp Creek Stream/Wetland
Restoration
DWQ#: 05-0715
County: Columbus
To: Noelle Lutheran, Wilmington Regional Office
30-day Processing Time: 4/28/05 to 5/26/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
171
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation. { 1
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 (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
Cumulative impact concern
1-1
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!