20051354 Ver 1_Complete File_20050719

O?O? \ NA
T ?9PG
co
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
September 29, 2005
Ms. Tracy Morris
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 20051354
Perquimans County
Subject Property: Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration PRoject
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Morris:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 2,200 linear feet of ditches for the purpose of restoring wetlands at the Watts
property near Norma Drive and Little River Shore Road in the Town of Hertford, as described within
your application dated July 19, 2005 and modified on August 31, 2005. After reviewing your application,
we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3495
(GC3495). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other
required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited
to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non-discharge regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application except as provided in
Condition Number 6 below. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills
for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 linear feet of stream,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval
requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved Units Plan Location or Reference
Ditches 2,200 (feet) Site plan
401 OversightlExpress Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
r hCaro
N ina
Na&rallly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Tracy Morris:
Page 2 of 3
September 29, 2005
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Based on our site visit of September 27, 2005, it is very unlikely that DWQ will approve stream
mitigation credits for work done on this site since based on our site visit, the site probably will not
support a stream channel due to the size, slope and geology of the local watershed. However, riparian
and non-riparian wetland mitigation credits will be provided by this project. If EEP modifies the site
plan to omit the construction of a sinuous stream channel, then additional written notification to
DWQ is not required.
Tracy Morris:
Page 3 of 3
September 29, 2005
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-
733-1786 or Kyle Barnes in the DWQ Washington Regional Office at 252-946-6481.
Sincerely,
AWK/jrd
Enclosures: GC 3495
Certificate of Completion
Iimek, P.E.
cc: Pat Smith, Soil and Environmental Consultants
Dave Lekson, USACE Washington Regulatory Field Office
Kyle Barnes, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 20051354 Watts(Perquimans)401
rA;j
'Ecosystem AUG 3 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
PROGRAM
August 31, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-1354
Perquimans County
Mr. John Dorney
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject Project: Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE
Dear Mr. Dorney,
On August 15, 2005, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) received your request for additional
information regarding the Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Watts Property). We
hope that the information included here will complete our application and allow for continued review of
our project by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
We have noted the three week response window and are complying by responding by Monday, September
5, 2005 to you and Kyle Barnes of the DWQ Washington Regional Office. Please consider this response
assurance that we do intend to pursue this project and do not wish to withdraw the permit application.
Response to additional information requested:
1. The proposed stream mitigation plan will likely need to be redesigned. The amount of'sinuocity planned
for the site seems excessive especially considering the planned sinuocity (1.52) is much higher than the
reference site (1.3). With this large amount of sinuocity, we have concerns that the channel will become
stagnant rather than function like a flowing stream as designed.
In order to respond in a timely manner, we requested a justification for the current design from the project
designer, Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC). Please see the attached justification for the
proposed design.
LTXWA
Wtor ... E ... PYDtP,Gt, Ol•G!' Stag IBC -E R
"
forth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nrcFr,
Ecosystem r4l;J
PROGRAM
2. We believe that a site visit with Corps and DWQ staff will likely be needed to address this issue and the
basic issue of whether the site originally had a natural stream channel. Recent experience with DWQ and
Corps staff is that stream restoration on small first order catchments in the coastal plain can be
problematic and require site visits since many of these sites may never have had streams in the past. If that
is the case, then this site would not be a good candidate for stream restoration.
In the project manual, it is noted that an on-site meeting was conducted with Mr. David Lekson of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington District Office on December 18, 2003 to "evaluate site soils and
discuss general restoration alternatives for the Watts Property project." Unfortunately, the EEP failed to
schedule an on site meeting with the DWQ prior to submitting the 401 permit application. A meeting has
been scheduled for September 27, 2005 with DWQ and Mr. Lekson.
3. Please provide a complete, tabular summary of the stream mitigation and reference reach data following
the format of Appendix B of the NC Stream Restoration Guidelines. This table must be provided (and
usually is provided) with every stream mitigation project in the state to allow efficient review of stream
mitigation proposals.
Pursuant to guidelines followed by the EEP in the US Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (April 2003), Appendix E in the submitted plan includes a complete summary of existing,
proposed and reference reach data for dimension, pattern and profile and are enclosed with this
correspondence for your convenience. Please let us know if there is specific relevant data that you feel is
missing from this table.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or tracy.morris a,ncmail.net.
Sincerely,

Tracy Morris
Project Manager
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
cc: Marc Recktenwald, EEP Eastern Implementation Supervisor
Kyle Barnes, DWQ Washington Regional Office
David Lekson, USACE Washington Regional Office
Project file
encl: Watts Property sinuosity discussion
Rosgen classification chart
Appendix E, Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
WtOY- J... L ... Prot" oar Stag MEW
Borth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
8099.D1 Sinuosity Discussion August 30, 2005
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Sinuosity Discussion
Channels in North Carolina are routinely classified utilizing the stream classification system
devised by Dave Rosgen (Rosgen 1996). This classification scheme utilizes several parameters
based on field collected data and site observation, which collectively determines the stream type.
Criteria utilized to determine stream type include slope, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio,
sinuosity, and bed materials.
As seen in the attached table (Rosgen classification chart), the characteristic of sinuosity (Stream
Length/Valley Length or Valley Slope/Channel Slope) varies considerably from stream type to
stream type, as well as within a given stream type. The typical range of sinuosity for an E-type
stream is greater than a value of 1.5. Two examples of such streams are Sal's Branch (Wake
County) and Mill Creek (Wake County) both E-type streams with sinuosities of approximately
2.0 and 1.8 respectively. E-type streams can also have a sinuosity of less than 1.5 as is the case of
an unnamed tributary of Middle Creek (Wake County) which has a sinuosity of approximately
1.24. All of these streams are considered stable and were suitable reference sites, and are all
classified as E-type streams, yet had varying sinuosity values.
When performing a reference reach survey, typically it is desired that a length of approximately
20 to 30 bankfull widths be surveyed. From this length of surveyed stream, a sinuosity is
calculated. The channel utilized as a reference reach for this project was selected for a variety of
reasons including proximity to the site (and its watershed), similar topographic position, adjacent
riparian wetland setting, substrate material, and valley slope. The reference reach survey resulted
in an estimated sinuosity of 1.3. It is important to note that channel sinuosity can be calculated at
various points along a given channel and provide considerably varied results depending upon
where, and over what length, the sinuosity is calculated.
The proposed sinuosity for the restored channel at the Watts Property is 1.5. The slope of the
existing stream on the Watts property is approximately 0.0022 ft./ft. A slope this steep would not
be expected at this position of the watershed in this region (this slope is typical of the valley slope
for streams in this area, and is approximately the valley slope for this site since the existing
stream is essentially straight). For the drainage area of 0.16 mil to the Watt's property stream, the
Coastal Regional Curve ( SRI, 2003) yields an expected water surface slope of 0.0014 ft./ft. The
mean riffle depth at bankfull from the curve at this drainage area is approximately 0.75ft.
Sinuosities of the reaches used to develop the Coastal regional curve varied from 1.1 - 1.4.
Typical sand/silt particle distribution values (for an active riffle and bar sample) were input into
the Andrews sediment competency equations. The results showed that in order to have a design
depth that was within the range given by the regional curve, the design slope must be less than
0.0015 ft./ft. In order to meet this slope, the sinuosity must be at least 1.46. This design slope is
also within the range of slopes given by the regional curve for the Watt's property. This
correlation is evidence that a sinuosity of 1.5 is an appropriate value for this reach. The final
design used a bankfull depth of 0.69 ft., bankfull slope of 0.00 13, and a sinuosity of 1.5.
There is no requirement that a given channel perfectly match all of the "expectant" values
associated with slope, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, or sinuosity. In fact a channel can
easily be outside of the "expectant" range for one or more given criteria associated with say a C-
type stream, yet would invariably be classified by all observers as a C-type stream. Similarly
there is no requirement that a channel be designed in exact concert with all characteristics of a
given reference reach or channel type. Rather, the reference reach is needed to provide
dimensionless ratios that will then be applied to known or chosen values on the impaired stream
Pagel of2
8099.D1 Sinuosity Discussion
August 30, 2005
in order to develop proposed conditions. Sinuosity is not considered a dimensionless value that is
applied to the drainage area of the impaired reach nor is it exactly replicated in the proposed
reach. The overall drop in the channel and the slope needed for sediment competency based on
the stable dimensions of the stream are used in concert with the pattern developed from the
dimensionless ratios of the reference reach to develop a proposed pattern. This process will result
in a proposed alignment that will tie into the upstream and downstream elevations and will not
degrade or aggrade over time. The sinuosity that results from this process is then the design
sinuosity.
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27614
Page 2 of 2
Rosgen.jpg (JPEG Image, 960020 pixels) imap://[e-mail]:143/fetch%3EUID%...
Ar ss? - A
? B C D
_ ; DA E F G
F -
_

f `? .... .

A
l
k ..
}? n a......................... .r,
avh"?:.t '?74K'w?,:'h"7j
2'
, ..........
l
.
; ? s
? ?
.• 'l7
' Y?:??
?
? •d"• ?i v a
7
?F
•h^ ?i..?.?? r •- ?I A G s.`!M ? • ?"???"i??? '?
.
1
? .t?,. ?
4 rte! .??? ?' r ': , " 1
?- ` t
,
A

?C t
w, ?
V
III ' ,7?`... ,,;,•,,,./S.

?
'>?> : `?%; h..... • .
? ?ti ? ..........4
;

7 ,?'.? t t i 'lit
;.',7l
?? •'.{7I'.

C•? ?; ?.?t?.
, .
? ....... f ?'?r. ' { •?1}C.('?
r'S •• ??.? '?. j JJ(?1}II7?,?
' ` t• ;,.',? L ?'{lll?ffft__?
?.1,?•., l ?.'•,;f Js• : .afh . r J

........ .... .

Entr dvW < 1.4 1.4.2.2 > 2.2 NO
- > 4.0 ( > 2.2 < 1.4 < 1.4
-
WO Ratio < 12 > 12 > 12 > 40 vadabta i < 12 > 12 < 12
Sww * 1-1.2 > 1.2 1.2 NO > 1.6 > 1.2 > 1.2
Sops .04-.099 .02-.039 <.02 < .04 < .006 < .02 ! <.02 .02••039
FIGURE 19. Primory delineolive dlerio for the major stream types.
1 of 1 8/31/2005 1:43 PM
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.1) 1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
Values
EXISTING E6 P ROPOSED C6 REFE RENCE REACH E6
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Av Max
Flood prone Width ft 8.63 19.75 28.15 26.7 27.48 28.2 42.99 43.55 44.11
Riffle Area S ft 4.16 4.24 4.31 4.02 4.23 4.49 8.06 8.12 8.18
Max Riffle Depth ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 2.71 2.94 3.17 2.71 2.94 3.17
Mean Riffle Depth ft 0.79 0.96 1.04 .57 0.58 0.6 0.94 0.96 0.97
Riffle Width ft 4.08 4.47 5.35 7.06 7.29 7.48 8.4 8.48 8.56
Pool Area S ft 5.1 6.0 7.2 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95
Max Pool Depth ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 3.06 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Mean Pool Depth ft 1.04 1.12 1.13 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Pool Width ft 4.89 5.34 6.42 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28

Dimensi onless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Wfpa / Wbkf 1.93 4.41834 6.29754 3.78 3.76 3.77 5.07 5.13561 5.20165
Pool Area / Abkf 1.23 1.42 1.67 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798
Max Pool Depth / Dbkf 1.60417 1.72917 1.83333 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
Mean Pool Depth / Dbkf 1.09 1.17 1.32 11.97 12.52 13 1.02083 1.02083 1.02083
Pool Width/ Wbkf 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 1 of 3
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.1) 1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
Radius of Curvature (ft) 40 45 50 13.32 15.59 18.9 3.46 17.12 43.84
Belt Width ft 40 50 60 22.48 34.35 43.24 78.76 78.76 78.76
Dimensi onless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Lm / W bkf 111.8568 134.2282 156.5996 8.44177 8.9443 9.44937 4.10495 12.23349 28.40566
Rc / W bkf 8.94855 10.06711 11.18568 1.68608 1.97342 2.39241 0.40802 2.01887 5.16981
Wblt / Wbkf MWR 8.94855 11.18568 13.42282 2.84557 4.3481 5.47342 9.28774 9.28774 9.28774
Values
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Av Max Min Av Max Min Avg Max
S riffle ft/ft 0.0016 0.00217 0.00272 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364
S pool ft/ft 0 0.00014 0.00043 0 0.00047 0.00127 0 0.00047 0.00127
P - P ft 0 64.51 332.07 36.23 49.98 73.21 36.23 49.98 73.21
P length ft 0 67.13 332.07 8.22 29.94 53.41 8.22 29.94 53.41
Dmax riffle ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 2.71 2.94 3.17 2.71 2.94 3.17
Dmax pool ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 3.06 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Dimesionless Ratios
Variable
S riffle / S bkf ftfft Min
0.73733 Avg
1 Max
1.25346 Min
0.08571 Avg
1 Max
2.6 Min
0.08571 Avg
1 Max
2.6
S of / S bkf fttft
P - P / W bkf ft 0
0 0.06452
14.43177 0.19816
74.28859 0
4.27241 0.33571
5.89387 0.90714
8.63325 0
4.27241 0.33571
5.89387 0.90714
8.63325
P length / W bkf ft
Dmax riffle / D bkf ft
Dmax pool / D bkf ft
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0 15.0179 74.28859
1.41667 1.65625 1.80208
1.60417 1.72917 1.83333
0.00217 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835
2.82292 10625 3.30208
3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
0.0014 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835
2.82292 3.0625 3.30208
3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
0.0014
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 2 of 3
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.13 1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Discharge cfs 5.03 5.03 10.4
Velocity (fps) 1.18 1.18 1.25
H yd Radius ft 0.7 0.75 0.78 .51 .5 .49 0.81 0.81 0.83
Bkf Shear Ib/ s ft 0.1 .1 0.11 .046 .045 .045 0.07 0.05 0.1
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 3 of 3

r "Nw-
-;j
os stem
-1 1 C-11t I I-A
'V K:0110
PROGRAM
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration
Lcation: Per4uimans County; Pasquotank River Basin 03010205; adjacent to the Little River on Norma Dr.
Drainage ea: 0.16 sq mi, 102 acres
Site Areaf48 acres
Si Soils: Roanoke silt loam
4. Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults
Dogue fine sand loam
Clayey, mixed, thermic Aquic Hapludults
Site Ownership: purchased in fee simple by the EEP in August 2004
Permitting Submitted for 401/404: July 15, 2005
Design Firm: Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA
Raleigh, NC
Channel Morphology: see attached
Proposed Restoration Totals: 1,523 if of stream restoration; 4 ac of riverine wetlands; 40 ac of nonriverine
wetlands
NCDEHR
forth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.n(.eep.net
8099.D1 Sinuosity Discussion August 30, 2005
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Sinuosity Discussion
Channels in North Carolina are routinely classified utilizing the stream classification system
devised by Dave Rosgen (Rosgen 1996). This classification scheme utilizes several parameters
based on field collected data and site observation, which collectively determines the stream type.
Criteria utilized to determine stream type include slope, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio,
sinuosity, and bed materials.
As seen in the attached table (Rosgen classification chart), the characteristic of sinuosity (Stream
Length/Valley Length or Valley Slope/Channel Slope) varies considerably from stream type to
stream type, as well as within a given stream type. The typical range of sinuosity for an E-type
stream is greater than a value of 1.5. Two examples of such streams are Sal's Branch (Wake
County) and Mill Creek (Wake County) both E-type streams with sinuosities of approximately
2.0 and 1.8 respectively. E-type streams can also have a sinuosity of less than 1.5 as is the case of
an unnamed tributary of Middle Creek (Wake County) which has a sinuosity of approximately
1.24. All of these streams are considered stable and were suitable reference sites, and are all
classified as E-type streams, yet had varying sinuosity values.
When performing a reference reach survey, typically it is desired that a length of approximately
20 to 30 bankfull widths be surveyed. From this length of surveyed stream, a sinuosity is
calculated. The channel utilized as a reference reach for this project was selected for a variety of
reasons including proximity to the site (and its watershed), similar topographic position, adjacent
riparian wetland setting, substrate material, and valley slope. The reference reach survey resulted
in an estimated sinuosity of 1.3. It is important to note that channel sinuosity can be calculated at
various points along a given channel and provide considerably varied results depending upon
where, and over what length, the sinuosity is calculated.
The proposed sinuosity for the restored channel at the Watts Property is 1.5. The slope of the
existing stream on the Watts property is approximately 0.0022 ft./ft. A slope this steep would not
be expected at this position of the watershed in this region (this slope is typical of the valley slope
for streams in this area, and is approximately the valley slope for this site since the existing
stream is essentially straight). For the drainage area of 0.16 mil to the Watt's property stream, the
Coastal Regional Curve ( SRI, 2003) yields an expected water surface slope of 0.0014 ft./ft. The
mean riffle depth at bankfull from the curve at this drainage area is approximately 0.75ft.
Sinuosities of the reaches used to develop the Coastal regional curve varied from 1.1 - 1.4.
Typical sand/silt particle distribution values (for an active riffle and bar sample) were input into
the Andrews sediment competency equations. The results showed that in order to have a design
depth that was within the range given by the regional curve, the design slope must be less than
0.0015 ft./ft. In order to meet this slope, the sinuosity must be at least 1.46. This design slope is
also within the range of slopes given by the regional curve for the Watt's property. This
correlation is evidence that a sinuosity of 1.5 is an appropriate value for this reach. The final
design used a bankfull depth of 0.69 ft., bankfull slope of 0.0013, and a sinuosity of 1.5.
There is no requirement that a given channel perfectly match all of the "expectant" values
associated with slope, width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, or sinuosity. In fact a channel can
easily be outside of the "expectant" range for one or more given criteria associated with say a C-
type stream, yet would invariably be classified by all observers as a C-type stream. Similarly
there is no requirement that a channel be designed in exact concert with all characteristics of a
given reference reach or channel type. Rather, the reference reach is needed to provide
dimensionless ratios that will then be applied to known or chosen values on the impaired stream
Page 1 of 2
8099.D1 Sinuosity Discussion
August 30, 2005
in order to develop proposed conditions. Sinuosity is not considered a dimensionless value that is
applied to the drainage area of the impaired reach nor is it exactly replicated in the proposed
reach. The overall drop in the channel and the slope needed for sediment competency based on
the stable dimensions of the stream are used in concert with the pattern developed from the
dimensionless ratios of the reference reach to develop a proposed pattern. This process will result
in a proposed alignment that will tie into the upstream and downstream elevations and will not
degrade or aggrade over time. The sinuosity that results from this process is then the design
sinuosity.
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27614
Page 2 of 2
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
77
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1 -; _ 77,
DIMENSION SUMMARY
Alj?j
Values REFERENCE REACH (E6)
Max
PROPOSED C6) Max Av 44.11
EXISTING E6) Av
Max Min 28.2 42.99
qv 27.48 8 ?f I 8.12 3.17
Min 28.15 26.7 4.49 - }- 2.94
- --- -
Variable 19.75 4.02 423 2_? - 0.97
8.63 4.31 2.94 3.17 0.96
Flood rone W S idth it it .16 4.24 2 71 0.6 - 8.56
1.59 1.73 0 58 B. 8.48
Riffle Area 1.36 0.96 1.04 •57 7.48 . ' - 13.95
7.06 7.29 13 -,5 13.95
Max Riffle De th it 0.79 5.35 13.95 3.2 3.58
Mean Riffle De th it 4.08 4.47 -11-2 13.95 13.95 3 )6 0.98
6.0 3.2 3.58 ; .98 0.98
Riffle Width it 5.1, 3.06 0.98 14.28
1.66 1.7 6 ?? 98 14.28
Pool Area S ft) 1.54 1,13 o .98 1.28 1 ?'.28
Max Pool De th it 1.04 1.12 14.28 14.28
Mean Pool Depth it 4.89 5.34 6.42
Pool Width it Av Max
Dimensionless Ratios Max Min _ 5.20165
Min Avg 5 07 5.13561
Max 3.76 3.77 1.71798 1.71798
Av 3.78 1.71798 3.72917
Min 6
.29754 1.71798 1 71798 5 3 33333 _ 1.02083
Variable 1.93 4.41834 1.67 1.71798 - .
Wf a I Wbkf 1.42 3.33333 3.72817 1.0208 1.Uc:ud3 1.68396
Pool Area I Abkf 1.23 1.72917 1.83333 13.11 .97 875 12.52 13 1.683q. 1 P9196
1.60417 1.32 1.683
Max 96 1.68396
Pool De th I Dbkf 117
09 1 1 68396
1.19 .20
Mean Pool De th 1 Dbkf 1 1.19
Pool Width I Wbkf
PATTERN SUMMARY
Values REFEFNCE REACH
Av Max
PROPOSED Max Min -
Av - -1.Z7
EXISTING
7 03.74 240.88
M6x Min 1.52 4.65 34 .81
Min ATI
Variable _ 1.1 700 66.69 70.66
s;nuosit Soo 600 or bolo ical Characteristics
l '3
Meander Wavelen th ft osed Stream M
Reference and PC Page 1 of 3
Table l : Existin
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
Radius of Curvature ft 40 45 50 13.32 15.59 18.9 3.46 17.12 43.84
Belt Width ft 40 50 60 22.48 34.35 43.24 78.76 78.76 78.76
Dimensionless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Lm / W bkf 111.8568 134.2282 156.5996 8.44177 8.9443 9.44937 4.10495 12.23349 28.40566
Rc / W bkf 8.94855 10.06711 11.18568 1.68608 1.97342 2.39241 0.40802 2.01887 5.16981
Wbit / Wbkf MWR 8.94855 11.18568 13.42282 2.84557 4.3481 5.47342 9.28774 9.28774 9.28774
"* z aye, c : >.. -a : - u
-lit

PROF(t-_`SUNtMARY
}
Values
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Av Max
S riffle (ft/ft) 0.0016 0.00217 0.00272 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364
S pool ft/ft 0 0.00014 0.00043 0 0.00047 0.00127 0 0.00047 0.00127
P - P ft 0 64.51 332.07 36.23 49.98 73.2' 36.23 49.98 73.21
P length ft 0 67.13 332.07 8.22 29.94 53.41 8.22 29.94 53.41
Dmax riffle ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 2.71 2.94 317 2.71 2.94 3.17
Dmax pool ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 106 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Dimesionless Ratios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Av Max
S riffle / S bkf ft/ft 0.73733 1 1.25346 0.08571 1 2.6 0.08571 1 2.6
S pool / S bkf ft/ft 0 0.06452 0.19816 0 0.33571 0.90714 0 0.33571 0.90714
P - P / W bkf ft 0 14.43177 74.28859 427241 5.89387 8.63325 4.27241 5.89387 8.63325
P length / W bkf ft 0 15.0179 74.28859 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835
Dmax riffle / D bkf ft 1.41667 1.65625 1.80208 2.82292 3.0625 3.30208 2.82292 3.0625 3.30208
Dmax pool / D bkf ft 1.60417 1.72917 1.83333 3.1875 3 33333 3.729 !7 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
Bankfull Slope ft/ft 0.00217 0-0014 0.0014
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morpholop-ical Characteristics
- Page 2of3
-.9111001,
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
"HYDRAULIC SUMMARY _

Variable
Discharge cfs
Velocity (fps) EXISTING
Min Avg Max
5.03
1.18 PROPOSED
Min Avg Max
5.03
1.18 REFERENCE REACH
Min Av Max
10.4
1
25
d R
di
H .
a
y
us ft 0.7 0.75 0.78 .51 .5 .49 0.81 0.81 0
83
Bkf Shear (lb/ s ft) 0.1 .1 0.11 .046 .045 .045 0.07 0.05 .
0.1
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 3 of 3

?OF Vv n /9QG Michael F. Easley, Governor
O
7' William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Q ?( Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 12, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-1354
Perquimans County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Salam Murtada
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1699
Subject Property: Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Murtada:
On July 19, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated July 14, 2005 to
impact 2,200 feet of streams to construct the proposed wetland and stream mitigation project at SR 1326
near the Town of Hertford in Perquimans County. The DWQ has determined that your application was
incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional
information in order to process your application to impact protected wetlands and/or streams on the
subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the additional information requested below, we will have
to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project
on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. Please provide the following
information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
1. The proposed stream mitigation plan will likely need to be redesigned. The amount of sinuocity
planned for the site seems excessive especially considering the planned sinuocity (1.52) is much
higher than the reference site (1.3). With this large amount of sinuocity, we have concerns that
the channel will become stagnant rather than function like a flowing stream as designed.
2. We believe that a site visit with Corps and DWQ staff will likely be needed to address this issue
and the basic issue of whether the site originally had a natural stream channel. Recent experience
with DWQ and Corps staff is that stream restoration on small first order catchments in the coastal
plain can be problematic and require site visits since many of these sites may never have had
streams in the past. If that is the case, then this site would not be a good candidate for stream
restoration.
3. Please provide a complete, tabular summary of the stream mitigation and reference reach data
following the format of Appendix B of the NC Stream Restoration Guidelines. This table must
be provided (and usually is provided) with every stream mitigation project in the state to allow
efficient review of stream mitigation proposals.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
NOne Caro
ta na
aral
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/l0% Post Consumer Paper
1 .1 1
Salam Murtadaj
Page 2 of 2
August 12, 20051
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Kyle Barnes of the DWQ Washington Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three
weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Mr. John Dorney or Mr. Larry Eaton at 919-733-1786
if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
JRD/jrd
Sincerely,
cc: Kyle Barnes, DWQ Washington Regional Office
Dave Lekson, USACE Washington Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Larry Eaton, DWQ
John Hennessy, DWQ
Filename: 2005135WattsRestoratloh(Perquimans)on hold j
I
j
WattFeProper':y Stream/Wedand DWQ # 05-1354
Subject: Watts Property Stream/Wetland DWQ # 05-1354
From: Laurie Dennison <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:53:01 -0400
To: SALAM MURTADA <[e-mail]>
Please see attached the Division of Water Quality's request for more information
related to your recent application. Please note that this message is being forwarded
to you electronically so that you may expedite preparation of your response. Please
do not send your response as a reply to this e-mail or via fax. The hard copy is
being sent via US Mail. All response correspondence is to be mailed via hard copy to
the 401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC, 27604
unless otherwise noted.
20051354WattsRestoration (Perquimans)On hold.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 8/15/2005 7:56 AM
1111z",
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
August 11, 2005
Memorandum
To: John Dorney
From: Lawrence Eaton Z
Subject: Comments on Watts Property Restoration, Perquimans Co, (051354)
The Watts Property restoration is an agricultural field with many ditches in a small watershed
(0.13 sq miles) near Elizabeth City, NC. The tract has been in agriculture for well over 100 years
and is essentially flat, having at most a three foot drop in elevation along the length of the straight
1523 ft main ditch. Photos taken in February show little water and no discernable flow in the
main ditch on the property.
After discussing portions of this project with you, Dave Penrose and Leilani Paugh, I have
concluded that if this project were to be built as designed, large amounts of money would be
spent for very little benefit. The existing ditch, which already apparently does not flow for most of
,r cz
the year, does not need as much sinuosity as proposed. Each bend, and the structures which
protect it, costs money. With such a large property, a few, large bends would be a much more UIS,
"natural" channel design for this part of the state than the many tight curves currently proposed ?¢ 3
(sinuosity of 1.52). Ms Paugh pointed out that since this is a priority 1 project, which involves
bringing up the bed of the existing stream, it would be cheaper to build the new channel
somewhere besides in the old channel bed. It's a big flat place out there with no restrictions.
Have fun with the design (though I think Leilani was only kidding when she suggested making it a
figure 8). This much extra stream length (even the reference site had a sinuosity of only 1.27) will
almost guarantee a non-flowing feature for most of the year, which, biologically speaking, is
probably not going to be an improvement over what is in the ditch right now. There is only three
feet of elevation to lose in '/4 mile, there is no need for that many bends. Fewer bends will
increase the slope and the chances that this feature will flow for at least part of the year and thus
support more than "ditch fauna".
I also have some concerns about the selection of the reference reach. Granted that unimpacted
reference reaches are hard to come by in the coastal plain, but the stream chosen as a reference
appeared to be much larger (watershed 5-10 times larger) than the restoration site. From the
topographic maps, it appears that the headwaters of the reference stream is a series of flat,
ditched, fields, like the restoration site, which eventually drain into the steeper, more natural,
portion of the stream where 320 feet of the stream were used to determine reference conditions.
Part of the potential problems in designing this restoration appear to come from assuming that
this piece of stream, that may not have been farmed because it was topographically aberrant, is a
normal condition for the flatter sections of the coastal plain that made for easier agriculture. Also,
using a stream with a significantly larger watershed than the one proposed for restoration ignores
North Carolina Division of Water Quality: Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC; 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o. enr.state. nc. us/ncwetlands
IV
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
the increasing uncertainty inherent in the regional curves for very large and very small
watersheds.
Finally, since a "Natural" channel design is proposed, I am having trouble with the idea of using
rock to stabilize a stream in a part of the state where natural rock has never existed. The need
for rock may be reduced if the project is redesigned to have fewer, wider curves that would
require less forcing of the water around bends.
Cc: files
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o,erir.state.nc. us/ncwetlands
200.1354
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN FOR
Watts Property
Perquimans County, North Carolina
Prepared for
11161,
**V-
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
March 2005
REVISED April 2005
REVISED June 2005
REVISED July 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0%n0%
JU` 19 2p05
wP?ejkao ,Soo
*1 Sao
50
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... .. 2
3.0 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................. .. 4
4.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION ........................................................... .. 5
4.1 Drainage Area ................................................................................................... .. 5
4.2 Land Usage & Distribution ............................................................................... .. 5
4.3 Future Land Use ................................................................................................ .. 5
5.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................... .. 6
5.1 Existing Hydrologic Features ........................................................................... .. 6
5.2 Site Soils ........................................................................................................... .. 7
5.3 Existing Plant Community ................................................................................ .. 7
5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................ .. 7
5.5 Stream Geometry & Substrate Material ............................................................ .. 8
5.6 Nearby Areas of Historical Significance .......................................................... .. 8
5.7 Floodplain Coordination ................................................................................... .. 8
5.8 Other Site Features & Utilities .......................................................................... .. 9
6.0 STREAM & WETLAND EVALUATION ................................................................ 10
6.1 Reference Stream & Wetland Studies ................................................................... 10
6.1.1 Stream Reference Reach ....................................................................... 10
6.1.2 Regional Curve Verification ................................................................... 10
6.1.3 Riverine Reference Wetland ..................................................................... 11
6.2 Site Wetland Delineation ...................................................................................... 12
6.3 Site Groundwater Data .......................................................................................... 12
6.4 Site Rainfall Data .................................................................................................. 13
7.0 STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ................................................... 14
7.1 Site Demolition Plan ............................................................................................. 14
7.2 Stream Restoration Concept ................................................................................. 14
7.3 Natural Channel Design ........................................................................................ 15
7.3.1 Restoration Methodology ............................................................................. 15
7.3.2 Channel Competency Determination ........................................................... 16
7.3.3 In-Stream Structures .................................................................................... 17
7.4 Planned Hydrologic Modifications ....................................................................... 17
7.5 Wetland Vegetative Community Restoration ....................................................... 18
7.5.1 Riverine Planting Zone ............................................................................. 18
7.5.2 Non-Riverine Planting Zone ..................................................................... 20
7.5.3 Herbaceous Planting Zones .......................................................................... 21
7.6 Soil Restoration .....................................................................................:............... 22
7.7 Removal of Invasive or Undesirable Species ....................................................... 22
7.8 Erosion & Sediment Control ................................................................................. 22
i
7.9 Construction Sequence .......................................................................................... 23
8.0 STREAM & WETLAND SUCCESS CRITERIA & MONITORING PLAN ........... 26
8.1 Stream Restoration Monitoring ......................................................................... 26
8.1.1 Physical Monitoring ..................................................................................... 26
8.1.3 Biological Monitoring .................................................................................. 27
8.2 Wetland Restoration Monitoring .......................................................................... 27
8.2.1 Hydrologic Success Criteria ........................................................................ 27
8.2.2 Vegetative Success Criteria ...................................................................... 27
8.2.3 Physical Success ....................................................................................... 28
8.3 Monitoring Schedule ......................................................................................... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Project Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2 USGS Topographic Map - Site Location
FIGURE 3 Perquimans County Soils Survey Map - Site Location
FIGURE 4 USGS Topographic Map - Reference Site Locations
FIGURE 5 Perquimans County Soils Survey Map - Reference Sites
FIGURE 6 Existing Site Conditions
FIGURE 7 Proposed Site Conditions & Index Map
FIGURE 8 Proposed Stream Restoration Layout - Sheet 1 of 3
FIGURE 9 Proposed Stream Restoration Layout - Sheet 2 of 3
FIGURE 10 Proposed Stream Restoration Layout - Sheet 3 of 3
FIGURE 11 Proposed Stream Longitudinal Profile - Sheet I of 3
FIGURE 12 Proposed Stream Longitudinal Profile - Sheet 2 of 3
FIGURE 13 Proposed Stream Longitudinal Profile - Sheet 3 of 3
FIGURE 14 Typical Restored Channel & Floodplain Cross-sections
FIGURE 15 Typical In-channel Structures & Bank Stabilization Details
FIGURE 16 Erosion Control Details I
FIGURE 17 Erosion Control Details II
FIGURE 18 Site Planting Plan
FIGURE 19 Planting Details
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Site Photographs
APPENDIX B Reference Stream & Wetland Photographs
APPENDIX C Preliminary Site Groundwater Data
APPENDIX D Site Rainfall Data
APPENDIX E Stream Morphological Characteristics Data Table
APPENDIX F Existing Conditions Stream Data
APPENDIX G Reference Reach Stream Data
APPENDIX H Proposed Conditions Stream Data
APPENDIX I State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Letter
APPENDIX J Perquimans County Floodplain Coordination Letter
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) has been contracted by the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to restore approximately 1,523
linear feet of stream channel, 4 acres of riverine (stream-side) wetlands, and 40 acres of
non-riverine wetlands on the Watts Property near the town of Hertford in Perquimans
County, NC (Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010205). Using natural channel design,
there is the potential to restore as much as 2,200 linear feet of stream channel. See Figure
1 for a site vicinity map.
In March 2005, S&EC prepared a Conceptual Restoration Plan to gain concurrence from
the NCEEP on our concept for the restoration of the impaired stream and the former site
wetlands. At that time we solicited additional comment and input from NCEEP for
incorporation into this Restoration Plan. We have incorporated the comments and
suggestions provided by NCEEP into our plan.
This report presents our design rationale and documentation for the proposed Restoration
Plan to restore stream function, wetland hydrology and vegetation, and the resultant
habitat. This will be performed through the construction of an appropriately sized coastal
stream and site grading including but not limited to the filling of existing site drainage
ditches. Once complete the restored stream and wetlands will be planted with the
appropriate vegetative species. The interested reader is referred to the included figures
and appendices for additional information.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The channelized and impaired state of the existing stream, limited floodplain
functionality due to channel incision, existing and future sedimentation and erosion
potential, and lack of native vegetation along the banks and riverine buffer zone indicate
that this length of stream presents a viable restoration project. Additionally, the
remainder of the property consists of former coastal wetlands which, through the use of
agricultural practices including ditching, have been converted for use as agricultural
lands.
In this process we intend to accomplish the following objectives:
1) Restore approximately 1,523 linear feet of appropriately sized stream channel that
is stable and self-maintaining, and that will not aggrade or degrade over time, by
utilizing Rosgen-based natural channel design procedures and techniques.
2) Develop a restored channel with the appropriate morphological characteristics
(cross-sectional dimension, pattern, and longitudinal profile) utilizing locally
collected reference reach data as a guide. Allow for no net loss of overall channel
length in the process.
3) Create and/or improve bed form diversity (riffles, runs, pools, and glides) and
improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat.
4) Construct a floodplain (or local bankfull bench) that is accessible at the proposed
bankfull channel elevation.
5) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in-stream structures
and native bank vegetation.
6) Establish a native forested and herbaceous riverine buffer plant community within
a minimum width of 50 feet from the edge of the restored channel. This new
community will be established in conjunction with the eradication of any existing
exotic and/or undesirable plant species.
7) Restore approximately 4 acres of riverine (stream-side) wetlands within the newly
established floodplain of the restored channel. Provide the desired riverine
wetland community through the use of microtopographic grading and the planting
of the appropriate wetland vegetative species.
8) Restore approximately 40 acres of non-riverine wetlands within the site through
the modification of existing site features which currently alter hydrology. Provide
the desired wetland vegetative community through the planting of the appropriate
wetland vegetative species.
2
9) Allow for treatment of nutrient rich agricultural runoff from adjacent and
upstream properties through the utilization of riverine wetlands as a treatment
mechanism.
10) Restore habitat in and along the stream and riverine corridor by enhancing vertical
and horizontal structure perpendicular to the restored channel. In doing so
provide cover, travel corridors, and access to the adjacent natural areas for
mammalian, reptilian, and avian species.
11) Incorporate the restoration effort into the site's surroundings to provide aesthetic
and educational values.
3
3.0 PROJECT LOCATION
The Watts Property Stream & Wetland Restoration project is located in the Pasquotank
River Basin, Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010205, along the southwest bank of the
Little River near its confluence with the Albermarle Sound in Perquimans County, NC.
The site, near Hertford, NC, is immediately adjacent to Norma Drive near its intersection
with Little River Shore Road (SR 1326). See the attached Site Location Map (Figure 1)
and the attached 7.5 minute series USGS Topographic Map, Nixonton, NC (Figure 2) for
specifics on directions to the site and the surrounding vicinity.
According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) website, the Little River (Stream Index
Number 30-5-(2)) is classified as a Class SC watercourse. The following definitions
apply:
Class SC - aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and
secondary recreation.
The site consists of a single tract of approximately 48 acres, previously owned by Mr.
Richard Watts of Venice, Florida.
4
4.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION
During our analyses we observed characteristics of the site and surrounding area, verified
surface and channel flow conditions, and observed existing water conveyance structures.
This section describes our evaluation of the project watershed (See Figure 2).
4.1 Drainage Area
The watershed area for the project site is estimated at approximately 0.16 square miles
(102 acres). Much of the drainage area is interlaced with a complex system of
interconnecting drainage ditches designed to evacuate surface water and draw down
ground water during the wetter portion of the year. The outlet for the drainage is an
existing pipe which carries discharges from the site (and contributing drainage) under
Norma Drive and into the Little River.
4.2 Land Usage & Distribution
The entirety of the site itself has most recently been used for agricultural purposes
(primarily soybean production). It is our understanding that this use has been continuous
for many years.
The surrounding area and contributing watershed is similarly used primarily for
agricultural purposes and timber operations (mixed pine and hardwood forest) with
individual home sites, a few small clusters of higher density residential lots (1 /2 to 1
acres), and agricultural buildings. Select small municipal, commercial, or industrial
facilities are also sparsely intermixed into the mostly rural landscape.
4.3 Future Land Use
With the execution of the proposed restoration plan, the site will be removed from
agricultural use, regraded, and planted with a mix of woody and herbaceous wetland
vegetative species.
Based on our observation of current land use in the surrounding area and the primarily
rural landscape, it is unlikely that future (5 to 10 years) land usage will differ
considerably from the current use.
5.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
On October 10 & 12, 2003, and again on January 13 & 14, 2004, Soil & Environmental
Consultants, PA, performed a limited engineering survey using Total Station equipment
to identify site characteristics to include, but not limited to drainage ditches, open
channels, water conveyances, utilities, and structures. While on site, we also observed
surface and open channel flow conditions, and the surrounding (and contributing)
drainage area.
This section describes existing site conditions at Watts Property based on field data
recorded by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA, during our site visits to date. See
attached Existing Site Plan (Figure 6) and the Appendix A - Site Photographs for details.
The location and direction of view for site photos is shown on the Existing Site Plan.
5.1 Existing Hydrologic Features
As previously noted, much of the contributing drainage area (both on and off site) is
interlaced with a complex system of interconnecting drainage ditches. From their
configuration it is evident that they were installed to evacuate site surface water and draw
down ground water during the wetter portion of the year. In doing so, these ditches have
allowed for easier access of farm equipment and the resultant utilization of a significantly
larger portion of the surrounding landscape for agricultural practices.
The on-site network includes a total of twelve (12) intersecting agricultural ditches of
varying dimensions totaling over 9,000 feet in length. Many of these ditches eventually
drain to a single straightened and dredged stream channel which bisects the property.
This system is shown in detail on Figure 6 along with indicators of flow direction. These
feeder ditches range from roughly 6 to 15 inches deep up to 2 to 3 feet in depth (at top of
bank). The feeder ditches vary in top width from approximately 4 to almost 8 feet in
width.
At select locations the ditch network is tied with existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
and corrugated plastic pipe (CPP) culverts ranging in size from 12 inches to 24 inches.
These pipes serve as crossing locations for farm equipment allowing access to all
portions of the property.
The main channel, for which stream restoration is proposed, serves to collect site surface
runoff (overland and from adjacent the ditches) and site groundwater. This same channel
also receives upstream watershed discharges from two agricultural ditches near the
southern property boundary. In its current straightened condition the channel is
approximately 1,523 feet in length. A 24 inch CMP culvert is situated at the approximate
mid-point of the existing reach. The channel ranges from 3 to 4 feet in depth (at top of
bank) while varying in top width from approximately 6 feet to as much as 10 feet in
width.
The stream banks are moderately steep to steep along much of the channel length with
little or no vegetative cover over most of the length. The average slope along the length
6
of the existing channel is 0.00217 ft/ft. No woody vegetation was observed on any of the
site stream or ditch banks, with the exception of the south side of the two feeder ditches
which parallel the southern property line. Along these, the southern bank is densely
vegetated with woody vegetation.
The stream leaves the site near its north property boundary through an existing 24 inch
CMP under Norma Drive and into a feeder canal for the Little River. The pipe itself is
completely submerged (at both ends). The upstream culvert headwall is in disrepair and
the downstream end of the pipe has no discernable headwall and is crushed. During our
site visits we observed excessive sedimentation within the pipe, partially burying the
downstream end of the culvert. Consideration should be given to the replacement of
existing pipe with an appropriately sized pipe arch culvert.
5.2 Site Soils
The site's location is shown on the Perquimans County Soil Survey segment included as
Figure 3. In the Perquimans County Soil survey, on-site soils are mapped Roanoke silt
loam. The USDA describes the Roanoke silt loam as a nearly level, poorly drained soil
with slow permeability and moderate shrink swell potential. The high water table is at or
near the surface and when drained the soil is well suited to corn, soybean, and grain
production. Dominant vegetative communities usually include loblolly pine, red maple
and sweet gum with an understory of cedar, American holly, sweet bay, sourwood, reeds,
and wax myrtle. Select hand auger borings were performed at various locations. Based
on our observations, it is our opinion that site soils are uniform and taxonomically
consistent with Roanoke silt loam. No laboratory soil tests were performed.
5.3 Existing Plant Community
As the site has been used for soybean production, the natural plant community has been
greatly altered. The site is barren except for remnant vegetation on the south side of the
two feeder ditches which parallel the southern property line. This woody vegetation
consists primarily of Red Maple (Ater rubrum). Vegetation in the surrounding wooded
areas consist primarily of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) and Red Maple (Ater rubrum).
5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
In order to assess potential impacts to any federal and state threatened and/or endangered
species the proposed restoration effort may pose, a review was performed at the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Raleigh office. A two-mile radius of the site
was evaluated for known Elements of Occurrence of threatened/endangered animals, and
a five-mile radius was evaluated for threatened/endangered plants.
No Elements of Occurrence of threatened or endangered federal and state animals were
located within the radii specified above. The closest Element of Occurrence of a
threatened/endangered animal to the site is an active bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) nest approximately 5 miles east of the site across the Little River in a
marsh area. We believe that the proposed restoration work will have no adverse effect on
bald eagle habitat, and will likely help to enhance local habitat quality.
Within 5 miles, a state threatened vascular plant has been observed. The Carolina
grasswort (Lilaeopsis carolinensis) occurs within freshwater marshes, pools, and tidal
marshes within the coastal plain. Since the site has been drained and used as cropland, it
is unlikely that any suitable habitat for the Carolina grasswort remains. It is unlikely that
restoration activities will have a detrimental impact on this species.
5.5 Stream Geometry & Substrate Material
The current channel was surveyed to develop a total of four (4) stream cross-sections and
a longitudinal profile defining the existing conditions. From this data, we performed a
Level II Classification (Rosgen) for the existing stream resulting in a Type 136c (very low
width/depth ratio) in the upper third of the reach, and a slightly entrenched Type E6
channel for the remainder of the reach. These classifications were consistent with our
site observations.
The sinuosity of the existing channel is approximately 1.0, a value which is out of the
acceptable range for both a Type B and a Type E stream. The average entrenchment ratio
of the existing channel is 4.42, and the average width depth ratio is 4.66. The measured
bankfull slope was 0.0022 ft/ft. 0.12 9 c
The existing channel bed has little or no facets due to straightening and dredging. The
silt bed is generally homogenous throughout the reach. Table 1 (Stream Morphological
Characteristics Data Table) in Appendix E contains the morphological characteristics for
the existing, reference, and proposed stream conditions.
5.6 Nearby Areas of Historical Significance
The State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted in order to determine
potential impacts as a result of the proposed restoration effort at Watts Property to any
nearby areas of historical significance.
According to Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley at SHPO, and as described in her letter dated
March 9, 2005, there are no nearby areas of historical significance that would be
impacted by the proposed work. A copy of this letter is enclosed as Appendix I.
5.7 Floodplain Coordination
Mr. William Ethridge and Mr. Zeke Jackson of the Planning Department of Perquimans
County were consulted regarding the proper procedure for the approval of this project. A
letter dated June 20, 2005, was forwarded to the department describing the restoration
efforts and requesting written approval of the project. A copy of this letter is included as
Appendix J.
8
5.8 Other Site Features & Utilities
Based on our site observations to date, a single structure currently exists on the property.
This structure is an open-frame farm equipment shed located in the northwest corner of
the property. This structure is proposed for demolition during site restoration.
Select other utilities to include electric and telephone are located along the northern
property boundary immediately south of Norma Drive. These utilities will require
specific location and marking by the selected construction contractor prior to
commencing restoration work. If the road and/or utility easements fall within the project
bounds, coordination will be required in order to obtain a written encroachment
agreement with the appropriate entities. S&EC has begun coordination in order to
expedite the process. For planning purposes we have estimated easements at the site at
50 feet and 30 feet for the roadway and electric utility easements respectively. These
estimated easements are reflected on Sheet 6. Actual easement widths, once determined,
will be reflected on the Construction Drawings.
9
6.0 STREAM & WETLAND EVALUATION
In order to facilitate restoration plan development as well as support project goals, an off-
site stream reference reach and two reference wetland areas (one riverine and one non-
riverine) were characterized. This section describes our evaluation to date of the
reference sites, our on site jurisdictional waters delineation, existing groundwater
conditions, and site rainfall.
6.1 Reference Stream & Wetland Studies
All reference areas occupy similar landscape positions to that of the Watts Property site.
The reference areas were quantitatively or qualitatively assessed, and species lists for
each vegetative stratum (trees, shrubs, herbaceous, and vines) were recorded.
6.1.1 Stream Reference Reach
The stream Reference Reach is located west of Red Bank Road (SR 1331)
approximately 5000 feet north of its southern intersection with Woodville Road
(SR 1329) (see Figure 4). The reach consisted of an unnamed tributary of the
Little River. Similar to our restoration reach, this tributary flows generally east-
northeast discharging along the western bank of the Little River. This location is
approximately 3 miles northwest of the Watts Property. Due to the limited
availability of reference streams in the area, this site was chosen due to its close
proximity to the site while maintaining conditions similar to those we intend to
replicate at the restoration site.
The reference reach was surveyed with Total Station equipment. Our survey
included approximately 320 linear feet of channel or approximately 35 bankfull
widths (20 to 30 bankfull widths is desired). Two (2) cross sections and a
longitudinal profile were surveyed. Key morphological characteristics developed
include; a bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) of 8.07 square feet (ft) , a bankfull
width (Wbkf) of 8.53 feet, and a mean bankfull depth (dbkf) of 0.95 feet.
(`? ? 0, The reference channel has an average entrenchment ratio of 5. 1, and an average
5\? ` c6 nn` width/depth ratio of 8.9. Channel sinuosity is approximately 1.3, and bankf_u_ll
slope is approximately 0.0014 ft/ft. The reference reach has distinct facets
corresponding with channel pattern. The Level II classification for the reference
reach is E6.
Table 1 in Appendix E contains the morphological characteristics of the surveyed
reference stream reach. Vegetation adjacent to the reference reach was similar to
that described for the riverine reference wetland described in the next section.
Photos of the reference reach are provided in Appendix B.
6.1.2 Regional Curve Verification
Using data published by North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute (SRI)
10
(Regional Curves for North Carolina Coastal Streams - SRI 2003) we compared
our reference data expectant riffle dimension characteristics for a stream with a
watershed area of 0.45 square miles. Cross-sectional Area, Bankfull Width, and
Mean Depth were all compared with the curve line and their placement in relation
to the 95% confidence limits (upper and lower) for each of the three curves.
The comparisons are presented in the following table:
Regional Curve Data
Morphological Reference

Characteristic Reach Lower Curve Upper
Data Limit Line Limit
Cross-sectional
Area, ft.2 8.07 2.30 8.57 28.00
Bankfull

Width, ft. 8.53 4.30 8.23 17.00
Mean

Depth, ft. 0.95 0.42 1.02 2.50
6.1.3 Riverine Reference Wetland
The riverine reference wetland is located east of Red Bank Road (SR 1331)
approximately 5000 feet north of its southern intersection with Woodville Road
(SR 1329) (see Figure 4). This location is approximately 3 miles northwest of the
Watts Property. The site is directly across the road from the stream Reference
Reach along the same channel. In the Perquimans County Soil Survey, reference
site soils are mapped as Chowan silt loam (see Figure 5). This soil type is very
poorly drained and occurs on the flood plains of small streams that flow into the
Perquimans River.
The canopy is dominated by Red Maple (Ater rubrum), with some Green Ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American Elm (Ulmus americana) present. It is
evident that approximately 60-80% of the canopy was damaged by the hurricanes
that struck the area in 2004. The shrub stratum consisted of Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Greenbriar
(Smilax spp.), and Rattan Vine (Berchemia scandens), as well as saplings from
species in the tree stratum. It is evident that manipulation of this site has occurred
in the past, and, while we recognize the reference vegetation lacks diversity, we
found it suitable for our purposes. Within the restoration, we utilized the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina " to select later
successional species to restore the communities that naturally existed in this area
before anthropogenic alterations. Photographs of the Riverine reference wetland
are provided in Appendix B.
11
6.1.4 Non-Riverine Reference Wetland
The non-riverine reference wetland is also located east of Red Bank Road (SR
1331) approximately 4000 feet west/northwest of its intersection with Woodville
Road (SRI 329) (See Figure 4).
This area appears to flood much less frequently than the riverine reference
wetland and although no areas of standing water were observed, soils were
saturated to near the ground surface. In the Perquimans County Soil survey,
reference site soils are mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam, a poorly drained soil
with moderate permeability.
The canopy was dominated by Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda). Also in the canopy
several Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Red Maple (Ater rubrum) and an
unidentified oak were observed. The shrub stratum consists of Wax Myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American Holly (Ilex
opaca), and Greenbrier (Smilax spp.), as well as saplings from species in the tree
stratum. Photographs of the non-riverine reference wetland are provided in
Appendix B.
6.2 Site Wetland Delineation
On December 18, 2003, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA, met with Mr. David
Lekson of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington District Office to
observe site conditions, evaluate site soils, and discuss general restoration alternatives for
the Watts Property project. At that time we understood that Mr. Lekson was in general
agreement with our evaluation of site soils, and the general suitability and potential for
the preliminary estimates regarding riverine and non-riverine wetland restoration.
We are currently working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington Office to
determine an approach to the site wetland delineation. Additionally, we will contact the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to confirm the Prior Converted (PC)
wetland status of the property.
6.3 Site Groundwater Data
Our evaluation of site groundwater to date included the siting and installation of a series
of groundwater monitoring gauges with electronic data loggers. These gauges were
provided to S&EC by NCEEP. A total of six (6) Infinities USA, Inc., data logger gauges
(numbered W-1 through W-6) were installed on the project site on December 11, 2003.
Locations of gauges are shown on Figure 6. Since their installation, these gauges have
been downloaded on approximately a quarterly basis. To date all gauges have remained
functional. We will continue to download collected data during the design process.
On March 22, 2005, a total of four (4) gauges were installed on the reference wetlands,
two (2) at the riverine reference wetland site (WRR-1 and WRR-2) and two (2) at the
non-riverine reference wetland site (WRN-1 and WRN-2). Similar to the site gauges
these will be downloaded on an approximate quarterly basis.
12
Gauge data from both the site and reference wetlands (riverine and non-riverine) was
compiled for design use and incorporation into this Restoration Plan. Data collected from
these gauges is provided in Appendix C.
6.4 Site Rainfall Data
Our site work also included the purchase, siting, and installation of one (1) 6.5-inch
diameter, 0.01-inch, self-emptying tipping bucket rain gauge data logger (Infinities USA,
Inc.) on site. The gauge was installed on December 11, 2003. On or around March 27,
2004, vandals damaged the gauge and a second gauge subsequently was purchased and
installed on the site. To date this gauge remains in place and functional. Approximately
3 months of rain data was retrieved from the damaged gauge.
The location of the installed rain gauge is shown on Figure 6. Similar to the groundwater
monitoring gauges rain data has also been collected on a quarterly basis and is provided
in Appendix D. We will continue to download collected rainfall data during the design
process.
For comparison purposes we have obtained and plotted data (on the same graph) from the
North Carolina Climate Retrieval Observations Network of the Southeast (CRONOS),
Elizabeth City, FAA Airport gauge in Elizabeth City, NC.
13
7.0 STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
Restoration of the Watts Property will be accomplished restoring the existing stream
channel, restoring riverine or streamside wetlands associated with the restored stream
channel, re-grading previously altered non-riverine wetland areas, and planting these
denuded wetland areas with native wetland vegetation.
We will use our reference stream reach (and other available stream data), and our two
reference wetland areas (riverine and non-riverine) as a guideline. The interested reader
is referred to Figures 6 through 20 for additional information regarding the proposed
restoration plan.
7.1 Site Demolition Plan
Site demolition will consist of the removal of the existing wooden equipment shed, the
pulling of existing culverts, and the filling of existing agricultural drainage ditches.
Current plans do not call for the removal or relocation of any utilities (running parallel to
Norma Drive) or the replacement of the existing culvert beneath Norma Drive. The
scheduled construction contractor shall be responsible for demolition, removal, and the
appropriate disposal of all demolition debris in accordance with local, state, and federal
guidelines. It will be the contractor's responsibility to identify appropriate local disposal
sites, obtain necessary disposal permits, and pay permit fees.
7.2 Stream Restoration Concept
The implementation of the restoration plan will result in the development of a stable
natural stream channel within a contiguous fully vegetated and protected riverine
corridor.
In order to perform the necessary stream restoration along the impacted reach, natural
channel design methods will be employed. The restored reach will have the appropriate
dimension (cross-section), pattern (sinuosity), and profile (channel slope) of a naturally
occurring, stable channel based on the use of an appropriate reference reach with the
appropriate valley type and land form. Design will include the evaluation of both water
and sediment transport requirements to produce a stable stream in dynamic equilibrium.
Restoration of natural channel geometry and structure will not only improve morphologic
function and habitat within the immediate channel environment, but also in the water
quality downstream of the restored channel as well. Stream banks will be planted with
native vegetation that represents both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
Species selection will be based on a survey of the vegetation from the reference reach and
from reference literature that details native species.
Restoration of a suitable riverine buffer will enhance the recovery and protection of the
restored stream. A protected buffer (with a width minimum of 50 feet) will be restored
on both sides of the channel restoration reaches. The wooded corridors that will be
established as part of this restoration will also increase the vertical and horizontal
14
IS
structure perpendicular to the channel along the reach helping to increase species
composition and abundance.
Additionally, the presence of a wooded buffer adjacent to the channel not only increases
in-stream habitat quality by cooling water and increasing oxygen content, it also provides
cover, travel corridors, and access to adjacent natural areas for mammalian, reptilian, and
avian species as well.
7.3 Natural Channel Design
The restoration design for the site stream is based on natural channel design principles
and techniques utilizing reference reach data sets and the existing channel conditions
survey data. Reference data utilized in our design will include the reference reach, two
comparative reference reaches, and the North Carolina Coastal Regional Curve (SRI
2003). A conceptual sketch of the general restoration alignment is provided in Figures 7,
8, and 9. Typical proposed channel and floodplain cross-sections are shown in Figure 14,
and the proposed longitudinal profile is shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13.
7.3.1 Restoration Methodology
The proposed stream type is an E6. If the construction of a stable E6 channel
becomes difficult and costly due to less cohesive soils in the upper sections of
the stream banks, the channel will be constructed as a low width/depth C6 so
that it will have stable banks and will be able to adjust to a stable E6 over
time. The channel will be a meandering reach with stable pattern, profile and
dimension. Table 1 in Appendix E contains existing, reference, and proposed
stream morphological characteristics.
Log cross vanes will be located at the beginning and end of the reach, and at
any straight sections of significant length throughout the reach. The cross-
vanes will provide grade control for the reach and protect both sides of the
channel stream banks in straight sections. Log j-hooks will be placed at
various locations throughout the reach. The j-hooks will protect the outside
meanders from lateral erosion, improve channel facets, and improve sediment
transport. The majority of our proposed structures are constructed of
hardwood logs with boulder footers. Log cross vanes and j-hooks will be
constructed with hardwood logs approximately 12 to 15 inches in diameter.
"-Boulders will be utilized in these structures as depicted in the details. While
typically not encountered in coastal systems, the presence of rock in the
structures will maintain grade control and stability throughout the channel.
This restoration will be a Priority I restoration. Restoring sinuosity will
lengthen the channel, thereby lowering its s ope. This change in profile will
provide a more appropriate hydraulic connection of bankfull flow and the
historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a riffle-pool system
with proper pattern and profile.
15
Two smaller tributaries are proposed for construction to accommodate
discharges from the herbaceous marsh zones located to the east and west of
the channel. These tributaries will have a steeper gradient than the main
channel, due in large part to the drop in elevation associated with conveying
discharges from the non-riverine zone elevation to the lower elevation
associated with the new floodplain (riverine wetland) and the channel invert
along the main restoration reach.
Erosion control matting (coir matting), temporary seeding, and live stakes will
be utilized to reduce bank erosion immediately following completion of the
channel and provide bank stabilization.
7.3.2 Channel Competency Determination
The mean depth required to maintain natural channel sediment transport
without aggradation or degradation was predicted using a critical
dimensionless shear stress formula. The two commonly used methods used to
calculate the critical shear stress are from ED Andrews:
Using the Pavement to Subpavement Ratio:
Tei* = 0.0834(D5o,bedID50,bar)-0'872 Equation A
Using the Surface Materials Ratio:
TC1* = 0.0384(D;/D50,bed)-0.887 Equation B
Where:
TC;* = Critical dimensionless shear stress
Ds0,bed = Median diameter of the active riffle bed material (mm)
Ds0,bar = Median diameter of the bar sample or subpavement sample
(assumes that the median bar sample is approximately equal
to the mean subpavement particle) (mm)
D; = Largest particle diameter from bar or subpavement sample
(mm)
w'A s° To determine which equation will be used, the ratio of Ds0,bed[Dso,bar is
\rj '?k calculated. If this ratio falls between 3 and 7, then Equation A is employed.
Otherwise, the ratio of D;IDs0,bed is calculated. If this ratio falls between 1.3
and 3, then Equation B is employed. In this project, Equation A was
appropriate.
16
Once the critical dimensionless shear stress is obtained, the required depth is
calculated using the Shields relation:
Where:
dbkf _ (ia* YS D;)/S
dbkr = Bankfull mean depth required to move largest particle (D;) (ft.)
D; = Largest particle diameter from bar or subpavement sample (ft.)
TS = Submerged specific weight of sediment (1.65) (dimensionless)
S = Water surface slope (ft./ft.)
In this case, a necessary mean bankfull depth of 0.88 ft was calculated, so the
dbkf of 0.69 ft will be sufficient.
7.3.3 In-Stream Structures
As mentioned previously, in order to provide grade control for the restored reach,
rock and log cross-vanes and j-hooks (with or without steps), will be integrated
within the final design and will be utilized to reinforce and stabilize the proposed
channel. All structures will be constructed out of natural materials typically
consisting of locally quarried boulders or logs. The upstre? am side?f these_
structures will be lined with a non-woven fabric and backfilled with excavated
cannel material,and in some cases imported tone aggregate t? improvesstability
and reduce the potential for piping.
In-stream structures such as these concentrate stream energy toward the center of
the channel and away from the near-bank areas. In doing so, the structure reduces
shear stress along the banks and prevents bank erosion. These structures serve as
grade control within the bed of the channel and reduce the potential of head
cutting, create a stable width/depth ratio (wbkf /dbkf), and promote sediment
transport capacity.
Proposed structure locations are shown in figures describing the plan and profile
of the restored channel and typical structure drawings are shown in Figures 8
through 15. A representative of S&EC will be on site to observe and direct
channel restoration efforts including the installation of in-stream structures.
7.4 Planned Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications, including site grading, will proceed in accordance with Figure
7. Grading will be performed in a manner to restore wetland hydrology by modifying
existing site grades in selected areas while simultaneously enabling lateral surface flow
across the site.
17
Restoration of wetland hydrology to the site will be accomplished by reversing the effect
of the existing drainage system and restoring the stream channel through the site, thereby
returning wetland hydrology to the majority of the site. Existing ditches will be filled to
grade and the dimension, pattern, and profile of the cha nPI;?P?+rP?m •»;?i hP alt Pre
restore natural stream morphology to the--cNa-nnel. Riverine wetland areas will be
restored along the length of the restored channel.
If necessary, the currently installed upland groundwater monitoring gauges and the rain
gauge will be temporarily removed during construction operations. The reference
groundwater gauges will remain in place. The rain gauge will be temporarily relocated to
allow for the collection of data throughout construction operations.
7.5 Wetland Vegetative Community Restoration
Three planting zones will be established on site. Each of the units are discussed in
further detail below.
7.5.1 Riverine Planting Zone
A riverine planting zone will be established along the restored stream channel
from the top of bank outward toward the outer edge of the newly restored
floodplain (a minimum of 50 feet). This unit will occupy the lower elevations
established onsite via grading. Inundation of this area is anticipated to occur on a
frequent basis. The Riverine reference wetland (previously described) was used
as a template when developing this planting zone.
Tables 1 and 2 display the tree and shrub species that will be incorporated into
this planting zone. Figure 18 shows the proposed planting plan, and Figure 19
shows typical planting details. These areas will be seeded and planted with the
appropriate native riverine vegetation and will provide channel stability and
treatment of surface waters traveling laterally through the buffer. Species will
consist primarily of native trees and shrubs. Select planting of herbaceous species
may also be recommended during final design.
18
Riverine Tree Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Ulmus americana American Elm
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo
Table 1: Riverine Tree Planting List
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
Tree species individuals will be planted randomly on an 8 ft. by 8 ft. spacing in order to
ensure a desired planting density of 680 stems per acre. This will increase the potential
for the desired 5-year survivability density of at least 260 stems per acre. Site planting
will include a minimum of five of the tree species in the table above.
Riverine Shrub Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle
Persea borbonia Swamp Bay
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay
Cyrilla racemiflora Titi
Table 2: Riverine Shrub Planting
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
Shrub species will be planted at a higher density and closer spacing (6 ft. by 6 ft.)
to achieve a desired planting density of approximately 1,200 shrubs per acre here
19
again improving the potential for the desired 5-year survivability. Site planting
will include a minimum of three of the shrubs listed in the table above.
The restored stream channel banks will be planted with the appropriate channel
bank species in the form of bare-root seedlings, potted and balled and burlap
plants, and transplants. Native trees and shrubs that are available elsewhere on
site will be removed with as much of the root ball intact and transplanted adjacent
to the restored channel or in the floodplain. During the following fall,
supplemental shrub and tree species will be planted if survival rates of previously
planted seedlings are below target densities as determined in mid-summer (June-
July). Vegetation will be supplied by locally identified plant sources or purchased
from local, reputable nurseries. Other sources, outside of the local area, may be
used depending on the availability of plant material.
Please refer to the attached Planting Plan, Planting Details, and Planting
Schedules regarding quantities and other details for the riverine planting zone.
NOTE: All plantings performed on site will adhere to the NCEEP planting
specifications.
7.5.2 Non-Riverine Planting Zone
A non-riverine planting zone will be established outside of the newly restored
floodplain across the remainder of the restoration site, as shown on the Planting
Plan. The Non-Riverine reference wetland (previously described) was used as a
template when developing this planting zone. Tables 3 and 4 display the tree and
shrub species that will be incorporated into this planting zone.
Non-Riverine Tree Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar
Table 3: Non-Riverine Tree Planting List
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
20
Non-Riverine Shrub Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam
Clethra alnifolia Coast Pepper-Bush
Cyrilla racemiflora Titi
Rhododendron viscosum Swamp Azalea
Table 4: Non-Riverine Shrub Planting
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
The spacing and density used for the planting of trees and shrubs within the non-
riverine zone will be similar to those described above.
Please refer to the attached Planting Plan, Planting Details, and Planting
Schedules regarding quantities and other details for the non-riverine planting
zone.
NOTE: All plantings performed on site will adhere to the NCEEP planting
specifications.
7.5.3 Herbaceous Planting Zones
Multiple herbaceous planting zones will be planted as part of the overall wetland
restoration plan. Micro-topographic complexity will be emphasized within the
riverine planting zone in order to maximize habitat diversity. Small, shallow
backwater pockets and emergent marsh zones will be dug during grading, and
later densely planted (2 ft. by 2 ft. spacing) with the following floating and rooted
aquatic species: White Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata), Broad-Leaf Arrow-Head
(Sagittaria latifolia), Lizard's Tail (Saururus cernuus), Pickerel Weed
(Pontedaria cordata), Yellow Cow-Lily (Nuphar luteum), and Stiff Arrow-Head
(Sagittaria rigida).
Within the non-riverine wetland area, two emergent marsh wetland areas will be
graded along the general alignment of the existing site drainage ditches. These
areas will allow for diversity within the non-riverine areas allowing for the
creation of pockets of standing water suitable for herbaceous growth. These
21
marsh areas within the non-riparian wetland will be planted with live propagules
and bare-root seedlings (at a 2 ft. by 2 ft. spacing) of Uptight Sedge (Carex
stricta), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Olney's Bulrush (Scirpus americanus),
Wool-Grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and Soft-Stem Bulrush (Scirpus validus).
Temporary and/or permanent seeding measures (brown top millet, rye grass, or the most
appropriate erosion control grass as dictated by the season) will be applied to areas
disturbed during grading operations to allow for localized stabilization while riverine
species establish themselves. A representative of S&EC will be on site to observe and
direct planting efforts associated with the site. Details of the proposed restoration
planting plan are included on Figures 18 and 19.
7.6 Soil Restoration
During grading of site, topsoil will be removed and stockpiled. Topsoil is to be
redistributed across planting areas during final grading. Topsoil will be stored in an
appropriate manner by contractor to avoid erosion and off site sedimentation. Based on
existing site uses and our understanding of previous site modifications we have no
indication that underlying site soils are overly compacted. Accordingly current plans do
not call for specific modification or soil restoration efforts (amendments and/or
scarification) of the existing site soils once grading operations are complete.
If however, upon completion of grading operations, areas of compacted soils are
observed, localized restoration efforts may be employed i.e.: scarification, addition of
topsoil, mulch, or other organics. Amendments will not be added to areas where
inundation may occur and transport this material off site.
7.7 Removal of Invasive or Undesirable Species
During site preparation, an effort will be made to remove existing exotic/invasive
vegetation within project boundaries. Invasive species will be field-identified by S&EC
staff. The construction contractor will mechanically remove invasive species and/or treat
them locally with a glyphosate-based herbicide. Subsequent site visits will be performed
following construction to evaluate the regrowth of invasives and perform spot treatments
as needed.
7.8 Erosion & Sediment Control
Since the total disturbed/denuded area as a result of restoration plan implementation will
clearly exceed one (1.0) acre, an Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Permit will be
required. Sediment and erosion control measures will be installed by the Contractor prior
to commencing site grading activities.
Due to the proximity of grading operations to the adjacent open waters and site ditches,
extra care should be employed by the contractor to check all E&S control measures at the
end of each day and make necessary repairs or additions. Contractor should also inspect
all E&S control measures after periods of extended rainfall or significant rainfall events
(>0.5 inches). Contractor should repair and stabilize exposed surfaces immediately, and
22
remove and properly dispose of accumulated sediment in turbidity curtain, silt fence, etc.
after these events.
Site E&S control measures will include silt fence, rock check dams, matting, pumping
operations, special (temporary) stilling basins, and temporary and permanent seeding.
The contractor shall employ the following E&S control sequence prior to grading:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Sequence
1. Establish staging area as directed by the project manager and designer.
Contractor will be responsible for installing necessary E&S control measures at
staging area (equipment parking area stabilization, silt fence, or other measures as
contractor deems necessary). Establish temporary construction entrances to site.
2. Install sediment and erosion control measures including silt fence and temporary
rock check dams as shown.
3. Demolish existing structure and remove wood, metal, concrete debris, refuse, and
other materials as specified in the site's demolition plan. Clear and grub in
required areas for stream and wetland restoration grading and planting.
Contractor shall remove existing site culverts as construction progresses to allow
for continued access to portions of the site.
4. Temporary seeding will be applied to areas that are not at final grade and will be
exposed for greater than two (2) weeks.
5. Install temporary pump around operations (rock check dams, bypass pump,
dewatering pump, and special stilling basin) as seeded during stream construction.
Matting must be placed over every excavated channel section at the end of each
workday and before the pump is turned off.
6. After final grading is complete, permanent seeding will be applied to all exposed
areas. Seeding must be applied to all exposed areas within fifteen (15) days after
construction. Erosion control matting will be applied to all final graded sloped
steeper than 2H:1 V. Permanent seeding and matting will be installed
incrementally as soon as an area reaches final grade.
7. Remove temporary sediment and erosion control measures. Silt fence must not be
removed until seed is placed and temporary grass has germinated. The contractor
shall remove accumulated sediment prior to removal of silt fence or other
measures.
This E&S control sequence is also reflected in the plan sheets. Also refer to the
Construction Sequence, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, and Sediment and Erosion
Control Details sheets attached.
7.9 Construction Sequence
23
All aspects of site construction and planting operations will be supervised by a qualified
representative of Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC). The daily sequence of
events shall be determined and approved by S&EC professional staff. It will be the
Contractor's responsibility to have the appropriate equipment and personnel on site to
perform the tasks based on the project schedule. If potential conflicts arise, the
Contractor shall notify the Designer immediately so that adjustments can be made.
The following construction sequence shall be used during construction:
Construction Sequence
1. Obtain local authority approval and all necessary State and Federal permits for
construction.
2. Contact NC One Call to locate and mark existing utilities on site.
3. Establish staging area as shown on the plans. Contractor will be
responsible for installing necessary E&S control measures at staging area (parking
area stabilization, silt fence, or other measures as contractor deems necessary).
Mobilize equipment and materials to the staging area. Establish temporary
construction entrances to site.
4. Install sediment and erosion control measures including silt fencing, check dams,
and turbidity/silt curtain. Install utility and tree protection (if necessary) fencing
as directed by Designer. Contractor may utilize existing site ditch crossing
locations (if desired) at own risk.
5. Remove wood, metal, concrete debris, refuse, and other materials as specified in
the site's Demolition Plan. Clear and grub in required areas for wetland area
grading and planting. Remove trees as well as exotic and invasive species as
directed by the Designer.
6. Install pump around operation including the installation of special stilling
basin(s).
7. Verify channel grading depths and extents. Initiate grading of stream channel and
adjacent floodplain area working from upstream end of restoration reach in a
downstream direction. Install in-stream structures, matting, temporary seeding,
and live stakes. Grade floodplain area. Remove pump around operation and
direct flow into excavated channel. Matting must be placed over every excavated
channel section at the end of each workday and before the pump is turned off.
8. Verify wetland grading depths and extents. Fill existing site ditches and level
grade wetland area as described on plans. Apply temporary sediment and erosion
control seeding measures.
9. Perform riverine and non-riverine wetland planting. Apply permanent seeding
measures.
24
10. Remove temporary sediment and erosion control measures after groundcover is
established and site is stabilized.
11. Conduct final site inspection with the Contractor, NCEEP, and Designer.
7.10 Future Site Maintenance
A site tour should be performed after the completion of construction and permanent
seeding and planting. Representatives from the design firm, and NCEEP should attend
this tour to see the boundaries of site planting and discuss future site maintenance
operations that will ensure the protection of trees, shrubs, and plants installed as part of
this project.
25
IN
8.0 STREAM & WETLAND SUCCESS CRITERIA & MONITORING PLAN
This section includes information concerning stream and wetland restoration success
criteria, physical evaluation of the site, and the proposed monitoring schedule.
8.1 Stream Restoration Monitoring
Success criteria for stream stability will be met if, for the 5 year period after construction,
the stream bed form features and cross-sections remain stable (i.e. the stream retains its
restored Rosgen stream-type classification). During the monitoring period, no less than
two bankfull flow events must be documented. If less than two bankfull events occur
during the 5 year monitoring period, monitoring will continue until the second bankfull
event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
8.1.1 Physical Monitoring
An as-built engineering survey of the site will be conducted upon completion of
the site restoration work to ensure that site grading work was performed in a
manner consistent with the restoration plan. The as-built report will include the
constructed stream channel dimension, pattern, and longitudinal profile. This data
collected by Total Station will be utilized as a baseline to compare future
monitoring surveys and subsequently to determine annual channel stability and
transition.
Cross-section locations to be monitored will be established immediately following
construction during the completion of the "as built" survey. Permanently
established cross-sections located approximately every 500 to700 feet (depending
on final construction) that will comprise of a nested riffle and pool segment. Each
cross-section will be monumented and located for future identification and survey
work. All of these cross-sectional surveys will also be utilized as photographic
points.
Other stream channel measurements that will be completed during the annual
monitoring exercised will include pebble counts, stream pattern data, and stream-
side plant conditions. Annual inspection of in-stream rock and log vane and j-
hook structures will also occur to insure channel stability. The restoration reach
will be walked and observed for indications of deterioration or failure of any
components of the restoration.
Stream channel monitoring surveys will be completed annually for five
consecutive years, starting the year following the completion of the project.
26
8.1.2 Vegetative Monitoring
Vegetative success criteria of 50% coverage will be required at the end of the five
(5) year period for the live stakes installed in channel banks of each of the
restored reaches.
Details of the monitoring are included in the following section.
8.1.3 Biological Monitoring
We understand that channel benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring will be
sampled and monitored by NCEEP under a separate contract.
8.2 Wetland Restoration Monitoring
In order to ensure hydrologic and vegetative success, groundwater elevation and planting
monitoring will be conducted annually on site for a 5-year period in accordance with the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003). The monitoring period will commence
immediately upon the completion of site construction and planting efforts.
8.2.1 Hydrologic Success Criteria
As previously noted, the Infinities USA, Inc., groundwater monitoring gages will
remain in place or be re-installed immediately following the completion of site
grading and planting operations. Six (6) gauges will be installed on site, two (2)
within the newly restored riverine wetland boundary, and four (4) across the
remaining non-riverine areas. The existing site rain gauge will be relocated and
remain on site during the monitoring period.
In order to meet wetland hydrology, the groundwater elevation will need to be
measured within the upper twelve (12) inches of the ground surface for a period
of consecutive days equal to or greater than 8.5% of the growing season.
According to the Perquimans County Soil Survey, the average growing season
(number of frost-free days) is approximately 214 days long, lasting from April I"
to November 1"of each year. Accordingly, a groundwater monitoring gauge will
be considered to meet hydrologic success criteria if hydrology is met for a period
of 18 straight days (rounded down from 18.2 days) during the growing season.
It should be noted that while this system is primarily groundwater driven, we do
expect occasional, sporadic inundation from the restored channel to affect
hydrologic conditions within the restored riverine wetland corridor.
8.2.2 Vegetative Success Criteria
Twelve (12) vegetation plots will be established onsite. Six (6) tree and shrub 10-
meter square sample plots will be established, each plot offset 2 meters from each
gauge positioned within the restoration area. Typically in order for the site to be
considered a success, the survivability rate of planted vegetation should be 320
27
stems per acre through year three. A ten percent mortality rate is accepted in year
four (288 stems per acre) and another ten percent in year five resulting in a
required survival rate of 260 5-year old stems per acre in year five with no one
species comprising more than 20% of the total stem count. Exceeding the 20%
threshold alone, however, will not serve as criteria for deeming the restoration
unsuccessful.
Four (4) 2-meter square herbaceous monitoring plots will be established, two (2)
within the riverine emergent marsh areas and two (2) within the non-riverine
emergent marsh areas. Vegetative success criteria of 50% coverage will be
required at the end of the 5-year period for the herbaceous planting zones. This
coverage will be qualitatively evaluated based on observation of the planted areas.
Two (2) bank planting plots measuring 20 meters in length and encompassing
both banks will be established in order to evaluate the success of live stakes along
the banks of the restoration. Vegetative success criteria of 50% coverage will be
required at the end of the 5-year period. This coverage will be qualitatively
evaluated based on observation of the planted areas.
During monitoring site visits an evaluation of invasive or undesirable species will
be performed and recommendations made regarding necessary removal or
treatments.
8.2.3 Physical Success
An as-built engineering survey of the site will be conducted upon completion of
the site restoration work to ensure that site grading and planting work was
performed in a manner consistent with the approved Restoration Plan.
During site monitoring visits, the site will be walked and all graded areas will be
inspected for stability. If areas of instability are observed, they will be noted and
repair recommendations prepared. A photographic record of the site will be
collected during each site visit. Photo points will be located at key locations on
site and at the corners of established vegetative monitoring plots.
8.3 Monitoring Schedule
As previously described, to ensure a stable restored channel morphology (dimension,
pattern, and profile), and hydrologic and vegetative success, success monitoring will be
conducted annually on site for a period of five (5) years from the implementation of the
restoration plan.
The site will be visited on a quarterly basis. During each of these site visits groundwater
monitoring gauges and the rain gauge will be downloaded and gauges evaluated to ensure
proper function. A plant survivability survey will be performed during the growing
season (June to July timeframe) on each of the six (6) tree and shrub vegetation plots (2
riverine and 4 non-riverine) , four (4) herbaceous vegetation plots (2 riverine and 2 non-
28
riverine), and two (2) bank planting plots. During site visits a general evaluation (by
observation) of the site will be performed and record photographs will be taken.
An Annual Monitoring Report will be prepared at the end of each year of monitoring.
This report will be submitted to EEP for review not later than 60 days from the end of the
monitoring period (December 31 of the monitoring year). The monitoring report will
summarize the general site conditions, a channel evaluation, the results of hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring, and recommendations for necessary maintenance.
29
•

a

_ 11 ? 1
1 -'
S W r d
• ? 'f ? ?yq„ ? 7?} ?, rru
. ..
an !

• -?kieriik;.
N
roject X: 5"Ie:
8099.D I I ": 2.4
miles Figure I - Vicinity Map
Project Date:
Mgr.: P5 02-21-05
Watts Farm
Perciulmans County, NC
0
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www,SandEC.com
i i ! i I i l •? I I

` v
? r
r r a
WRR - Watts Reference Riparian
N WRN - Watts Reference Non-Riparian
Project k: 5caie: FI ure 4 - Reference
8099.)1 1": 4000 9
Project )ate: 51te5 U5G5 Nlxonton
Mgr.: P5 02-2 1 -05 Quad
Watts Farm
Perciulman5 County, NC

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] - [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com

q` I. I31B l?D1r? ,,
1r
N
Project M: Scale: FI ure 3 - Per uiman5
5099.D 1 1"; 2000 o
County Soil Survey
Project Date:
Mgr.: P5 02-21-05
Watts Farm
Perquiman5 County, NC
try 4-EVM

IiA

f.??,,4t Y IF
l?.` '
,
?v?r r s

t

.IFS r
.
?
n
?
t'Y1
a' ?? ,.y ?c ?'? Y •.
? `) A
11 c': fie H', .,
Y. A
y yr! )
- '? • A:•1
? .

. w14?1 ` ! y ) 1 ?Y?
' Y TV Wrn f,>?1{1?tY Y!^ J • ? ?
' A999
? r I't
?. r .? _.' 1 it i?'.
?' y; ?, •1 a;
V yt? 1 t.k1

i L I ? YI

k
?
.4
u w0.
y 1? ???Iy
i {?r

k )
y

Soil & Environmental Consultants
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com

Project #:
5099.D I
Mgr.: P5
N — Site Boundary
Watershed Boundary
alc: Figure 2 — USGS
Date: Nixonton Quad
02-21-05
Watts Farm
Percluiman5 County, NC
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd. - Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com

I I -
t
L
N
Project N: scale:
"
'
Figure 5 -Reference
8099.D I 1
: 2000 51te5 Perclulmans County
Project
Mgr.: P5 Date:
02-2 1-05 5011 Survey
Watts Farm
Perqulman5 County, NC
WRR - Watts Reference Riparian
WRN - Watts Reference Non-Riparian
•
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
1:-j. Web Page: www.SandEC.com
Li
APPENDIX A
Site Photographs
PLANTING LEGEND
RIVERINE
EMERGENT
MARSH SPECIES

' RVERINE TREE
F
] * SHRUB SPECIES
. MIX
NON-RIVERINE
TREE SPECIES
NON-RIVERINE
EMERGENT
MARSH SPECIES

- NON-RIVERINE
F
1 SHRUB SPECIES
NOTE: RES TORED STREAMBANKS TO
BE PLANTED W/ LIVE STAKES
SITE
BOUNDARY
EMERGENT
MARSH
WETLAND AREA
i;
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
EM?GENT MARSr
?I?ETLAND AREA
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
1

NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
EMkRGENT MARSH
V?TLAND AREA
PROPOSED
NEW CHANNEL
ROPOSED
f . . ? NEW CHANNEL
?I© 2005 Sod 4 Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights reserved.
51TE PLANTING PLAN
00
ZO

p N
?

o d 2
Ln .. co

z .
V
(n

MAG. 1979
DI5 15G PG G54 02
ou
SCALE Q O zQ Z
U ?
o
200 100 o 200 N o?U
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I' ? Z
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING U) Z
Z
a--
c)
0
W

(L
r EMERGENT MARSH o
d` ? s
N
WETLAND AREA

J a
O
?
w
i

? 0 v
i
? Vo

1 il N

L O
SITE BOUNDARY q
?
W

M B

VJ °
Z
O `3 ? 3
ci's off` 0 ..
zo* NZ -
? IL <
M5TING SLOPE
157
NOTE5: a,ss I
HEIGHT t WIDTH DETERMINED BY
EX15TING TOPOGRAPHY AND
SEDIMENT 5TORAGE REQUIRED. SECTION VIEW
KEY RIP RAP INTO THE DAM
FOR 5TABILIZATION.
SECTION VIEW
w
0.5'-P
FILRR FABRJC
NOTES:
F. FABWC
HEIGHT 4 WIDTH DETERMINED BY
E(15TING TOPOGRAPHY AND
SEDIMENT 5TORAGE REQUIRED.
KEY RIP RAP INTO THE DAM
FOR 5TA5IUZATION.
PLAN VIEW
CU55 5 RIP RAF PAD
P MIN. THICKGNE55 tWNOWWVM
ROW #57 WA5"ED 5TMr
PROFILE VIEW PROFILE VIEW
C,e0nxn LE FABRIC
SECTION VIEW
TEMPORARY COFFERDAM
TEMPORARY CHECK DAM MULTI-USE CONFIGURATION TEMPORARY SPLASH PAD DETAIL
(NOT TO 5CALE) (NOT TO SCALE) (NOT TO SCALE)
Min. 10 Gauge
Line Wires
fl @2005 Soil * Environmental Con5ultant5, PA. All
Q1 kj__
Min. 12-1/2 Gauge
Intermediate Wires
•ade
G' Min. Cover
Over 5kirt
ichor 51art a5
rected by Engmeed
signer
STANDARD TEMPORARY SILT FENCE DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
EROSION CONTROL DETAI L511
reserved.
NOTE5:
51LT FENCE MUST NOT BE
REMOVED UNTIL 5EEDING 15
PLACED AND TEMPORARY
GRA55 HA5 GROWN.
?
W
Ll
"
9
u
Q 0 Zr
t
-
&Z u

N `o_ J
? 0 o
7_ f-
6z (S)
? Z Z

0_/ 0 O
(L 0 z
N ? Q 0

Q R 0
> 2
W
w
u
a
a?
w
Ov
V S
v '
N
D?
x
u
i?
Steel Post
wen Wire Fabric
It Fence Fabric
FRONT VIEW
NOTES:
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA DEVELOPED
BY LIMITED ENGINEERING SURVEY
PERFORMED BY S*EC USING
TOTAL STATION.
2. ALL CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND BASED ON ASSUMED
ELEVATION OF 100.00'.
3
THIS 15 NOT A BOUNDARY
SURVEY AND 15 NOT FOR
RECORDATION, CONVEYANCE, OR
SALES.
EXISTING
AGRICULTURAL
STORAGE SHED
EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
LEGEND
RG? 51TE RAIN GAUGE
51TE GROUND WATER GAUGE
/ CHANNEL OR DITCH FLOW
/ DIRECTION
PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER
(SEE PHOTOS APPENDIX)
EX15TING CULVERT PIPE IN
DRAINAGE NETWORK
2005 Sod Environmental Consultants, PA, All rights
I ITII ITV Pni Fc,
SITE BOUNDARY
EXISTING CULVERTED
FARM CROSSING,
TYPICAL, ALL PIPES TO BE
REMOVED
reserved, EX15T1 NG 51TE CONDITIONS
EXPECTED
UTI LITY
EASEMENT
NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
MAG. 1979
DB 15G PG G54
200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOUR5 5HOWN ARE EXI5TING
EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
om N ..
Z0? II z ?
?m
0,
d
z
=Q
Q z of 0
w?z?
(S)? z
0- 1 0
? C) N
U'
Q
N?
Q3? ?
u
a?
q
N
qq
V?
?U
2,
3Se?
6
qz
V1
NOTE:
STRUCTURE LOCATION, TYPE, AND
NUMBER ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY
BE MODIFIED BY ENGINEER AT TIME
OF CONSTRUCTION.
LEGEND
P?l._ LOG J-1100K (LJI1)
1z LOG CROSS
VANE (LCV)
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

LI© 2005 Sod t- Environmental Con5ultant5, PA. All rnght5 reserved

i

EX TING PIPE
T BE
RE OVED

97
PROPOSED RESTORED
CHANNEL CENTERLINE

O? V
NORTH ?
SCALE
¦
0 20 0 40
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
LL CONTOURS SHOWN A ING
PROP05ED STREAM RESTORATION LAYOUT II
o?? o
zo..
?0 _
A+ 0L
Q uL,
z z Q
L?Q W g
oC 0
Lu U-1 z 0
w
0
g N ?
w
IL
0
?:,D-
a?
a
a?
V?
?e
?U
r?
N
F
z
ox
a
u
?a
o?
?a
SITE
BOUNDARY
i
9g
O
EMERGENT
MARSH
WETLAND AREA
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

9s

EMGENT MA
WETLAND A
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

d
V

-(,,, ---,---NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
EM GENT MARSH
LAND AREA
1
V 1 PROPOSED
NEW CHANN
POSED
NCH EL

Q4
MAG. 1979
D5 15G PG G54
SCALE
200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOUR5 5HOWN ARE EXI5TING
ALL SITE FEEDER DITCHES
TO BE BACKFILLED AND
LEVEL GRADED
EMERGENT MARSH
WETLAND AREA

SITE BOUNDARY
TOPOGRAPHIC
HIGH POINTS
TO BE LEVEL
GRADED
o? N ..
ZO z
V ? V n -
V iC U - p
p ? d u U
Q?
K
A6-
C)
Wu
w0 Q o
(' 00 ° 0
o
a?Zo
0 -u
a/ 0 Lu
g z
?< °
w
3>a °
0
W (V
U
0 ~
o
aQ
a
q?
O P
V .?
a
?U
Noy
q
O
Oz
W?
m
?a
rn °
©2005 Soil * Environmental Con5UItant5, PA. All rlght5 reserved. P RO PO 5 E D 5 I T E C O N D I T I 0 N 5* INDEX MAP
SCALE
o?"2 o
.. p
ooo?
40 20 0 40 r
2
CONTOUR INTERVAL
i
ALL CONTOURS 5110WN ARE EXISTING 0
ml
2 p ou
Z Z 0
Q Q
Wo z g
(0 0
NORTH
",J oL q
99 ?Qzz o
000 w
p (L Z U ?
Z 0 tix EX15T1 NC 24 Ln Q
CMP CULV <> °
INLE LEV.
APPROXIMATE 91.40' o
? N
RIVERINE m a
WETLAND
BOUNDARY a
NOTE:
STRUCTURE LOCATION, TYPE, AND p
NUMBER ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY
BE MODIFIED BY ENGINEER AT TIME +? ° $
OF CONSTRUCTION. N
Z
g LEGEND
z
PROP05ED
LOG J-HOOK (UH)
RE5TORED
t
o CHANNEL
CENTERLINE LOG CR055
?g :
VANE (LCV)
Q) rA
0
s
a
© 2005 Sod b Environmental Con5ultant5, PA. All ricjht5 reserved. PROPOSED 5TREAM RE5TO RAT I 0 N LAYOUT I

o ?? 3
6 i 0
ZO ? N Z -

M
El
STATION BED
INVERT
E VAT N FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
TYPE
0+00 95.G 96.9 RIFFLE
0+03 95.9 9G.9 RUN 9G.0 LCV
0+10 95.5 9G.9 POOL
0+19 9G.3 9G.9 RIFFLE
0+74 9G.2 9G.8 RIFFLE
0+80 95.8 9G.8 RUN
0+88 95.4 9G.8 POOL
0+98 9G.2 9G.8 RIFFLE
I + I G 9G.2 9G.8 RIFFLE
1+25 95.8 9G.8 RUN 95.9 LJH
1+34 95.4 9G.8 POOL
1+51 9G. I 9G.7 RIFFLE
1+72 9G. I 9G.7 RIFFLE
1+84 95.7 9G.7 RUN
1 +93 95.3 9G.7 POOL
2+05 9G.1 9G.7 RIFFLE
2+25 9G.0 9G.G RIFFLE
2+34 95.G 9G.G RUN
2+43 95.2 9G.G POOL
2+G1 9G.0 9G.G RIFFLE
2+73 9G.0 9G.G RIFFLE
105
z
95
Q
W
W
85
0+00 0+50
STATION I BED EVBA FACET STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
2+81 95.G 9G.G RUN 95.7 Lill
2+89 95.2 9G.G POOL
3+02 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+19 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+30 95.5 9G.5 RUN
3+35 95.1 9G.5 POOL
3+52 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+G5 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+77 95.4 9G.4 RUN
3+85 95.0 9G.4 POOL
3+9G 95.8 9G.4 RIFFLE
4+1 G 95.8 9G.4 RIFFLE
4+2G 95.4 9G.4 RUN 95.5 LJH
4+37 95.0 9G.4 POOL
4+55 95.7 9G.3 RIFFLE
4+G9 95.7 9G.3 RIFFLE
4+87 95.3 9G.3 RUN
4+9G 94.9 9G.3 POOL
5+15 95.7 9G.3 RIFFLE
5+37 95.G 9G.2 RIFFLE
5+45 95.2 9G.2 RUN
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
ELEVATION FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
TYPE
5+54 94.8 9G.2 POOL
5+72 95.G 9G.2 RIFFLE
5+88 95.G 9G.2 RIFFLE
G+01 95.2 9G.2 RUN 95.3 LJH
G+1 1 94.7 9G. I POOL
G+25 95.5 9G.1 RIFFLE
G+41 95.5 9G.1 RIFFLE
G+51 95.1 9G.1 RUN
G+GO 94.7 9G.1 POOL
G+74 95.5 9G.1 RIFFLE
G+88 95.4 9G.0 RIFFLE
6+98 95.0 9G.0 RUN
7+OG 94.G 9G.0 POOL
7+21 95.4 9G.0 RIFFLE
7+35 95.4 9G.0 RIFFLE
7+45 95.0 9G.0 RUN 95.1 LJH
7+55 94.G 9G.0 POOL
7+GG 95.3 95.9 RIFFLE
7+82 95.3 95.9 RIFFLE
7+93 94.9 953 RUN
8+01 94.5 95.9 POOL
1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 G+00 G+50 7+00 7+50 8+00
STATION
- - - - PROPOSED BANKPULL
PROPOSED THALWEG LCV = LOG CR055 VANE
STRUCTURE LOCATION LJH = LOG J-HOOK
4"©2005 Sod *- Environmental Con5ultant5, PA. All rights reserved.
PROPOSED STREAM LONGITU I NAL PROF11 F I
O
W
H?
m
J
?} u
o?
Z zQ IL
Q 0
W z

?
N ? Z

W
W U
Q-/ Z

0 Z
p 0 0
Z U

N Q ()
Q O
is

(L
a?
a
a?
V?
N
z
p z
? a
u
a
Apo
Vj

STATION BED
INVERT BKF
ELEVATION
FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
8+20 953 95.9 RIFFLE
8+39 95.2 95.8 RIFFLE
8+45 94.8 95.8 RUN
8+54 94.4 95.8 POOL
8+72 95.2 95.8 RIFFLE
8+90 95.2 95.8 RIFFLE
9+02 94.8 95.8 RUN 94.9 Uh
9+13 94.4 95.8 POOL
9+28 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
9+46, 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
9+52 94.7 95.7 RUN
9+60 94.3 95.7 POOL
9+7G 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
9+92 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
10+01 94.6 95.G RUN
10+10 94.2 95.G POOL
10+24 95.0 95.G RIFFLE
10+45 95.0 95.G RIFFLE
10+55 94.G 95.G RUN 94.7 Uh
10+GG 94.2 95.G POOL
10+85 94.9 95.5 RIFFLE
105
Z
Q 95
Q
LU
J
to 85
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
ELEVATION FACET 5TRUCTURE
IN Vff T STRUCTURE
TYPE
1 1+02 94.9 95.5 RIFFLE
1 1+14 94.5 95.5 RUN
1 1+23 94.1 95.5 POOL
1 1+40 94.9 95.5 RIFFLE
I I +G3 94.8 95.4 RIFFLE
1 1+73 94.4 95.4 RUN
1 1+81 94.0 95.4 POOL
1 1+98 94.8 95.4 RIFFLE
12+18 94.8 95.4 RIFFLE
12+30 94.3 95.3 RUN 94.4 UH
12+40 93.9 95.3 POOL
12+53 94.7 95.3 RIFFLE
12+70 94.7 95.3 RIFFLE
12+79 94.3 95.3 RUN
12+88 93.9 95.3 POOL
13+03 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
13+18 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
13+27 94.2 95.2 RUN
13+35 93.8 95.2 POOL
13+47 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
13+G4 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
STATION BED
INVERT- BKF
ELEVATION FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
TYPE
13+71 94.2 95.2 RUN
13+81 93.7 95.1 POOL
13+93 94.5 95.1 RIFFLE
14+10 94.5 95.1 RIFFLE
14+22 94.1 95.1 RUN 94.2 UH
14+30 93.7 95.1 POOL
14+41 94.5 95.1 RIFFLE
14+G4 94.4 95.0 RIFFLE
14+7G 94.0 95.0 RUN
14+84 93.6 95.0 POOL
15+04 94.4 95.0 RIFFLE
15+21 94.4 95.0 RIFFLE
15+33 93.9 94.9 RUN
15+41 93.5 94.9 POOL
15+55 94.3 94.9 RIFFLE
15+75 94.3 94.9 RIFFLE
15+82 93.9 94.9 RUN 94.0 UH
15+89 93.5 94.9 POOL
I G+08 94.3 94.9 RIFFLE
I G+23 94.2 94.8 RIFFLE
I G+30 93.8 94.8 RUN
8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 1 G+00
STATION
- - - - PROPOSED DANKPULL LCV = LOG CK055 VANE
Jam- PROPOSED THALWEG
LJ11 =LOG J-f100K
c STRUCTURE LOCATION
© 2005 Soil * Environmental Con5Ultant5, PA. All rights reserved.
PROP05ED STREAM LONGITUINAL PROFILE 11
Z
O `? 3
om O= N
zo- NZ -
P a??
lu
} o l J
u?
Q 0 oz
0 W IL
J
z
03 C)
D
W W U ~
IL/ Z
0 Z
O 0
Q °
N
r
> c? 0
U-1 IL
a?
o
V
d 0
a?
Q
8•
MM „
a
V°
a
;tl
N
a
d
?a
?e
V1 °
o`? 3
z0?, Nz -
°?;? nQ u
STATION INVERT BED BKF FACET STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
16+38 93.4 94.8 POOL
16+51 94.2 94.8 RIFFLE
16+66 94.2 94.8 RIFFLE
16+75 93.8 94.8 RUN
16+82 93.4 94.8 POOL
16+98 94.1 94.7 RIFFLE
17+ 16 94.1 94.7 RIFFLE
17+26 93.7 94.7 RUN 93.8 UH
17+33 93.3 94.7 POOL
17+50 94.1 94.7 RIFFLE
17+67 94.0 94.6 RIFFLE
17+76 93.6 94.6 RUN
17+86 93.2 94.6 POOL
18+02 94.0 94.6 RIFFLE
18+21 94.0 94.6 RIFFLE
18+36 93.6 94.6 RUN
18+44 93.1 94.5 POOL
18+62 93.9 94.5 RIFFLE
18+82 93.9 94.5 RIFFLE
18+94 93.5 94.5 RUN 93.6 UH
19+03 93.1 94.5 POOL
105
95
Q
W
J
W
85
IG+00
STATION INVERT BED 8KF1 FACET STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
19+22 93.8 94.4 RIFFLE
19+42 93.8 94.4 RIFFLE
19+53 93.4 94.4 RUN
19+60 93.0 94.4 POOL
19+78 93.8 94.4 RIFFLE
19+97 93.7 94.3 RIFFLE
20+09 93.3 94.3 RUN
20+19 92.9 94.3 POOL
20+36 93.7 94.3 RIFFLE
20+54 93.7 94.3 RIFFLE
20+66 93.3 94.3 RUN
20+75 92.8 94.2 POOL
20+89 93.6 94.2 RIFFLE
21+07 93.6 94.2 RIFFLE
21+15 93.2 94.2 RUN 93.3 LJH
21+23 92.8 94.2 POOL
21+41 93.6 94.2 RIFFLE
21+55 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
21 +6 I 93.1 94.1 RUN
21+72 92.7 94.1 POOL
21+68 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
STATION BED
INVERT BKF FACET STRUCTURE 5TRUCTURE
21+88 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
22+02 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
22+10 93.1 94.1 RUN
22+19 92.7 94.1 POOL
22+34 93.4 94.0 RIFFLE
22+46 93.4 94.0 RIFFLE
22+55 93.0 94.0 RUN 93.1 LCV
22+64 92.6 94.0 POOL
22+81 93.4 94.0 RIFFLE
IG+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 2+50 23+00
STATION
- - - - PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED THALWEG LCV = LOG CROSS VANE
LJH = LOG J-HOOK
v STRUCTURE LOCATION
61©2005 Sod * Environmental Con5Ultant5, PA. All rights reserved.
PROP05ED STREAM LONGITU I NAL PROFILE I
?
W
pU LU
J

z
W u _
LL
O
Q
z
z
?
W O
W ^

(n OC y Q

O _ Z

OL
(n D

Z ?

° Z
? O O

q
l17 Q N
Q o
0
/
w
(L a-
?
a?
a
a=
Ov
V?
0.?
N N
r
0 z
a'
0? a
V1
Z
Qj ° 0
o? L
ZO N z -
;?nQa
6.15
DKF
TYPICAL RIFFLE
• BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH 6.15 FEET
• RIFFLE CK055-5ECTION AREA 4.26 5QUAKE FEET
• RIFFLE MAX DEPTH 0.85 FEET
• RIFFLE MEAN DEPTH 0.69 FEET
NON-RIVERINE ZONE
V
0
CREATED WETLANDS, EXCAVATE TO
DEPTH OF APPROX. 12°-18",
DACKFILL WITH EXISTING SITE
WETLAND SOILS
7.W
DKF
WETLAND SURFACE
TO DE GRADED WITH
MICRO-TOPOGRAPHIC
VARIATION AS DETERMINED DY
DESIGNER AT TIME Of
CONSTRUCTION
TYPICAL POOL
• BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH 7.60 FEET
• POOL CK055-5ECTION AREA 6.96 SQUARE FEET
• POOL MAX DEPTH 1.65 FEET
• POOL MEAN DEPTH 0.92 FEET
BANKFULL
ELEVATION
NON-RIVERINE ZONE
NEW FLOODPAIN * RIVERINEIWETIAND ZONE
E FLOW
3
BANKFULL WIDTH
PROPOSED `VERNAL POOL
RE5TORED
STREAM CHANNEL
2005 Sod * Environmental Con5Ultant5, PA. All rights reserved. TYPICAL RE5T0 RE D CHANNEL * FL00 D P LAI N C 8055-5 ECT I 0 N 5

Y?
0lu
u u + N
-J Z
L
W z Z=
O WO
?

F- Z Z
U

N
QV = N
UN
0

a
-
z LLJ
O U
? 0 Lu
?
Q UC)
Q > 5 0
LL
W
(L
d?
a?
a
a
V?
N
a?
O z
4
a'
0
M g
V1 °
13ANKFULL STAGE
FLOW--
3-T%
STREAM CHANNEL BED??f
FOOTER
ROCKS
PROFILE
CROSS SECTION
ANE ARM
N-Araur
SCOUR POOL
BANKFULL BENCH
BASE FLOW
WATER ELEVATION
=1 . !=1-1 l l-i ANGLE-CUT END
PROFILE VIEW
• LIVE STAKES INSTALLED IN BANK
WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER
• 415 OF STAKE IN GROUND
• BUDS ORIENTED UPWARDS
• 3' CENTERS (APPROX.)
• CUT EXPOSED END OF LIVE STAKE
AFTER INSTALLATION IF DAMAGED
DUE TO INSTALLATION
(i.e. damaged bark, split ends, etc.)
LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
LO(
PLAN
RIGHT BANK
LOG J-HOOK * LOG CRO55 VANE DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
BANKFULL BENCH
COIR MATTING
?I II .I:i1
? Ili-1 l ?
BASE FLOW -
WATER ELEVATION
12„ ECO-STAG
I-Iii-! I L1 I I-I I'
24" ECO-STAKED
PROFILE VIEW
2?
PLAN
rKUNI VIM
ECO-5TAKEO

6 3
0
o

ZO
"
O N
.. un
Z -
?'N N y
p
? o m Q
V u
t
E
FABRJC
Wo a
d

C OW
U
L
Z
Z
W 0 4

N ?0 l
0
?

N U.
z
DR LOG ? (
0 ?
0 u
? z
LL
a
N z
:
Q3
? o
? U

• TRENCHED TOP OF MATTING TO A
DEPTH OF AT LEAST 12', STAKE • MINIMUM 2' CENTERS ALONG BOTTOM • 12' ECO-5TAKE5(D INSTALLED IN BANK
OR STAPLE IN PLACE, 4 BACKFILL • MINIMUM P OVERLAP AT JOINING FLUSH WITH COIR MATTING ABOVE
TO DESIGN GRADE SECTIONS OF COIR MATTING BOTTOM ROW OF 24" ECO-STAKE50
• MINIMUM 24" ECO-STAKES- • ECO-STAKES® SPACED AT
INSTALLED ALONG TOE OF MATTING MAXIMUM 3' CENTERS (APPROX.)
(Intercept between water surface and bank)
COIR MATTING DETAIL NOTES:
(NOT TO SCALE) MATTING MUST BE PLACED OVER
EVERY EXCAVATED CHANNEL
SECTION AT THE END OF EACH
WORKDAY AND BEFORE THE
PUMP 15 TURNED OFF.
BRIG
LOG
a?
a?
A
a
?y n
i1 N g
x
?a
?e
d1
®2005 Soil * Environmental Con5Uitant5, PA. All rights reserved. TYPICAL 5TRU CTU RE, LIVE STAKE, * COI R MATTING DETAI L5
Z
C1 3 3
Z0 Nz -
0 0 ? U? S
NOTES: 0) U)
SPECIAL STILLING BA51N
I . EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO 150LATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW. ?p
EXISTING GROUND 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN Va _
ONE WORKING DAY. MATTING MUST BE PLACED OVER EVERY EXCAVATED CHANNEL _,} 0 ?
SECTION AT THE END OF EVERY WORKDAY AND BEFORE THE PUMP IS TURNED OFF. °u 2
FILTER FABRIC SPECIAL STILLING BASIN ? J
15-20 FT -{ (AS DIRECTED AT THE 4. PUMP AROUND SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONVEY MINIMUM OF I CFS PER MIZ OF Z Z< Q
FOR DRAINAGE TEMPORARY SPLASH PA F W DRAINAGE AREA TO SITE UNLESS OTHERWI5E STATED IN SPECIFICATIONS. Q Z=
(NON-WOVEN) TIME OF CONSTRUCTION) W O Z
(SEE DETAIL, LOCATE v
AS DIRECTED AT THE
DEWATERING PUMP SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN TIME OF CONSTRUCTION) n ?U
(NOT TO SCALE) I . INSTALL SPECIAL STILLING BASINS AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED O 0
GRAVEL CHECK TEMPORA Y PROJECT WORKING AREA.
DAM AT CHANNEL . THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY W LU U Z
TERMINUS FLEXIBLE PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE TO THE a-/ Z O
HOSE 2E SPECIAL STILLLING BASIN. O
WORKING 3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM 0 U
SANDBAGl5TONE--,,,,.., BASEFLOW AREA DIVERSION. N ? Z z0
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO
WORKING TEMPORARY PIPING DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF rj < (f)
AREA SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL ALSO FLOW INTO A Q -
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN. Es ('Z
5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH W
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE IMPERVIOUS SHEET THE PLAN AND FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. ? o
(NON-WOVEN) IMPERVIOUS DIKE G. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEWATER BEFORE
(LOCATE AS REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND =
PUMP AROUND PUMP F W DIRECTED AT TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
IMPERVIOUS DIKE THE TIME OF 7. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE STILLING BASINS AND STABILIZE
(NOT TO SCALE) CONSTRUCTION) DISTURBED AREAS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. a
See Cofferdam Detail for Specific Construction Requirements
of Temporary Cofferdam (Impervious Dike) S °
a
TYPICAL PUMP AROUND OPERATION
(NOT TO SCALE)
0 v
TEMPORARY SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS V
a '
D a N
General Seeding Mulch
nS' Areas where no substantial or significant progress is made for Mulching Shall consist of small gram straw applied at a rate iy
MO z
Seeding Dates Seeding Speaes Rate (Ibslacre) of 70 Ib5.11000 ift. Mulched areas shall be mechanically
more than 15 days should be temporarily seeded as
o
follows. All areas should be seeded, mulched, and tacked. May I - Aug. 15 German Millet 40 tacked in place (or other approved tacking method). ty
Incidental grading shall not constitute substantial or significant Aug. 15 - May I Rye (gram) GO No asphalt shall be used for tacking. Use jute, excelsior
progress in construction activity. Seeding and mulching shall matting or similar material to cover exposed areas of p
79
be done immediately following construction. All disturbed concentrated flow. a
areas shall be dressed to a depth of 8 mches. The top ..yy e
3 inches shall be pulverized to provide a uniform seedbed. Soil Amendments Maintenance ?q
follow recommendations of sod tests or apply 2,000 Ibs/acre Inspect and repair mulch frequently. Refertilize and reseed as by a'S
ground agricultural limestone and 750 Ibslacre 10-10-10 required to maintain vigorous temporary vegetative cover c
fertilizer. during construction.
0
m
8
a
ER051ON CONTROL DETAILS I
82005 Sod Environmental Consultants, PA. All nght5 reserved.
0H2!-P, 0 o r ZONN
m U
BE
MULCH: (3") AVG. THICKNESS
r-_,
PREPARED ADMIXTURE
BACKFILL OR NATIVE SOIL
TAMPED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING - CONTAINERIZED
(NOT TO SCALE)
I 2 3
Open planting Place bare-root Close hole With
hole with seedling in hole - Shovel or Auger-
Shovel or Auger root collar at no air space
surface around roots
BARE-ROOT SEEDLING
PLANTING DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
of
©2005 Sod * Environmental Consultants, PA. All
TII
WOODEN STA
MULCH 80mm?3")
AVG. THICKNESS.
NON-BIODEGRADABLE
MATERIAL SHALL BE
TOTALLY REMOVED.
TOPSOIL MIXTURE
6ACKFDI ADMIXTURE
SHRUB PLANTING - CONTAINERIZED
(NOT TO 5CALE)
TREE SHELTER
W/ BASE APPROX.
I" INTO GROUND
TREE SHELTER DETAIL
TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL BARE-ROOT
AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTED TREES
(NOT TO 5CALE)
AST PREVE3IJfi5 NATURRAL SWAYING
CROWN OF ROOT BALL SHALL BE
SET SLIGHTLY ABOVE GRADE.
MULCH: (3") AVG. THICKNESS
STAKES (3) p qT TO ?? B
REMOVE TSPES3 OF BURIAP.ALL SHALL BE CUT.
PREPARED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL OR NATIVE SOIL
TAMPED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING - BALL * BURLAP
(NOT TO 5CALE)
reserved. PLANTING SCHEDULE * PLANTING DETAILS
K ?
J
10
y I
~?
1

N
U --
r
LU
p

Q 2
Z =2 /
?^
V
LU O Z
LIL.

O
tZ ?
ED
(L LU
IL/
z
W
J
0
CLI C)
Z
U p
L
N U
r ? < N
I
?

?
Z
:
D F
z
° Q

y
o F J
CL

a?
a
V?
a?
O z
a?
Wa
d? a
M 8
Q ?
V1
NORTH
SCALE
40 20 0 40
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING

NOTE:
STRUCTURE LOCATION, TYPE, AND
NUMBER ARE APPROXIMATE AND M
BE MODIFIED BY ENGINEER AT E
OF CONSTRUCTION.
APPR MATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

g9
LEGEND
LOG J-HOOK (L1H)
LOG CROSS
VANE (LCV)
TIE STORED
CHANNEL TO EXI5TING

610 2005 Sod * Environmental Consultants, PA. All
U/5 INVERT
ELEV. 95.58
reserved. PROP05ED 5TREAM RESTORATION LAYOUT
o? o
?i R v
zoo uZcO
I
ou
z VU
Q zz
w0 Z
l
0
?J f lY. V
0 0
?- 0
W W U
CL- IVZ
goo uj
gn
?t °
N
(L
a?
?Q
g
vio
wiA
aP
ov
VA
aH
a
i?l N xSe9
6
Ox
a•
w?
u
a
o?
'? o

APPENDIX D
Site Rainfall Data
kr)
C)
0
.b N
? N
Q
•° o
c? 00
0 0
?z
O
U
W
m 000
2 O O
U
Q
w
w
W
U > -t
O Lo
N ,
00 O
W Q - - o 0
w
w
L
L
w

w
0 O
0

g ? o

w

> M 00
O
0 Q In r

Lq O
m r
o 6
C?
Z
> M
0 00
- Lr)
r-
U Q L r O
x
w
c ? r-
? 0 0

N
.a U `C 3

> U L
N , U)
0 2
m
V
a?
v
s.

M
0
O
M
bA
CC
a

Watts Farm Restoration
is S&EC Project: 8099.1) 1
is
•
erty.
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 1-Existing stream immediately downstream of road crossing, note canal to the
Little River in background.
Photo 2-Existing road crossing (24" diameter CCP) looking upstream onto the prop-
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.13 1
Photo 9-Existing condition of restoration reach looking downstream (north). Note
equipment shed and residences in background.

(looking west).
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 10-Existing drainage ditch discharging to upstream end of restoration reach
Watts Farm Restoration
is S&EC Project: 8099.1) 1
• ter CCP).
•
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 3-Upstream end of existing road crossing, near northern end of site (24" diame-
Photo 4-Existing stream (near downstream end) looking upstream (south) towards
woodline. Note equipment shed on right side of photo.
Watts Farm Restoration Appendix A
is S&EC Project: 8099.D1 April 25, 2005
t C. 1, to
•
•
Photo 5-Existing side drainage ditch near north end of side parcel looking west
towards woodline.
3
Photo 6-Existing property looking east towards woodline. Note Infinities Groundwa-
ter Gauge in center of photo.
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.131
0
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
0 Photo 8-Existing stream (upstream end) looking upstream (south) towards woodline.
Photo 7-Existing property looking south (upstream) towards woodline.
•
I"
•
•
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.D1
Appendix A
April 25, 2005

6
(looking east).
•

0
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.D1
Photo 1-Reference reach cross-section #1, looking upstream.
FJ

Appendix B
April 25, 2005
Photo 2-Reference reach cross-section #2, looking upstream.
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.131
•
•
Appendix B
April 25, 2005
Photo 3-Riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 1)
Photo 4-Riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 2)
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.D1
•
E
Appendix B
April 25, 2005
Photo 5-Non-riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 1)
Photo 6-Non-riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 2)
APPENDIX C
Preliminary Site Groundwater Data
3.00
y 2.50
y
z
C
2.00
c?
D
1.50
C
c?
1.00
0.50
0.00
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Site Rainfall Gauge Data JanuaOry 2004 to June 2004
v Q
0 0
O
Q
0
L6
Ir-
0
N
IT IT NT
o
U- LL
N C?
0
N
LL
O
0
LL
N
0 0
4 r-
0
O
Ir-
? ?
0 0
cu a
M Q
u
N
11,
0
Q
O
0
Q
Ir-
000
a a m
N 0 ?
N N O
0
c?
0
cu
N
0 0
N
0
O
o a
c c
?- N
Day of Monitoring Period
3.00
2.50
N
d
r
V
? 2.00
n
1.50
C
1.00
t?
D
0.50
0.00
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Site Rainfall Gauge Data July 2004 to December 2004
IRT qq Nt 'It Iq qT qq Iq IT qq qq Iq ? It Iq Iq ? ? It It ? ? ? qq
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1
=3 :3 75 CD :3 ::3 :3 4) (1) (1) m a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 Lh N d) 1 Q Q Q fn (n (n (D CO I ? r I Z Z Z Z
N N N O (0 N O (0 M O 4
r ?- N N CO r' N N N r
Day of Monitoring Period
APPENDIX E
Stream Morphological Characteristics Data Table
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1

a
O
-6 .
t+d
N
W
XS 1 Existing
O Oround Points ? BanWili Indicators
Wbkf - 5.4 Dbkf - .8
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 4.2
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix F
April 25, 2005
Existing Conditions Stream Data
Pagel of 4
0 10 20 30 40
APPENDIX F
Existing Conditions Stream Data
Warm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.131
AppendK
April 25, 2005
Radius of Curvature ft 40 45 50 13.32 15.59 18.9 3.46 17.12 43.84
Belt Width ft 40 50 60 22.48 34.35 43.24 78.76 78.76 78.76
Dimensi onless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Lm / W bkf 111.8568 134.2282 156.5996 8.44177 8.9443 9.44937 4.10495 12.23349 28.40566
Rc / W bkf 8.94855 10.06711 11.18568 1.68608 1.97342 2.39241 0.40802 2.01887 5.16981
Wblt / Wbkf MWR 8.94855 11.18568 13.42282 2.84557 4.3481 5.47342 9.28774 9.28774 9.28774
MOW
%
laa,
Values
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
S riffle ft/ft 0.0016 0.00217 0.00272 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364
S pool ft/ft 0 0.00014 0.00043 0 0.00047 0.00127 0 0.00047 0.00127
P - P ft 0 64.51 332.07 36.23 49.98 73.21 36.23 49.98 73.21
P length ft 0 67.13 332.07 8.22 29.94 53.41 8.22 29.94 53.41
Dmax riffle ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 2.71 2.94 3.17 2.71 2.94 3.17
Dmax pool ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 3.06 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Dimesionless Ratios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
S riffle / S bkf ft/ft 0.73733 1 1.25346 0.08571 1 2.6 0.08571 1 2.6
S pool / S bkf ft/ft 0 0.06452 0.19816 0 0.33571 0.90714 0 0.33571 0.90714
P - P / W bkf ft 0 14.43177 74.28859 4.27241 5.89387 8.63325 4.27241 5.89387 8.63325
P length / W bkf ft 0 15.0179 74.28859 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835
Dmax riffle / D bkf ft 1.41667 1.65625 1.80208 2.82292 3.0625 3.30208 2.82292 3.0625 3.30208
Dmax pool / D bkf ft 1.60417 1.72917 1.83333 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
Bankfull Slo a ft/ft 0.00217 0.0014 0.0014
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 2 of 3
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.1) 1
XS 2 EXISTING
0 Oround Points i BanWull Indicators V Water Surface Points
Ybkf = 4.3 Dbkf - 9 Abkf - 4.2

C
O
}+
ttf
N
W
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix F
April 25, 2005
Existing Conditions Stream Data
Page 2 of 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
WaW 1 arm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Appendix L
April 25, 2005
( p ?1 * y 77--'T
w a
a #"? 5 r?
Values
EXISTING E6 P ROPOSED C6 REFE RENCE REACH E6
Variable Min Avg Max Min Av Max Min Avg Max
Flood rove Width ft 8.63 19.75 28.15 26.7 27.48 28.2 42.99 43.55 44.11
Riffle Area S ft 4.16 4.24 4.31 4.02 4.23 4.49 8.06 8.12 8.18
Max Riffle Depth ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 2.71 2.94 3.17 2.71 2.94 3.17
Mean Riffle Depth ft 0.79 0.96 1.04 .57 0.58 0.6 0.94 0.96 0.97
Riffle Width ft 4.08 4.47 5.35 7.06 7.29 7.48 8.4 8.48 8.56
Pool Area S ft 5.1 6.0 7.2 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95
Max Pool Depth ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 3.06 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Mean Pool Depth ft 1.04 1.12 1.13 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Pool Width ft 4.89 5.34 6.42 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28

Dimensi onless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Wf a / Wbkf 1.93 4.41834 6.29754 3.78 3.76 3.77 5.07 5.13561 5.20165
Pool Area / Abkf 1.23 1.42 1.67 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798
Max Pool Depth / Dbkf 1.60417 1.72917 1.83333 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
Mean Pool Depth / Dbkf 1.09 1.17 1.32 11.97 12.52 13 1.02083 1.02083 1.02083
Pool Width / Wbkf 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396

Values
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Av Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Sinuosity 1.1 1.52 1.27
Meander Wavelength ft 500 600 700 66.69 70.66 74.65 34.81 103.74 240.88
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 1 of 3
t,3o £ QSLd
RJU(I uIL'a.ils suol
.4ipuoa ui;s[ga
(4) a*uels!Q MuMPOH
oe 9z oz 9? of S o
os
rn
sy
o'

L6
9002 `SZ I!jdV 1(1'6608 'ON 13afoid DHWS
xipuaddV
uoiiuioIsag unu3 s:RuAk
slulod s3Qyn8 J048M ? S 1831pu11lr1Wus8 ? siulod punao 0
l5ulls!x3 E SX
t'3o ti 00Ud
u,JuQ luvails suogipuoD u[lsixg
(4) QOUBIS!(3 IB4uozuOH
0£ SZ oz St of S o
rn
ctD
o?

SOOZ `SZ iFdV IQ'6608 *ON IOafOJd D9WS
,3 xipuoddV uoiTLIioISag uuB3 SUBA
e't - inqu L - 4"qa Z'k - INVA
$WIOd aasyinS japM ? ajop3IPW limues ? $luWd PuncuO 0
E)NIISIX3 tr SX
APPENDIX G
Reference Reach Stream Data
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1

c
O
tLi
N
W
0 Ground Points
1lbkf - 8.5
Reference XS 1
? SanldUll Indicators
Dbkf - 1
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 8.2
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Reference Reach Stream Data
Page 1 of 2
Appendix G
April 25, 2005
-9 -4 0 4 9 13 17 22 28 31 35 39 44 48
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.1) 1

C
O
t1)
N
n
0 Oround Points
Abkf - 8.5
Reference XS 2
? BankNll indicators
Dbkf - .9
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 8
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Reference Reach Stream Data
Page 2 of 2
Appendix G
April 25, 2005
-9 -4 0 4 9 13 18 22 27 31 36 40 45 49
APPENDIX H
Proposed Conditions Stream Data
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Proposed Typical Riffle
0 Oround Points ? BanldUll Indicators ? Water Surrace Points
Ybkf - 7.2 Dbkf - .6 Abkf - 4.2
1
^ 1
C
O
ttY
tU
W
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix H
April 25, 2005
Proposed Conditions Stream Data
Page 1 of 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Proposed Typical Pool
o Oround Points ? BanldUll Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Wbkf - 11.2 Dbkf - .4 Abkf - 18.6

C
O
it
tfY
a
a>
w
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix H
April 25, 2005
Proposed Conditions Stream Data
Page 2 of 2
0 10 20 30 40
APPENDIX I
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Letter
sue. sr? ? : _ j?
D
MAR 1 4 2005
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and IEstory
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
March 9, 2005
Jessica Regan
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Watts Farm Restoration Site, Perquimans County, ER 05-0373
Dear Ms. Regan:
Thank you for your letter of February 15, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
eter B. Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY dr PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
APPENDIX J
Perquimans County Floodplain Coordination Letter
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
June 20, 2005
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Perquimans County
Planning Department
P.O. Box 45
Hertford, NC 27944
Attn: Mr. William Ethridge & Mr. Zeke Jackson
Reference: Watts Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
Minor Grading w/in 100-yr Floodplain
Perquimans County, NC
Dear Sirs:
As discussed in our telephone conversations, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA is
currently developing a Stream and Wetland Restoration plan for the Watts Property in
Perquimans County. This North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
funded project consisting of approximately 48 acres is shown on the enclosed location
map.
Proposed restoration efforts will include restoring an agricultural ditch to a naturally
meandering stream. Plans also call for minor floodplain grading and the filling of
agricultural drainage ditches to restore wetland hydrology throughout the property. The
entire site will be planted with appropriate riparian and wetland vegetative species.
This site is located within the 100-year floodplain as determined by the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program (see enclosed floodplain map). Please advise what
additional information the County will require to approve the construction of this project
within the 100-year floodplain. If the County approves these restoration efforts without
Page 1 of 2
Watts Stream & Wetland Restoration June 20, 2005
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Project No. 8099.1) 1
additional information, please provide a written response indicating approval for use in
project permitting.
We thank you for your assistance in this matter and look forward to the successful
completion of this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, PA
Sincerely,
Rebecca S. Wargo, EIT
Project Engineer
Attachments:
1. Project Location Map
2. USGS Vicinity Map
3. Floodplain Map
Cc: Tracey Morris - NCEEP
Salam Murtada, NCEEP
Page 2of2
0
•
t-
N
•
Pro,cct r: Scale: -
8099.D I I ': 2.4
Wes Figure I -Vicinity Map
Pro,ect Date:
Mgr.: M 02-21-05
Watts Farm
Percquiman5 County, NC
Soil & Environmental Con:
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh,
[phone] • (919) 846-
Web Page: www.SandEC.
27614
PA

L'
0
•
z

111 .. ?`. IA I

t
^
1 Q
?' y

;il ,?,,,,? ' ,; ' ? _ For. " ? F.:
Y r1?

Y I /
,r _
,

w ?-r,_ . =`ova.. '?•??7'' ? (L }il/s` ? ? ,w? ? ,r? , /1
. SYI t \rt V..
r t
Site Boundary

- Watershed Boundary
ale:
' F) ure 2 - USGS
9
4000
Vrrqjczt Datc:
.21
05 Nuconton Quad
Soil & Environmental Consultants
PA
. ,
Watts Farm 11010 Raven Ridge Rd. - Raleigh, NC 27614

Perqulmans County
NC [phone] • [phone]
, Web Page: www.SandEC.com
E

•
iviap output

Page 1 of 1
III Ar% tin 1n1 nl----.T
r
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
20051354
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
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
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27 _
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ? (((??
II. Applicant Information ?v D
Q
1. Owner/Applicant Information JUL 1 9 2005
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program DENR. WATER QUALITY
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1 CANNAND e0RIMATERBRAKH
Telephone Number: 919-715-1157 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: salam.murtada(4jnemail.net
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12

111. 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: Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: Perquimans Nearest Town: Town of Hertford
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The site is located immediately
adjacent to Norma Drive near its intersection with Little River Shore Road (SR 1326). See
attached Site Location Hap.
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:
Agricultural land (soy beans production).
7. Property size (acres): 44 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little River
9. River Basin: Pasquotank
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream restoration project
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes,
Page 6 of 12
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: agricultural, timber operation, rural
residential with some commercial and industrial facilities.
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.
According to Ms. Tracy Wheeler (USACE), the action number for the wetland will be provided
in the near future.
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: None
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

List eacii impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
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 FF,MA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema..gov.
Page 7 of 12
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., fresh water/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
44 acres of prior-created wetland.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 44 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams: None
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?
(please secify)
See site Restoration 2,200 Watts Property stream 6-10 feet Perennial

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditch ing/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.coin,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 2,200 LF
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
See site Restoration 44 n/a Prior-created, agricultural
List eacn impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation (N/A)
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:
Page 8 of 12
r
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.
This project involves the restoration of 2,200 linear feet stream, restoration of approximately
4 acres of riverine wetlands and the restoration of approximately 40 acres of non-riverine
wetlands. Due to agricultural activities, the existing stream has been channelized and incised
causing the existing wetland to be converted to non-wetland area for agricultural use (soy
beans production). The goal of the project is to restore the wetland to its pre-existing
conditions.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwettands/strmgide.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)
Page 9 of 12
r
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.
Please see the existing site layout and the proposed grading and wetland planting plans
attached with the PCN application.
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. Nip. 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):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (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
Page 10 of 12
r
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
(Nteuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .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 0
2 1.5 0
Total 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone i.
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. Not applicable to this project
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.
The project will not involve sewage disposal
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 11 of 12
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).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Monitoring Gauge Data Comparison July 2004 to December 2004

0
-5
-10

= ? -15
I L N
-20

o -25
o ?
s ; -30
0
m d -35
G ?
-40
-45
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn m o

Q Q Q 6 a a a a
a) a) 0 0
Q w N w w a
a)
0 0 0 >>>>
0 0 0 0 (1)
0 0 z z z z o 0 0
N N U') N O O N O O M
N T- N O r 4
CO N N N O (0
r (V ?-
Day of Monitoring Period
?- W1 -- W2 -x W3 )K
W4 W5 --e- W6
r
0
-5
N
r ?
-10
?
-15
n N
-20

_ -25
0
-30

Q
_
0 -35

%Mow -40
-45
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Monitoring Gauge Data Comparison January 2004 to June 2004

i
Ak-

i I

I
I

I

I

11
I i

i
I
i
I

I
0 0 0
r co V)
T-
0
CIO
N
0
ICU
N
It It
0
LO N
00
L 0000
L L L L 00
L L
LL L 2 L L Q Q Q
cb 4
N 00 U r'
r. ? N co U')
e-
Day of Monitoring Period
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L L ), >, ?, ?, C C C C
N N
N N N
I-?W1 ?-W2?W3--W4 W5+W6!
NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA DEVELOPED
BY LIMITED ENGINEERING SURVEY
PERFORMED BY SPEC USING
TOTAL STATION.
2. ALL CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND BASED ON ASSUMED
ELEVATION OF 100.00.
3. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY
SURVEY AND IS NOT FOR
RECORDATION, CONVEYANCE, OR
SALES.
EXISTING
AGRICULTURAL
STORAGE SHED
EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES

LEGEND
0
KG0 SITE RAIN GAUGE
517E GROUND WATER GAUGE
/ CHANNEL OR DITCH PLOW
/ DIRECTION
PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER
(SEE PHOTOS APPENDIX)
? EXISTING CULVERT PIPE IN
DRAINAGE NETWORK
UTILITY POLES EXPECTED
LINES UTILITY
EASEMENT Q0
Pa;"fAcE Pz MAG. 1979
NORMA DRIVE DB 156 PG 654
(GRAVEL ROAD)
99 ??
5CALE
o99 ®ay
w- I ? A4 ` 200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXI5TING
EXISTING
W-2 RG0CHANNEL
A)
®e EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
O y
f °? 9 ?*s
99 ?i 6 g9
O ,
W'
w- ? O

? V,
SITE BOUNDARY
EXISTING CULVERTED
FARM CROSSING,
TYPICAL, ALL PIPES TO BE
REMOVED
ND
PI 9
111 P'o_
99
N
LL ©2005 5od * Environmental Consultants, PA. All rlght5 reserved.
EX15TING 51TE CONDITION5
./
n °o
o p1
N
..

(
z0 II Z

0

?o

NZi
Q z?Z
zQ
O
LLJ
oz i.- W F
I--
(S)
0
(L a-/ z L'
0
Q c
J ? -

>1 C

V
0
1
? V
t
ci'
aP
a
O ..
V?
N
z
a
u
SITE
BOUNDARY
EMERGENT
MARSh
WETLAND AREA
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
99
9g
?o -NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
8g '
7
EM GENT MARSH
LAND AREA
I PROPOSED
NEW CHANNE
9
EM?GENT M
ETLAN D
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

m
9,9
OPOSED
E Ch EL
? 89

Z 0 m Il z00
Q4
0 0?
ft
?
U)
v

MAG. 1070
DB 15G PG G54

SCALE Q z0 z ?

200 100 0 200 p U 0
CONTOUR INTERVAL = P L
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING Lu Lu z 0
0
z
0 U
ALL SITE FEEDER DITCHES Q o
TO BE BACKFILLED AND Q 3 o
LEVEL GRADED a
w o

EMERGENT MARSH d

??k< WETLAND AREA

TOPOGRAPHIC
HIGH POINTS
TO BE LEVEL
GRADED
v
rn
a
D v
V
J?? 1 g X605 oo g
Je ? U
?yp,1,1? ? N q
P'T
D?
SITE BOUNDARY
?a
0 ?
©2005 Sod * Environmental Con5Ultant5, PA. All neHt5 reserved. P R0 POS E D 5 ITE CONDITIONS * INDEX MAP

Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
2005 1 354
USACE Action Ill No. DWQ No.
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 R R v 0 0 vr?" D
D
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: JUL 1 9 2005
® Section 404 Permit DENR - WATER QUALITY
? Section 10 Permit WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1157 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: salam.murtada(jncmail.net
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
i
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: Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Perquimans Nearest Town: Town of Hertford
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The site is located immediately
adjacent to Norma Drive near its intersection with Little River Shore Road (SR 1326). See
attached Site Location Nlap.
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:
Agricultural land (soy beans production).
7. Property size (acres): 44 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little River
9. River Basin: Pasquotank
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream restoration project
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes,
Page 6 of 12
F
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: agricultural, timber operation, rural
residential with some commercial and industrial facilities.
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.
According to Ms. Tracy Wheeler (USA CE), the action number for the wetland will be provided
in the near future.
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; None
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
Page 7 of 12
I
*** 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:
44 acres of prior-created wetland.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 44 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams: None
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?
(please secify)
See site Restoration 2,200 Watts Property stream 6-10 feet Perennial

List eacn impact separatey anu toentny 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. USES maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.sov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., ww-w.topozone.coin,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 2,200 LF
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
See site Restoration 44 n/a Prior-created, agricultural
List eacn impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation (N/A)
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:
Page 8 of 12

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.
This project involves the restoration of 2,200 linear feet stream, restoration of approximately
4 acres of riverine wetlands and the restoration of approximately 40 acres of non-riverine
wetlands. Due to agricultural activities, the existing stream has been channelized and incised
causing the existing wetland to be converted to non-wetland area for agricultural use (soy
beans production). The goal of the project is to restore the wetland to its pre-existing
conditions.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 21:1 .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr. state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmgide. 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)
Page 9of12
r
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.
Please see the existing site layout and the proposed grading and wetland planting plans
attached with the PCN application.
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.htin. 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):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (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
Page 10 of 12

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 2B .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 0
2 1.5 0
Total 0
Gone t extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; "Lone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 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. Not applicable to this project
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.
The project will not involve sewage disposal
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 11 of 12
a
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).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA DEVELOPED
BY LIMITED ENGINEERING SURVEY
PERFORMED BY S*EC USING
TOTAL STATION.
2. ALL CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND BASED ON ASSUMED
ELEVATION OF 100.00'.
3. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY
SURVEY AND iS NOT FOR
RECORDATION, CONVEYANCE, OR
SALES.
EXISTING
AGRICULTURAL
STORAGE SHED
EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
LEGEND

KG? 51TE RAIN GAUGE
wV 51TE GROUND WATER GAUGE
/ CHANNEL OR DITCH FLOW
/ DIRECTION
PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER
I (HE FHOT05 APPENDIX)
? EXI5TING CULVERT PIPE IN
DRAINAGE NETWORK

02005 soil *- Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights reserved.

UTILITY POLES EXPECTED
LINES UTILITY
EASEMENT 2 0 0 5 1 3 5 4
0 i5+:=9°3
979
P?
POV?ER POOLE LE G G
P NORMA DRIVE MAG. i
DB 156 PG 654
(GRAVEL ROAD)
99 i.
SCALE
061
200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FXI5TING
EXISTING
W-2 KG 0 CHANNEL
®a EXISTING
P)
FEEDER DITCHES
m
n ?O
05
%
o? ?gti
9? ??P gt
all
'9.9 W- C,
w-
0
w-
1
w-s 1
SITE BOUNDARY
P9 EXISTING CULVERTED
Pll
°?- FARM CROSSING,
TYPICAL, ALL PIPES TO BE
REMOVED
EXI5TING 51TE CONDITION5
SITE
BOUNDARY
EMERGENT
MARSH
WETLAND AREA
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
9g
G? '4'pll
EM GENT MA H
ETLAND A rA

R/
/
/0
i
EM
1
1 PROPOSED
NEW CHANN

3,9

POSED
NCH 'EL
54
25 Q4
MAG. 1979
DD 15G PG G54
NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD) 5CALE
200 100 0 200
SENT MARSH CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
BLAND AREA ALL CONTOURS 5HOWN ARE EXI5TING
ALL SITE FEEDER DITCHES
TO BE BACKFILLED AND
LEVEL GRADED
\ /EMERGENT MARSH
v? WETLAND AREA

ks,
pdC? D
D
??L 1 g 2005
DEN Iwo sl
SITE BOUNDARY
TOPOGRAPHIC
HIGH POINTS
TO BE LEVEL
GRADED
zoQ iiZ?
a ad ? s
Q
K
W
Q
C WW
z
Q z U ?
U-j
1L 0 8F
I- N
cn v O
0 L
IL/? o
G- ?z 0
Q ?C?j U
0 Lu
(s) g Z ?'
0
Q> o
0
W CZ/
Q V
0 ~
V
a
w
Ov
V°
?U
r
N
z
W°
d? a
©2005 Sod * Environmental Consultants, PA. All nght5 reserved. PROP 05 E D 51 T E CONDITION 5 * INDEX MAP
a
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 5 1 3 5 4
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 1135=3@N1WT=1
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: ® Section 404 Permit JUL 1 9 2005
? Section 10 Permit WATER QUALITY
DE NR • PHR imo
® 401 Water Quality Certification WSLA gANDSTORM?
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
I . Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1157 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 12

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: Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: Perquimans Nearest Town: Town of Hertford
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The site is located immediately
adjacent to Norma Drive near its intersection with Little River Shore Road (SR 1326). See
attached Site Location Map.
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:
Agricultural land (soy beans production).
7. Property size (acres): 44 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little River
9. River Basin: Pasquotank
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream restoration project
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes,
Page 6 of 12
01
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: agricultural, timber operation, rural
residential with some commercial and industrial facilities.
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.
According to Ms. Tracy Wheeler (USACE), the action number for the wetland will be provided
in the near future.
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: None
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
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 littp://www.fenia.aov.
Page 7 of 12
*** 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:
44 acres of prior-created wetland.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 44 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams: None
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?
(pleasespecify)
See site Restoration 2,200 Watts Property stream 6-10 feet Perennial

List each impact separately and identity 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.uses.i;ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 2,200 LF
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
See site Restoration 44 n/a Prior-created, agricultural
List cacti impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation (N/A)
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:
Page 8 of 12
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.
This project involves the restoration of 2,200 linear feet stream, restoration of approximately
4 acres of riverine wetlands and the restoration of approximately 40 acres of non-riverine
wetlands. Due to agricultural activities, the existing stream has been channelized and incised
causing the existing wetland to be converted to non-wetland area for agricultural use (soy
beans production). The goal of the project is to restore the wetland to its pre-existing
conditions.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.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)
Page 9 of 12
r
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.
Please see the existing site layout and the proposed grading and wetland planting plans
attached with the PCN application.
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.hon. 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):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (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
Page 10 of 12
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 2B .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 0
2 1.5 0
Total 0
Lone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 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. Not applicable to this project
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.
The project will not involve sewage disposal
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 1 1 of 12
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).
N/?_o0
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
NOTES:
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA DEVELOPED
BY LIMITED ENGINEERING SURVEY
PERFORMED BY 5*EC USING
TOTAL STATION.
2. ALL CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND BA5ED ON A55UMED
ELEVATION OF 100.00'.
3
THI5 IS NOT A BOUNDARY
SURVEY AND IS NOT FOR
RECORDATION, CONVEYANCE, OR
SALES.
EXISTING
AGRICULTURAL
STORAGE SHED
3 EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
0
a
W
LEGEND
V
p?
O
N
ac-n 51TE RAIN GAUGE
o SITE GROUND WATER GAUGE
1
CHANNEL OR DITCH FLOW 1
u /
a
3 PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER
J (5EE PHOT05 APPENDIX)
0

$ ? EXI5TING CULVERT PIPE IN
DRAINAGE NETWORK
a
'nl@2005 5od f' Environmental Consultants, PA. All rlght5 reserved.
I ITII 1"N P!'ll FG,
0? q X00
SITE BOUNDARY
EXISTING CULVERTED
FARM CR0551NG,
TYPICAL, ALL PIPES TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING 51TE CONDITIONS
EXPECTED
UTI LITY
EASEMENT
NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
MAG. 1070
DD 15G PG G54
200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL= I'
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING
EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
?'?2 °o
o? N ..
Zo` iiZc
v- i
?W
o?
W?
z V
Z Z
Q
W O
W
V / U
?0-
o LLJ Z
c)
z 0
g?
W
C u
V
0 V
y ? N
F
L
L'
(
C
SITE
BOUNDARY
MAG. 197G95
DB 156 PG 4
EMERGENT
MARSH
WETLAND AREA
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
ul©2005 Soil * Environmental Consultants, PA. All
SCALE
200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOUR5 5HOWN ARE EXI5TING
ALL SITE FEEDER DITCHES
TO BE BACKFILLED AND
LEVEL GRADED
TOPOGRAPHIC
HIGH POINTS
TO BE LEVEL
GRADED
EMERGENT MARSH
WETLAND AREA
"AA I
?dgQ
0
wx?slls Slog
SITE BOUNDARY
re5ervea. FROF05ED 51TE CONDITIONS * INDEX MAP
NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
ENT MARSH
;LAND AREA
JUL 1 g 205
o 0 0
00O N ..
Zoe uZ(`
U ? U_ U

Q z uZ
zQ a
U.1 z -

N? Z
0 0

L

z
CL ? 0
0
0 U
?
(s) g

- z
0
W
j
a o

w
a- CL/
u
7
o o i
a?
4r,?
w
N
O v
V'
?g
u
a U
r
N
z
a
u
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN FOR
os
Watts Property 20
'3s
Perquimans County, North Carolina 4
rY
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
March 2005
REVISED April 2005
REVISED June 2005
REVISED July 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS F 0 V 12 D
Q
JUL 1 9 2005
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES ........................................................................... 2
3.0 PROJECT LOCATION ........ 4
........................................................................................
4.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION ............................................................. 5
4.1 Drainage Area ..................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Land Usage & Distribution ................................................................................. 5
4.3 Future Land Use .................................................................................................. 5
5.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 6
5.1 Existing Hydrologic Features ............................................................................. 6
5.2 Site Soils ...... 7
..................................................................................................... ..
5.3 Existing Plant Community ................................................... 7
.............................
5
4 Threate
d
d E
d
d S
i ..
.
ne
an
n
angere
pec
es ................................................................ .. 7
5.5 Stream Geometry & Substrate Material ............................................................ .. 8
5.6 Nearby Areas of Historical Significance .......................................................... .. 8
5.7 Floodplain Coordination ................................................................................... .. 8
5.8 Other Site Features & Utilities .......................................................................... .. 9
6.0 STREAM & WETLAND EVALUATION ................................................................ 10
6.1 Reference Stream & Wetland Studies ................................................................... 10
6. 1.1 Stream Reference Reach ....................................................................... 10
6.1.2 Regional Curve Verification ................................................................... 10
6.1.3 Riverine Reference Wetland ..................................................................... 11
6.2 Site Wetland Delineation ...........................................
. 12
.
.........................................
6
3 Site Ground
t
D
t
.
wa
er
a
a .......................................................................................... 12
6.4 Site Rainfall Data .................................................................................................. 13
7.0 STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ................................................... 14
7.1 Site Demolition Plan ............................................................................................. 14
7.2 Stream Restoration Concept .................................................... 14
.............................
7.3 Natural Channel Design 1
........................................................................................ 5
7.3.1 Restoration Methodology ............................................................................. 15
7.3.2 Channel Competency Determination ........................................................... 16
7.3.3 In-Stream Structures ................................................ 17
....................................
7
4 Planned H
d
l
i
M
dif
i
.
y
ro
og
c
o
icat
ons ....................................................................... 17
7.5 Wetland Vegetative Community Restoration ....................................................... 18
7.5.1 Riverine Planting Zone ............................................................................. 18
7.5.2 Non-Riverine Planting Zone ..................................................................... 20
7.5.3 Herbaceous Planting Zones .......................................................................... 21
7.6 Soil Restoration ..................................................................................................... 22
7.7 Removal of Invasive or Undesirable Species ....................................................... 22
7.8 Erosion & Sediment Control ................................................................................. 22
i
7.9 Construction Sequence .......................................................................................... 23
8.0 STREAM & WETLAND SUCCESS CRITERIA & MONITORING PLAN ........... 26
8.1 Stream Restoration Monitoring ......................................................................... 26
8.1.1 Physical Monitoring ..................................................................................... 26
8.1.3 Biological Monitoring .................................................................................. 27
8.2 Wetland Restoration Monitoring .......................................................................... 27
8.2.1 Hydrologic Success Criteria ........................................................................ 27
8.2.2 Vegetative Success Criteria ...................................................................... 27
8.2.3 Physical Success ....................................................................................... 28
8.3 Monitoring Schedule ......................................................................................... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
11
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Project Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2 USGS Topographic Map - Site Location
FIGURE 3 Perquimans County Soils Survey Map - Site Location
FIGURE 4 USGS Topographic Map - Reference Site Locations
FIGURE 5 Perquimans County Soils Survey Map - Reference Sites
FIGURE 6 Existing Site Conditions
FIGURE 7 Proposed Site Conditions & Index Map
FIGURE 8 Proposed Stream Restoration Layout - Sheet 1 of 3
FIGURE 9 Proposed Stream Restoration Layout - Sheet 2 of 3
FIGURE 10 Proposed Stream Restoration Layout - Sheet 3 of 3
FIGURE 11 Proposed Stream Longitudinal Profile - Sheet 1 of 3
FIGURE 12 Proposed Stream Longitudinal Profile - Sheet 2 of 3
FIGURE 13 Proposed Stream Longitudinal Profile - Sheet 3 of 3
FIGURE 14 Typical Restored Channel & Floodplain Cross-sections
FIGURE 15 Typical In-channel Structures & Bank Stabilization Details
FIGURE 16 Erosion Control Details I
FIGURE 17 Erosion Control Details II
FIGURE 18 Site Planting Plan
FIGURE 19 Planting Details
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Site Photographs
APPENDIX B Reference Stream & Wetland Photographs
APPENDIX C Preliminary Site Groundwater Data
APPENDIX D Site Rainfall Data
APPENDIX E Stream Morphological Characteristics Data Table
APPENDIX F Existing Conditions Stream Data
APPENDIX G Reference Reach Stream Data
APPENDIX H Proposed Conditions Stream Data
APPENDIX I State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Letter
APPENDIX J Perquimans County Floodplain Coordination Letter
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) has been contracted by the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to restore approximately 1,523
linear feet of stream channel, 4 acres of riverine (stream-side) wetlands, and 40 acres of
non-riverine wetlands on the Watts Property near the town of Hertford in Perquimans
County, NC (Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010205). Using natural channel design,
there is the potential to restore as much as 2,200 linear feet of stream channel. See Figure
1 for a site vicinity map.
In March 2005, S&EC prepared a Conceptual Restoration Plan to gain concurrence from
the NCEEP on our concept for the restoration of the impaired stream and the former site
wetlands. At that time we solicited additional comment and input from NCEEP for
incorporation into this Restoration Plan. We have incorporated the comments and
suggestions provided by NCEEP into our plan.
This report presents our design rationale and documentation for the proposed Restoration
Plan to restore stream function, wetland hydrology and vegetation, and the resultant
habitat. This will be performed through the construction of an appropriately sized coastal
stream and site grading including but not limited to the filling of existing site drainage
ditches. Once complete the restored stream and wetlands will be planted with the
appropriate vegetative species. The interested reader is referred to the included figures
and appendices for additional information.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The channelized and impaired state of the existing stream, limited floodplain
functionality due to channel incision, existing and future sedimentation and erosion
potential, and lack of native vegetation along the banks and riverine buffer zone indicate
that this length of stream presents a viable restoration project. Additionally, the
remainder of the property consists of former coastal wetlands which, through the use of
agricultural practices including ditching, have been converted for use as agricultural
lands.
In this process we intend to accomplish the following objectives:
1) Restore approximately 1,523 linear feet of appropriately sized stream channel that
is stable and self-maintaining, and that will not aggrade or degrade over time, by
utilizing Rosgen-based natural channel design procedures and techniques.
2) Develop a restored channel with the appropriate morphological characteristics
(cross-sectional dimension, pattern, and longitudinal profile) utilizing locally
collected reference reach data as a guide. Allow for no net loss of overall channel
length in the process.
3) Create and/or improve bed form diversity (riffles, runs, pools, and glides) and
improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat.
4) Construct a floodplain (or local bankfull bench) that is accessible at the proposed
bankfull channel elevation.
5) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in-stream structures
and native bank vegetation.
6) Establish a native forested and herbaceous riverine buffer plant community within
a minimum width of 50 feet from the edge of the restored channel. This new
community will be established in conjunction with the eradication of any existing
exotic and/or undesirable plant species.
7) Restore approximately 4 acres of riverine (stream-side) wetlands within the newly
established floodplain of the restored channel. Provide the desired riverine
wetland community through the use of microtopographic grading and the planting
of the appropriate wetland vegetative species.
8) Restore approximately 40 acres of non-riverine wetlands within the site through
the modification of existing site features which currently alter hydrology. Provide
the desired wetland vegetative community through the planting of the appropriate
wetland vegetative species.
2
9) Allow for treatment of nutrient rich agricultural runoff from adjacent and
upstream properties through the utilization of riverine wetlands as a treatment
mechanism.
10) Restore habitat in and along the stream and riverine corridor by enhancing vertical
and horizontal structure perpendicular to the restored channel. In doing so
provide cover, travel corridors, and access to the adjacent natural areas for
mammalian, reptilian, and avian species.
11) Incorporate the restoration effort into the site's surroundings to provide aesthetic
and educational values.
3
3.0 PROJECT LOCATION
The Watts Property Stream & Wetland Restoration project is located in the Pasquotank
River Basin, Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010205, along the southwest bank of the
Little River near its confluence with the Albermarle Sound in Perquimans County, NC.
The site, near Hertford, NC, is immediately adjacent to Norma Drive near its intersection
with Little River Shore Road (SR 1326). See the attached Site Location Map (Figure 1)
and the attached 7.5 minute series USGS Topographic Map, Nixonton, NC (Figure 2) for
specifics on directions to the site and the surrounding vicinity.
According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) website, the Little River (Stream Index
Number 30-5-(2)) is classified as a Class SC watercourse. The following definitions
apply:
Class SC - aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and
secondary recreation.
The site consists of a single tract of approximately 48 acres, previously owned by Mr.
Richard Watts of Venice, Florida.
4
4.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION
During our analyses we observed characteristics of the site and surrounding area, verified
surface and channel flow conditions, and observed existing water conveyance structures.
This section describes our evaluation of the project watershed (See Figure 2).
4.1 Drainage Area
The watershed area for the project site is estimated at approximately 0.16 square miles
(102 acres). Much of the drainage area is interlaced with a complex system of
interconnecting drainage ditches designed to evacuate surface water and draw down
ground water during the wetter portion of the year. The outlet for the drainage is an
existing pipe which carries discharges from the site (and contributing drainage) under
Norma Drive and into the Little River.
4.2 Land Usage & Distribution
The entirety of the site itself has most recently been used for agricultural purposes
(primarily soybean production). It is our understanding that this use has been continuous
for many years.
The surrounding area and contributing watershed is similarly used primarily for
agricultural purposes and timber operations (mixed pine and hardwood forest) with
individual home sites, a few small clusters of higher density residential lots (1 /2 to 1
acres), and agricultural buildings. Select small municipal, commercial, or industrial
facilities are also sparsely intermixed into the mostly rural landscape.
4.3 Future Land Use
With the execution of the proposed restoration plan, the site will be removed from
agricultural use, regraded, and planted with a mix of woody and herbaceous wetland
vegetative species.
Based on our observation of current land use in the surrounding area and the primarily
rural landscape, it is unlikely that future (5 to 10 years) land usage will differ
considerably from the current use.
5
5.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
On October 10 & 12, 2003, and again on January 13 & 14, 2004, Soil & Environmental
Consultants, PA, performed a limited engineering survey using Total Station equipment
to identify site characteristics to include, but not limited to drainage ditches, open
channels, water conveyances, utilities, and structures. While on site, we also observed
surface and open channel flow conditions, and the surrounding (and contributing)
drainage area.
This section describes existing site conditions at Watts Property based on field data
recorded by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA, during our site visits to date. See
attached Existing Site Plan (Figure 6) and the Appendix A - Site Photographs for details.
The location and direction of view for site photos is shown on the Existing Site Plan.
5.1 Existing Hydrologic Features
As previously noted, much of the contributing drainage area (both on and off site) is
interlaced with a complex system of interconnecting drainage ditches. From their
configuration it is evident that they were installed to evacuate site surface water and draw
down ground water during the wetter portion of the year. In doing so, these ditches have
allowed for easier access of farm equipment and the resultant utilization of a significantly
larger portion of the surrounding landscape for agricultural practices.
The on-site network includes a total of twelve (12) intersecting agricultural ditches of
varying dimensions totaling over 9,000 feet in length. Many of these ditches eventually
drain to a single straightened and dredged stream channel which bisects the property.
This system is shown in detail on Figure 6 along with indicators of flow direction. These
feeder ditches range from roughly 6 to 15 inches deep up to 2 to 3 feet in depth (at top of
bank). The feeder ditches vary in top width from approximately 4 to almost 8 feet in
width.
At select locations the ditch network is tied with existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
and corrugated plastic pipe (CPP) culverts ranging in size from 12 inches to 24 inches.
These pipes serve as crossing locations for farm equipment allowing access to all
portions of the property.
The main channel, for which stream restoration is proposed, serves to collect site surface
runoff (overland and from adjacent the ditches) and site groundwater. This same channel
also receives upstream watershed discharges from two agricultural ditches near the
southern property boundary. In its current straightened condition the channel is
approximately 1,523 feet in length. A 24 inch CMP culvert is situated at the approximate
mid-point of the existing reach. The channel ranges from 3 to 4 feet in depth (at top of
bank) while varying in top width from approximately 6 feet to as much as 10 feet in
width.
The stream banks are moderately steep to steep along much of the channel length with
little or no vegetative cover over most of the length. The average slope along the length
6
of the existing channel is 0.00217 ft/ft. No woody vegetation was observed on any of the
site stream or ditch banks, with the exception of the south side of the two feeder ditches
which parallel the southern property line. Along these, the southern bank is densely
vegetated with woody vegetation.
The stream leaves the site near its north property boundary through an existing 24 inch
CMP under Norma Drive and into a feeder canal for the Little River. The pipe itself is
completely submerged (at both ends). The upstream culvert headwall is in disrepair and
the downstream end of the pipe has no discernable headwall and is crushed. During our
site visits we observed excessive sedimentation within the pipe, partially burying the
downstream end of the culvert. Consideration should be given to the replacement of
existing pipe with an appropriately sized pipe arch culvert.
5.2 Site Soils
The site's location is shown on the Perquimans County Soil Survey segment included as
Figure 3. In the Perquimans County Soil survey, on-site soils are mapped Roanoke silt
loam. The USDA describes the Roanoke silt loam as a nearly level, poorly drained soil
with slow permeability and moderate shrink swell potential. The high water table is at or
near the surface and when drained the soil is well suited to corn, soybean, and grain
production. Dominant vegetative communities usually include loblolly pine, red maple
and sweet gum with an understory of cedar, American holly, sweet bay, sourwood, reeds,
and wax myrtle. Select hand auger borings were performed at various locations. Based
on our observations, it is our opinion that site soils are uniform and taxonomically
consistent with Roanoke silt loam. No laboratory soil tests were performed.
5.3 Existing Plant Community
As the site has been used for soybean production, the natural plant community has been
greatly altered. The site is barren except for remnant vegetation on the south side of the
two feeder ditches which parallel the southern property line. This woody vegetation
consists primarily of Red Maple (Ater rubrum). Vegetation in the surrounding wooded
areas consist primarily of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) and Red Maple (Ater rubrum).
5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
In order to assess potential impacts to any federal and state threatened and/or endangered
species the proposed restoration effort may pose, a review was performed at the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Raleigh office. A two-mile radius of the site
was evaluated for known Elements of Occurrence of threatened/endangered animals, and
a five-mile radius was evaluated for threatened/endangered plants.
No Elements of Occurrence of threatened or endangered federal and state animals were
located within the radii specified above. The closest Element of Occurrence of a
threatened/endangered animal to the site is an active bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) nest approximately 5 miles east of the site across the Little River in a
marsh area. We believe that the proposed restoration work will have no adverse effect on
bald eagle habitat, and will likely help to enhance local habitat quality.
7
Within 5 miles, a state threatened vascular plant has been observed. The Carolina
grasswort (Lilaeopsis carolinensis) occurs within freshwater marshes, pools, and tidal
marshes within the coastal plain. Since the site has been drained and used as cropland, it
is unlikely that any suitable habitat for the Carolina grasswort remains. It is unlikely that
restoration activities will have a detrimental impact on this species.
5.5 Stream Geometry & Substrate Material
The current channel was surveyed to develop a total of four (4) stream cross-sections and
a longitudinal profile defining the existing conditions. From this data, we performed a
Level II Classification (Rosgen) for the existing stream resulting in a Type 136c (very low
width/depth ratio) in the upper third of the reach, and a slightly entrenched Type E6
channel for the remainder of the reach. These classifications were consistent with our
site observations.
The sinuosity of the existing channel is approximately 1.0, a value which is out of the
acceptable range for both a Type B and a Type E stream. The average entrenchment ratio
of the existing channel is 4.42, and the average width depth ratio is 4.66. The measured
bankfull slope was 0.0022 ft/ft.
The existing channel bed has little or no facets due to straightening and dredging. The
silt bed is generally homogenous throughout the reach. Table 1 (Stream Morphological
Characteristics Data Table) in Appendix E contains the morphological characteristics for
the existing, reference, and proposed stream conditions.
5.6 Nearby Areas of Historical Significance
The State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted in order to determine
potential impacts as a result of the proposed restoration effort at Watts Property to any
nearby areas of historical significance.
According to Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley at SHPO, and as described in her letter dated
March 9, 2005, there are no nearby areas of historical significance that would be
impacted by the proposed work. A copy of this letter is enclosed as Appendix I.
5.7 Floodplain Coordination
Mr. William Ethridge and Mr. Zeke Jackson of the Planning Department of Perquimans
County were consulted regarding the proper procedure for the approval of this project. A
letter dated June 20, 2005, was forwarded to the department describing the restoration
efforts and requesting written approval of the project. A copy of this letter is included as
Appendix J.
5.8 Other Site Features & Utilities
Based on our site observations to date, a single structure currently exists on the property.
This structure is an open-frame farm equipment shed located in the northwest corner of
the property. This structure is proposed for demolition during site restoration.
Select other utilities to include electric and telephone are located along the northern
property boundary immediately south of Norma Drive. These utilities will require
specific location and marking by the selected construction contractor prior to
commencing restoration work. If the road and/or utility easements fall within the project
bounds, coordination will be required in order to obtain a written encroachment
agreement with the appropriate entities. S&EC has begun coordination in order to
expedite the process. For planning purposes we have estimated easements at the site at
50 feet and 30 feet for the roadway and electric utility easements respectively. These
estimated easements are reflected on Sheet 6. Actual easement widths, once determined,
will be reflected on the Construction Drawings.
9
6.0 STREAM & WETLAND EVALUATION
In order to facilitate restoration plan development as well as support project goals, an off-
site stream reference reach and two reference wetland areas (one riverine and one non-
riverine) were characterized. This section describes our evaluation to date of the
reference sites, our on site jurisdictional waters delineation, existing groundwater
conditions, and site rainfall.
6.1 Reference Stream & Wetland Studies
All reference areas occupy similar landscape positions to that of the Watts Property site.
The reference areas were quantitatively or qualitatively assessed, and species lists for
each vegetative stratum (trees, shrubs, herbaceous, and vines) were recorded.
6.1.1 Stream Reference Reach
The stream Reference Reach is located west of Red Bank Road (SR 1331)
approximately 5000 feet north of its southern intersection with Woodville Road
(SR 1329) (see Figure 4). The reach consisted of an unnamed tributary of the
Little River. Similar to our restoration reach, this tributary flows generally east-
northeast discharging along the western bank of the Little River. This location is
approximately 3 miles northwest of the Watts Property. Due to the limited
availability of reference streams in the area, this site was chosen due to its close
proximity to the site while maintaining conditions similar to those we intend to
replicate at the restoration site.
The reference reach was surveyed with Total Station equipment. Our survey
included approximately 320 linear feet of channel or approximately 35 bankfull
widths (20 to 30 bankfull widths is desired). Two (2) cross sections and a
longitudinal profile were surveyed. Key morphological characteristics developed
include; a bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) of 8.07 square feet (ft) , a bankfull
width (Wbkf) of 8.53 feet, and a mean bankfull depth (dbkf) of 0.95 feet.
The reference channel has an average entrenchment ratio of 5. 1, and an average
width/depth ratio of 8.9. Channel sinuosity is approximately 1.3, and bankfull
slope is approximately 0.0014 ft/ft. The reference reach has distinct facets
corresponding with channel pattern. The Level II classification for the reference
reach is E6.
Table 1 in Appendix E contains the morphological characteristics of the surveyed
reference stream reach. Vegetation adjacent to the reference reach was similar to
that described for the riverine reference wetland described in the next section.
Photos of the reference reach are provided in Appendix B.
6.1.2 Regional Curve Verification
Using data published by North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute (SRI)
10
(Regional Curves for North Carolina Coastal Streams - SRI 2003) we compared
our reference data expectant riffle dimension characteristics for a stream with a
watershed area of 0.45 square miles. Cross-sectional Area, Bankfull Width, and
Mean Depth were all compared with the curve line and their placement in relation
to the 95% confidence limits (upper and lower) for each of the three curves.
The comparisons are presented in the following table:
Regional Curve Data
Morphological Reference

Characteristic Reach Lower Curve Upper
Data Limit Line Limit
Cross-sectional
Area, ft.2 8.07 2.30 8.57 28.00
Bankfull

Width, ft. 8.53 4.30 8.23 17.00
Mean
Depth, ft. 0.95 0.42 1.02 2.50
6.1.3 Riverine Reference Wetland
The riverine reference wetland is located east of Red Bank Road (SR 1331)
approximately 5000 feet north of its southern intersection with Woodville Road
(SR 1329) (see Figure 4). This location is approximately 3 miles northwest of the
Watts Property. The site is directly across the road from the stream Reference
Reach along the same channel. In the Perquimans County Soil Survey, reference
site soils are mapped as Chowan silt loam (see Figure 5). This soil type is very
poorly drained and occurs on the flood plains of small streams that flow into the
Perquimans River.
The canopy is dominated by Red Maple (Ater rubrum), with some Green Ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American Elm (Ulmus americana) present. It is
evident that approximately 60-80% of the canopy was damaged by the hurricanes
that struck the area in 2004. The shrub stratum consisted of Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Greenbriar
(Smilax spp.), and Rattan Vine (Berchemia scandens), as well as saplings from
species in the tree stratum. It is evident that manipulation of this site has occurred
in the past, and, while we recognize the reference vegetation lacks diversity, we
found it suitable for our purposes. Within the restoration, we utilized the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina " to select later
successional species to restore the communities that naturally existed in this area
before anthropogenic alterations. Photographs of the Riverine reference wetland
are provided in Appendix B.
6.1.4 Non-Riverine Reference Wetland
The non-riverine reference wetland is also located east of Red Bank Road (SR
1331) approximately 4000 feet west/northwest of its intersection with Woodville
Road (SRI 329) (See Figure 4).
This area appears to flood much less frequently than the riverine reference
wetland and although no areas of standing water were observed, soils were
saturated to near the ground surface. In the Perquimans County Soil survey,
reference site soils are mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam, a poorly drained soil
with moderate permeability.
The canopy was dominated by Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda). Also in the canopy
several Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Red Maple (Ater rubrum) and an
unidentified oak were observed. The shrub stratum consists of Wax Myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American Holly (Ilex
opaca), and Greenbrier (Smilax spp.), as well as saplings from species in the tree
stratum. Photographs of the non-riverine reference wetland are provided in
Appendix B.
6.2 Site Wetland Delineation
On December 18, 2003, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA, met with Mr. David
Lekson of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington District Office to
observe site conditions, evaluate site soils, and discuss general restoration alternatives for
the Watts Property project. At that time we understood that Mr. Lekson was in general
agreement with our evaluation of site soils, and the general suitability and potential for
the preliminary estimates regarding riverine and non-riverine wetland restoration.
We are currently working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington Office to
determine an approach to the site wetland delineation. Additionally, we will contact the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to confirm the Prior Converted (PC)
wetland status of the property.
6.3 Site Groundwater Data
Our evaluation of site groundwater to date included the siting and installation of a series
of groundwater monitoring gauges with electronic data loggers. These gauges were
provided to S&EC by NCEEP. A total of six (6) Infinities USA, Inc., data logger gauges
(numbered W-1 through W-6) were installed on the project site on December 11, 2003.
Locations of gauges are shown on Figure 6. Since their installation, these gauges have
been downloaded on approximately a quarterly basis. To date all gauges have remained
functional. We will continue to download collected data during the design process.
On March 22, 2005, a total of four (4) gauges were installed on the reference wetlands,
two (2) at the riverine reference wetland site (WRR-1 and WRR-2) and two (2) at the
non-riverine reference wetland site (WRN-1 and WRN-2). Similar to the site gauges
these will be downloaded on an approximate quarterly basis.
12
Gauge data from both the site and reference wetlands (riverine and non-riverine) was
compiled for design use and incorporation into this Restoration Plan. Data collected from
these gauges is provided in Appendix C.
6.4 Site Rainfall Data
Our site work also included the purchase, siting, and installation of one (1) 6.5-inch
diameter, 0.01-inch, self-emptying tipping bucket rain gauge data logger (Infinities USA,
Inc.) on site. The gauge was installed on December 11, 2003. On or around March 27,
2004, vandals damaged the gauge and a second gauge subsequently was purchased and
installed on the site. To date this gauge remains in place and functional. Approximately
3 months of rain data was retrieved from the damaged gauge.
The location of the installed rain gauge is shown on Figure 6. Similar to the groundwater
monitoring gauges rain data has also been collected on a quarterly basis and is provided
in Appendix D. We will continue to download collected rainfall data during the design
process.
For comparison purposes we have obtained and plotted data (on the same graph) from the
North Carolina Climate Retrieval Observations Network of the Southeast (CRONOS),
Elizabeth City, FAA Airport gauge in Elizabeth City, NC.
13
7.0 STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
Restoration of the Watts Property will be accomplished restoring the existing stream
channel, restoring riverine or streamside wetlands associated with the restored stream
channel, re-grading previously altered non-riverine wetland areas, and planting these
denuded wetland areas with native wetland vegetation.
We will use our reference stream reach (and other available stream data), and our two
reference wetland areas (riverine and non-riverine) as a guideline. The interested reader
is referred to Figures 6 through 20 for additional information regarding the proposed
restoration plan.
7.1 Site Demolition Plan
Site demolition will consist of the removal of the existing wooden equipment shed, the
pulling of existing culverts, and the filling of existing agricultural drainage ditches.
Current plans do not call for the removal or relocation of any utilities (running parallel to
Norma Drive) or the replacement of the existing culvert beneath Norma Drive. The
scheduled construction contractor shall be responsible for demolition, removal, and the
appropriate disposal of all demolition debris in accordance with local, state, and federal
guidelines. It will be the contractor's responsibility to identify appropriate local disposal
sites, obtain necessary disposal permits, and pay permit fees.
7.2 Stream Restoration Concept
The implementation of the restoration plan will result in the development of a stable
natural stream channel within a contiguous fully vegetated and protected riverine
corridor.
In order to perform the necessary stream restoration along the impacted reach, natural
channel design methods will be employed. The restored reach will have the appropriate
dimension (cross-section), pattern (sinuosity), and profile (channel slope) of a naturally
occurring, stable channel based on the use of an appropriate reference reach with the
appropriate valley type and land form. Design will include the evaluation of both water
and sediment transport requirements to produce a stable stream in dynamic equilibrium.
Restoration of natural channel geometry and structure will not only improve morphologic
function and habitat within the immediate channel environment, but also in the water
quality downstream of the restored channel as well. Stream banks will be planted with
native vegetation that represents both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species.
Species selection will be based on a survey of the vegetation from the reference reach and
from reference literature that details native species.
Restoration of a suitable riverine buffer will enhance the recovery and protection of the
restored stream. A protected buffer (with a width minimum of 50 feet) will be restored
on both sides of the channel restoration reaches. The wooded corridors that will be
established as part of this restoration will also increase the vertical and horizontal
14
structure perpendicular to the channel along the reach helping to increase species
composition and abundance.
Additionally, the presence of a wooded buffer adjacent to the channel not only increases
in-stream habitat quality by cooling water and increasing oxygen content, it also provides
cover, travel corridors, and access to adjacent natural areas for mammalian, reptilian, and
avian species as well.
7.3 Natural Channel Design
The restoration design for the site stream is based on natural channel design principles
and techniques utilizing reference reach data sets and the existing channel conditions
survey data. Reference data utilized in our design will include the reference reach, two
comparative reference reaches, and the North Carolina Coastal Regional Curve (SRI
2003). A conceptual sketch of the general restoration alignment is provided in Figures 7,
8, and 9. Typical proposed channel and floodplain cross-sections are shown in Figure 14,
and the proposed longitudinal profile is shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13.
7.3.1 Restoration Methodology
The proposed stream type is an E6. If the construction of a stable E6 channel
becomes difficult and costly due to less cohesive soils in the upper sections of
the stream banks, the channel will be constructed as a low width/depth C6 so
that it will have stable banks and will be able to adjust to a stable E6 over
time. The channel will be a meandering reach with stable pattern, profile and
dimension. Table 1 in Appendix E contains existing, reference, and proposed
stream morphological characteristics.
Log cross vanes will be located at the beginning and end of the reach, and at
any straight sections of significant length throughout the reach. The cross-
vanes will provide grade control for the reach and protect both sides of the
channel stream banks in straight sections. Log j-hooks will be placed at
various locations throughout the reach. The j-hooks will protect the outside
meanders from lateral erosion, improve channel facets, and improve sediment
transport. The majority of our proposed structures are constructed of
hardwood logs with boulder footers. Log cross vanes and j-hooks will be
constructed with hardwood logs approximately 12 to 15 inches in diameter.
Boulders will be utilized in these structures as depicted in the details. While
typically not encountered in coastal systems, the presence of rock in the
structures will maintain grade control and stability throughout the channel.
This restoration will be a Priority I restoration. Restoring sinuosity will
lengthen the channel, thereby lowering its slope. This change in profile will
provide a more appropriate hydraulic connection of bankfull flow and the
historic floodplain. The restoration design will result in a riffle-pool system
with proper pattern and profile.
15
Two smaller tributaries are proposed for construction to accommodate
discharges from the herbaceous marsh zones located to the east and west of
the channel. These tributaries will have a steeper gradient than the main
channel, due in large part to the drop in elevation associated with conveying
discharges from the non-riverine zone elevation to the lower elevation
associated with the new floodplain (riverine wetland) and the channel invert
along the main restoration reach.
Erosion control matting (coir matting), temporary seeding, and live stakes will
be utilized to reduce bank erosion immediately following completion of the
channel and provide bank stabilization.
7.3.2 Channel Competency Determination
The mean depth required to maintain natural channel sediment transport
without aggradation or degradation was predicted using a critical
dimensionless shear stress formula. The two commonly used methods used to
calculate the critical shear stress are from ED Andrews:
Using the Pavement to Subpavement Ratio:
Tep* = 0.0834(D50,bed1D50,bor)-0.872 Equation A
Using the Surface Materials Ratio:
Tef* = 0.0384(D;/D50,bed)-0887 Equation B
Where:
Tei* = Critical dimensionless shear stress
D50,bed = Median diameter of the active riffle bed material (mm)
D50,bar = Median diameter of the bar sample or subpavement sample
(assumes that the median bar sample is approximately equal
to the mean subpavement particle) (mm)
D; = Largest particle diameter from bar or subpavement sample
(mm)
To determine which equation will be used, the ratio of D50,bed/D50,bar is
calculated. If this ratio falls between 3 and 7, then Equation A is employed.
Otherwise, the ratio of Di/D50,bed is calculated. If this ratio falls between 1.3
and 3, then Equation B is employed. In this project, Equation A was
appropriate.
16
Once the critical dimensionless shear stress is obtained, the required depth is
calculated using the Shields relation:
Where:
dbkf = (T i* YS Di)/S
dbkf = Bankfull mean depth required to move largest particle (D;) (ft.)
D; = Largest particle diameter from bar or subpavement sample (ft.)
YS = Submerged specific weight of sediment (1.65) (dimensionless)
S = Water surface slope (ft./ft.)
In this case, a necessary mean bankfull depth of 0.88 ft was calculated, so the
dbkfof 0.69 ft will be sufficient.
7.3.3 In-Stream Structures
As mentioned previously, in order to provide grade control for the restored reach,
rock and log cross-vanes and j-hooks (with or without steps), will be integrated
within the final design and will be utilized to reinforce and stabilize the proposed
channel. All structures will be constructed out of natural materials typically
consisting of locally quarried boulders or logs. The upstream side of these
structures will be lined with a non-woven fabric and backfilled with excavated
channel material and in some cases imported stone aggregate to improve stability
and reduce the potential for piping.
In-stream structures such as these concentrate stream energy toward the center of
the channel and away from the near-bank areas. In doing so, the structure reduces
shear stress along the banks and prevents bank erosion. These structures serve as
grade control within the bed of the channel and reduce the potential of head
cutting, create a stable width/depth ratio (wbkf /dbkf), and promote sediment
transport capacity.
Proposed structure locations are shown in figures describing the plan and profile
of the restored channel and typical structure drawings are shown in Figures 8
through 15. A representative of S&EC will be on site to observe and direct
channel restoration efforts including the installation of in-stream structures.
7.4 Planned Hydrologic Modifications
Hydrologic modifications, including site grading, will proceed in accordance with Figure
7. Grading will be performed in a manner to restore wetland hydrology by modifying
existing site grades in selected areas while simultaneously enabling lateral surface flow
across the site.
17
Restoration of wetland hydrology to the site will be accomplished by reversing the effect
of the existing drainage system and restoring the stream channel through the site, thereby
returning wetland hydrology to the majority of the site. Existing ditches will be filled to
grade and the dimension, pattern, and profile of the channelized stream will be altered to
restore natural stream morphology to the channel. Riverine wetland areas will be
restored along the length of the restored channel.
If necessary, the currently installed upland groundwater monitoring gauges and the rain
gauge will be temporarily removed during construction operations. The reference
groundwater gauges will remain in place. The rain gauge will be temporarily relocated to
allow for the collection of data throughout construction operations.
7.5 Wetland Vegetative Community Restoration
Three planting zones will be established on site. Each of the units are discussed in
further detail below.
7.5.1 Riverine Planting Zone
A riverine planting zone will be established along the restored stream channel
from the top of bank outward toward the outer edge of the newly restored
floodplain (a minimum of 50 feet). This unit will occupy the lower elevations
established onsite via grading. Inundation of this area is anticipated to occur on a
frequent basis. The Riverine reference wetland (previously described) was used
as a template when developing this planting zone.
Tables 1 and 2 display the tree and shrub species that will be incorporated into
this planting zone. Figure 18 shows the proposed planting plan, and Figure 19
shows typical planting details. These areas will be seeded and planted with the
appropriate native riverine vegetation and will provide channel stability and
treatment of surface waters traveling laterally through the buffer. Species will
consist primarily of native trees and shrubs. Select planting of herbaceous species
may also be recommended during final design.
18
Riverine Tree Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Ulmus americana American Elm
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Nyssa biflora Swamp Tupelo
Table 1: Riverine Tree Planting List
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
Tree species individuals will be planted randomly on an 8 ft. by 8 ft. spacing in order to
ensure a desired planting density of 680 stems per acre. This will increase the potential
for the desired 5-year survivability density of at least 260 stems per acre. Site planting
will include a minimum of five of the tree species in the table above.
Riverine Shrub Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle
Persea borbonia Swamp Bay
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay
Cyrilla racemiflora Titi
Table 2: Riverine Shrub Planting
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
Shrub species will be planted at a higher density and closer spacing (6 ft. by 6 ft.)
to achieve a desired planting density of approximately 1,200 shrubs per acre here
19
again improving the potential for the desired 5-year survivability. Site planting
will include a minimum of three of the shrubs listed in the table above.
The restored stream channel banks will be planted with the appropriate channel
bank species in the form of bare-root seedlings, potted and balled and burlap
plants, and transplants. Native trees and shrubs that are available elsewhere on
site will be removed with as much of the root ball intact and transplanted adjacent
to the restored channel or in the floodplain. During the following fall,
supplemental shrub and tree species will be planted if survival rates of previously
planted seedlings are below target densities as determined in mid-summer (June-
July). Vegetation will be supplied by locally identified plant sources or purchased
from local, reputable nurseries. Other sources, outside of the local area, may be
used depending on the availability of plant material.
Please refer to the attached Planting Plan, Planting Details, and Planting
Schedules regarding quantities and other details for the riverine planting zone.
NOTE: All plantings performed on site will adhere to the NCEEP planting
specifications.
7.5.2 Non-Riverine Planting Zone
A non-riverine planting zone will be established outside of the newly restored
floodplain across the remainder of the restoration site, as shown on the Planting
Plan. The Non-Riverine reference wetland (previously described) was used as a
template when developing this planting zone. Tables 3 and 4 display the tree and
shrub species that will be incorporated into this planting zone.
Non-Riverine Tree Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar
Table 3: Non-Riverine Tree Planting List
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
20
Non-Riverine Shrub Planting List
Scientific Name Common Name
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush
Magnolia virginiana Sweet Bay
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam
Clethra alnifolia Coast Pepper-Bush
Cyrilla racemiflora Titi
Rhododendron viscosum Swamp Azalea
Table 4: Non-Riverine Shrub Planting
* Species composition may be adjusted based on local availability.
The spacing and density used for the planting of trees and shrubs within the non-
riverine zone will be similar to those described above.
Please refer to the attached Planting Plan, Planting Details, and Planting
Schedules regarding quantities and other details for the non-riverine planting
zone.
NOTE: All plantings performed on site will adhere to the NCEEP planting
specifications.
7.5.3 Herbaceous Planting Zones
Multiple herbaceous planting zones will be planted as part of the overall wetland
restoration plan. Micro-topographic complexity will be emphasized within the
riverine planting zone in order to maximize habitat diversity. Small, shallow
backwater pockets and emergent marsh zones will be dug during grading, and
later densely planted (2 ft. by 2 ft. spacing) with the following floating and rooted
aquatic species: White Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata), Broad-Leaf Arrow-Head
(Sagittaria latifolia), Lizard's Tail (Saururus cernuus), Pickerel Weed
(Pontedaria cordata), Yellow Cow-Lily (Nuphar luteum), and Stiff Arrow-Head
(Sagittaria rigida).
Within the non-riverine wetland area, two emergent marsh wetland areas will be
graded along the general alignment of the existing site drainage ditches. These
areas will allow for diversity within the non-riverine areas allowing for the
creation of pockets of standing water suitable for herbaceous growth. These
21
marsh areas within the non-riparian wetland will be planted with live propagules
and bare-root seedlings (at a 2 ft. by 2 ft. spacing) of Uptight Sedge (Carex
stricta), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Olney's Bulrush (Scirpus americanus),
Wool-Grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and Soft-Stem Bulrush (Scirpus validus).
Temporary and/or permanent seeding measures (brown top millet, rye grass, or the most
appropriate erosion control grass as dictated by the season) will be applied to areas
disturbed during grading operations to allow for localized stabilization while riverine
species establish themselves. A representative of S&EC will be on site to observe and
direct planting efforts associated with the site. Details of the proposed restoration
planting plan are included on Figures 18 and 19.
7.6 Soil Restoration
During grading of site, topsoil will be removed and stockpiled. Topsoil is to be
redistributed across planting areas during final grading. Topsoil will be stored in an
appropriate manner by contractor to avoid erosion and off site sedimentation. Based on
existing site uses and our understanding of previous site modifications we have no
indication that underlying site soils are overly compacted. Accordingly current plans do
not call for specific modification or soil restoration efforts (amendments and/or
scarification) of the existing site soils once grading operations are complete.
If however, upon completion of grading operations, areas of compacted soils are
observed, localized restoration efforts may be employed i.e.: scarification, addition of
topsoil, mulch, or other organics. Amendments will not be added to areas where
inundation may occur and transport this material off site.
7.7 Removal of Invasive or Undesirable Species
During site preparation, an effort will be made to remove existing exotic/invasive
vegetation within project boundaries. Invasive species will be field-identified by S&EC
staff. The construction contractor will mechanically remove invasive species and/or treat
them locally with a glyphosate-based herbicide. Subsequent site visits will be performed
following construction to evaluate the regrowth of invasives and perform spot treatments
as needed.
7.8 Erosion & Sediment Control
Since the total disturbed/denuded area as a result of restoration plan implementation will
clearly exceed one (1.0) acre, an Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Permit will be
required. Sediment and erosion control measures will be installed by the Contractor prior
to commencing site grading activities.
Due to the proximity of grading operations to the adjacent open waters and site ditches,
extra care should be employed by the contractor to check all E&S control measures at the
end of each day and make necessary repairs or additions. Contractor should also inspect
all E&S control measures after periods of extended rainfall or significant rainfall events
(>0.5 inches). Contractor should repair and stabilize exposed surfaces immediately, and
22
remove and properly dispose of accumulated sediment in turbidity curtain, silt fence, etc.
after these events.
Site E&S control measures will include silt fence, rock check dams, matting, pumping
operations, special (temporary) stilling basins, and temporary and permanent seeding.
The contractor shall employ the following E&S control sequence prior to grading:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Seauence
1. Establish staging area as directed by the project manager and designer.
Contractor will be responsible for installing necessary E&S control measures at
staging area (equipment parking area stabilization, silt fence, or other measures as
contractor deems necessary). Establish temporary construction entrances to site.
2. Install sediment and erosion control measures including silt fence and temporary
rock check dams as shown.
3. Demolish existing structure and remove wood, metal, concrete debris, refuse, and
other materials as specified in the site's demolition plan. Clear and grub in
required areas for stream and wetland restoration grading and planting.
Contractor shall remove existing site culverts as construction progresses to allow
for continued access to portions of the site.
4. Temporary seeding will be applied to areas that are not at final grade and will be
exposed for greater than two (2) weeks.
5. Install temporary pump around operations (rock check dams, bypass pump,
dewatering pump, and special stilling basin) as seeded during stream construction.
Matting must be placed over every excavated channel section at the end of each
workday and before the pump is turned off.
6. After final grading is complete, permanent seeding will be applied to all exposed
areas. Seeding must be applied to all exposed areas within fifteen (15) days after
construction. Erosion control matting will be applied to all final graded sloped
steeper than 2H:1 V. Permanent seeding and matting will be installed
incrementally as soon as an area reaches final grade.
7. Remove temporary sediment and erosion control measures. Silt fence must not be
removed until seed is placed and temporary grass has germinated. The contractor
shall remove accumulated sediment prior to removal of silt fence or other
measures.
This E&S control sequence is also reflected in the plan sheets. Also refer to the
Construction Sequence, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, and Sediment and Erosion
Control Details sheets attached.
7.9 Construction Sequence
23
All aspects of site construction and planting operations will be supervised by a qualified
representative of Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC). The daily sequence of
events shall be determined and approved by S&EC professional staff. It will be the
Contractor's responsibility to have the appropriate equipment and personnel on site to
perform the tasks based on the project schedule. If potential conflicts arise, the
Contractor shall notify the Designer immediately so that adjustments can be made.
The following construction sequence shall be used during construction:
Construction Sequence
1. Obtain local authority approval and all necessary State and Federal permits for
construction.
2. Contact NC One Call to locate and mark existing utilities on site.
3. Establish staging area as shown on the plans. Contractor will be
responsible for installing necessary E&S control measures at staging area (parking
area stabilization, silt fence, or other measures as contractor deems necessary).
Mobilize equipment and materials to the staging area. Establish temporary
construction entrances to site.
4. Install sediment and erosion control measures including silt fencing, check dams,
and turbidity/silt curtain. Install utility and tree protection (if necessary) fencing
as directed by Designer. Contractor may utilize existing site ditch crossing
locations (if desired) at own risk.
5. Remove wood, metal, concrete debris, refuse, and other materials as specified in
the site's Demolition Plan. Clear and grub in required areas for wetland area
grading and planting. Remove trees as well as exotic and invasive species as
directed by the Designer.
6. Install pump around operation including the installation of special stilling
basin(s).
7. Verify channel grading depths and extents. Initiate grading of stream channel and
adjacent floodplain area working from upstream end of restoration reach in a
downstream direction. Install in-stream structures, matting, temporary seeding,
and live stakes. Grade floodplain area. Remove pump around operation and
direct flow into excavated channel. Matting must be placed over every excavated
channel section at the end of each workday and before the pump is turned off.
8. Verify wetland grading depths and extents. Fill existing site ditches and level
grade wetland area as described on plans. Apply temporary sediment and erosion
control seeding measures.
9. Perform riverine and non-riverine wetland planting. Apply permanent seeding
measures.
24
10. Remove temporary sediment and erosion control measures after groundcover is
established and site is stabilized.
11. Conduct final site inspection with the Contractor, NCEEP, and Designer.
7.10 Future Site Maintenance
A site tour should be performed after the completion of construction and permanent
seeding and planting. Representatives from the design firm, and NCEEP should attend
this tour to see the boundaries of site planting and discuss future site maintenance
operations that will ensure the protection of trees, shrubs, and plants installed as part of
this project.
25
8.0 STREAM & WETLAND SUCCESS CRITERIA & MONITORING PLAN
This section includes information concerning stream and wetland restoration success
criteria, physical evaluation of the site, and the proposed monitoring schedule.
8.1 Stream Restoration Monitoring
Success criteria for stream stability will be met if, for the 5 year period after construction,
the stream bed form features and cross-sections remain stable (i.e. the stream retains its
restored Rosgen stream-type classification). During the monitoring period, no less than
two bankfull flow events must be documented. If less than two bankfull events occur
during the 5 year monitoring period, monitoring will continue until the second bankfull
event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
8.1.1 Physical Monitoring
An as-built engineering survey of the site will be conducted upon completion of
the site restoration work to ensure that site grading work was performed in a
manner consistent with the restoration plan. The as-built report will include the
constructed stream channel dimension, pattern, and longitudinal profile. This data
collected by Total Station will be utilized as a baseline to compare future
monitoring surveys and subsequently to determine annual channel stability and
transition.
Cross-section locations to be monitored will be established immediately following
construction during the completion of the "as built" survey. Permanently
established cross-sections located approximately every 500 to700 feet (depending
on final construction) that will comprise of a nested riffle and pool segment. Each
cross-section will be monumented and located for future identification and survey
work. All of these cross-sectional surveys will also be utilized as photographic
points.
Other stream channel measurements that will be completed during the annual
monitoring exercised will include pebble counts, stream pattern data, and stream-
side plant conditions. Annual inspection of in-stream rock and log vane and j-
hook structures will also occur to insure channel stability. The restoration reach
will be walked and observed for indications of deterioration or failure of any
components of the restoration.
Stream channel monitoring surveys will be completed annually for five
consecutive years, starting the year following the completion of the project.
26
8.1.2 Vegetative Monitoring
Vegetative success criteria of 50% coverage will be required at the end of the five
(5) year period for the live stakes installed in channel banks of each of the
restored reaches.
Details of the monitoring are included in the following section.
8.1.3 Biological Monitoring
We understand that channel benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring will be
sampled and monitored by NCEEP under a separate contract.
8.2 Wetland Restoration Monitoring
In order to ensure hydrologic and vegetative success, groundwater elevation and planting
monitoring will be conducted annually on site for a 5-year period in accordance with the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003). The monitoring period will commence
immediately upon the completion of site construction and planting efforts.
8.2.1 Hydrologic Success Criteria
As previously noted, the Infinities USA, Inc., groundwater monitoring gages will
remain in place or be re-installed immediately following the completion of site
grading and planting operations. Six (6) gauges will be installed on site, two (2)
within the newly restored riverine wetland boundary, and four (4) across the
remaining non-riverine areas. The existing site rain gauge will be relocated and
remain on site during the monitoring period.
In order to meet wetland hydrology, the groundwater elevation will need to be
measured within the upper twelve (12) inches of the ground surface for a period
of consecutive days equal to or greater than 8.5% of the growing season.
According to the Perquimans County Soil Survey, the average growing season
(number of frost-free days) is approximately 214 days long, lasting from April 1St
to November 1 S` of each year. Accordingly, a groundwater monitoring gauge will
be considered to meet hydrologic success criteria if hydrology is met for a period
of 18 straight days (rounded down from 18.2 days) during the growing season.
It should be noted that while this system is primarily groundwater driven, we do
expect occasional, sporadic inundation from the restored channel to affect
hydrologic conditions within the restored riverine wetland corridor.
8.2.2 Vegetative Success Criteria
Twelve (12) vegetation plots will be established onsite. Six (6) tree and shrub 10-
meter square sample plots will be established, each plot offset 2 meters from each
gauge positioned within the restoration area. Typically in order for the site to be
considered a success, the survivability rate of planted vegetation should be 320
27
stems per acre through year three. A ten percent mortality rate is accepted in year
four (288 stems per acre) and another ten percent in year five resulting in a
required survival rate of 260 5-year old stems per acre in year five with no one
species comprising more than 20% of the total stem count. Exceeding the 20%
threshold alone, however, will not serve as criteria for deeming the restoration
unsuccessful.
Four (4) 2-meter square herbaceous monitoring plots will be established, two (2)
within the riverine emergent marsh areas and two (2) within the non-riverine
emergent marsh areas. Vegetative success criteria of 50% coverage will be
required at the end of the 5-year period for the herbaceous planting zones. This
coverage will be qualitatively evaluated based on observation of the planted areas.
Two (2) bank planting plots measuring 20 meters in length and encompassing
both banks will be established in order to evaluate the success of live stakes along
the banks of the restoration. Vegetative success criteria of 50% coverage will be
required at the end of the 5-year period. This coverage will be qualitatively
evaluated based on observation of the planted areas.
During monitoring site visits an evaluation of invasive or undesirable species will
be performed and recommendations made regarding necessary removal or
treatments.
8.2.3 Physical Success
An as-built engineering survey of the site will be conducted upon completion of
the site restoration work to ensure that site grading and planting work was
performed in a manner consistent with the approved Restoration Plan.
During site monitoring visits, the site will be walked and all graded areas will be
inspected for stability. If areas of instability are observed, they will be noted and
repair recommendations prepared. A photographic record of the site will be
collected during each site visit. Photo points will be located at key locations on
site and at the corners of established vegetative monitoring plots.
8.3 Monitoring Schedule
As previously described, to ensure a stable restored channel morphology (dimension,
pattern, and profile), and hydrologic and vegetative success, success monitoring will be
conducted annually on site for a period of five (5) years from the implementation of the
restoration plan.
The site will be visited on a quarterly basis. During each of these site visits groundwater
monitoring gauges and the rain gauge will be downloaded and gauges evaluated to ensure
proper function. A plant survivability survey will be performed during the growing
season (June to July timeframe) on each of the six (6) tree and shrub vegetation plots (2
riverine and 4 non-riverine) , four (4) herbaceous vegetation plots (2 riverine and 2 non-
28
riverine), and two (2) bank planting plots. During site visits a general evaluation (by
observation) of the site will be performed and record photographs will be taken.
An Annual Monitoring Report will be prepared at the end of each year of monitoring.
This report will be submitted to EEP for review not later than 60 days from the end of the
monitoring period (December 31 of the monitoring year). The monitoring report will
summarize the general site conditions, a channel evaluation, the results of hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring, and recommendations for necessary maintenance.
29
•
01

N
rroject Date:
• Mgr.: PS 02-2 1-05
I I ": 2.4
miles Figure I - Vicinity Map
Watts Farm
Percluimans, County, NC
i

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
Mgr.: P5 02-21-05
Figure 2 - USGS
Nixonton Quad
Watts Farm
Percluiman5 County, NC
& Environmental Consultants, P
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
Site Boundary
N
Watershed Boundary
\ M
y ?
i

Al?

,. (uul ?,? ? J_

•1 y

„
'
. v ?..
.
_. ._ ...? ...
+ :Y
... ._ .
..___.--..._._J*?
...
_ + ..

A
;
/t
r S' L
?
•( M .?` --- - --??_ ? ?, _ is ?'

WRR - Watts Reference Riparian
WRN - Watts Reference Non-Riparian

N
Project N: Scale: FI ure 4 - Reference
8099.D I 1 ": 4000 9
Project Date: 51te5 U5G5 Nlxonton
Mgr.: P5 02-2 1-05 Quad 19,
Watts Farm
Perqulman5 County, NC

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
II I I ! I I ?I

Project N: Scale:
8099.D I I ': 2000' FI9ure 5 - Reference
Project Date: 5Ite5 Percluiman5 County
Mgr.: P5 02-21-05 Soil Survey
Watts Farm
Percquiman5 County, NC
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
WRR - Watts Reference Riparian
WRN - Watts Reference Non-Riparian
N
NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA DEVELOPED
BY LIMITED ENGINEERING SURVEY
PERFORMED BY S*EC USING
TOTAL STATION.
2. ALL CONTOURS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND BASED ON ASSUMED
ELEVATION OF 100.00'.
3. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY
SURVEY AND IS NOT FOR
RECORDATION, CONVEYANCE, OR
SALES.
EXISTING
AGRICULTURAL
STORAGE SHED
EXISTING
FEEDER DITCHES
LEGEND
RG? 51TE RAIN GAUGE
V 51TE GROUND WATER GAUGE
CHANNEL OR DITCH FLOW
DIRECTION
PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER
(SEE PHOT05 APPENDIX)
EXISTING CULVERT PIPE IN
DRAINAGE NETWORK

©2005 Sod ? Environmental Consultants, PA. All nght5 reserved.
I
UTILITY POLES EXPECTED
LINES UTILITY
9g
EASEMENT
75M = 99.8
NA,, MAG. 1979
F0IV-KFCLE NORMA DRIVE DB 15G PG G54
? (GRAVEL ROAD
SCALE
p99 ®ah
W_ I ? A4 ` 200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING
EXISTING
RG0CHANNEL
W-2
A?
EXISTING
I FEEDER DITCHES
n
m
•
W-
W-
0
pl,
o_
W9
r
?O
W-G 99
O

? V,
SITE BOUNDARY
EXISTING CULVERTED
FARM CR055W6,
TYPICAL, ALL PIPES TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING 51TE CONDITIONS

o? 8
zoo u Z ?
n 1YC 0 _ V
N
w
z =
0
Q O

Il..?
u
L
I p
z
? ? 0
b
l (r)
U
1
? w z W
C ) N
?
Z Z

a?
?Q
q
V g
?U
N
0Z4
Ga
V1
?(L
?
~n

SITE
BOUNDARY
EMERGENT
MARSH
WETLAND AREA
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
ENT MARSH
LAND AREA
MAG. 1979
D5 15G PG G54
5CALE
200 100 0 200
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I -
ALL CONTOUR5 5HOWN ARE EXI5TING
ALL SITE FEEDER DITCHES
TO BE BACKFILLED AND
LEVEL GRADED
TOPOGRAPHIC
HIGH POINTS
TO BE LEVEL
GRADED
EMERGENT MARSH
WETLAND AREA
SITE BOUNDARY
-3
? °o
N ..
Z?? II z° ?
m
u? i2 u= u
ok
NJ L
Q z =? o
w0
u
N O ? ZO
a 0Zz 0
0 •u
a/ 0 Lu
CL Q)
(s) g Z `?
w
0
w
o ~
V
a
d?
a?
n 00
h
ISE
a
Vg
U
N
Vi
z
43
5 Soil * Environmental Con5UItant5, PA. All rights reserved. P RO P05 E D 51 T E CONDITION 5 * INDEX MAP
40 20 0 40
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
ALL CONTOURS 5HOWN ARE EXI5TING
PR MATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

a
h /
? TIE RESTORED
!\ CHANNEL TO EXISTING
? U/S INVERT
? ELEV. 95.58
NOTE:
STRUCTURE LOCATION, TYPE, AND
NUMBER ARE APPROXIMATE AND M
BE MODIFIED BY ENGINEER AT E
OF CONSTRUCTION.

gg
LEGEND
?.? LOG J-HOOK (LJt1)
LOG CROSS
VANE (LCV)
CM o
Qj R `t
m
ku
of o
u U J
Q z UZ
OZ
W § Z
w, 0
N
?Q 0
M N w
o ?Z
Q-/ b
? Z U
QJ N N
W Lu
0
? o
(L?
a?
a
V°
a?
Ne xSKB
U i
z
Ox
79
a
u
9
a
PROP05ED
2005 Sod Environmental Consultants, PA. All r9ht5 reserved. STREAM RE5TORATI ON LAYOUT I
NOTE:
I Fr`I~AIn
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY

© 2005 Sod * Environmental Con5ultant5, PA. All rights reserved
PROPOSED RESTORED ?c9
CHANNEL CENTERLINE

D?
NORTH J
5CALf
0 20 0 40
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I'
CONTOUR5 SHOWN A INS
PROP05ED STREAM RESTORATION LAYOUT 11
o ? 2
zp.. It o
?'0
L Ll U O
Z z
Q Z U ?4-
Q J
?w0_ z
l?Y. I- z
7-
? 0Lij
-/ z 0
w
gN LU
w
0
> o
Lu
a?
a
?a
ov
V°
a?
10
N
oz
a?
a
?a
?a
STRUCTURE LOCATION, TYPE, AND
NUMBER ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY
BE MODIFIED BY ENGINEER AT TIME
OF CONSTRUCTION.
EX TING PIPE
T BE
RE OVED
SCALE `o 3 0
ZO`N Z o
p? o ? U- U
? n
40 20 0 40 ct 'L n U)
CONTOUR INTERVAL = I' i ---
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING Wa
F0
A+ m? F-
2 W
O WW
Q 7 ZQ O
o = g
? Z
(n u 0
NORTH o
99 ??z o
000 w
2 o tix EX15T1 NG 24" Q
CMP CULV Q °
INL LEV. lu?
APPROXIMATE 91.40' o
? N
RIVERINE m a
WETLAND
BOUNDARY a
NOTE: +
STRUCTURE LOCATION, TYPE, AND q
3
NUMBER ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY V
BE MODIFIED BY ENGINEER AT TIME +? a $
OF CONSTRUCTION.
N
U ?f W
Z
s LEGEND
LL x
PROP05ED LOG J-HOOK (LJH) A
RESTORED
o CHANNEL
CENTERLINE LOG CROSS
q VANE (LCV) ?s
0
0
© 2005 5od Environmental Con5Ultant5, PA. All rights reserved. P RO P05 E D STREAM RE5T0 RATI 0 N LAYOUT III
STATION BED
NV T BU
VAT N FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
TYPE
0+00 95.6 96.9 RIFFLE
0+03 95.9 96.9 RUN 96.0 LCV
0+10 95.5 9G.9 POOL
0+19 9G.3 9G.9 RIFFLE
0+74 9G.2 9G.8 RIFFLE
0+80 95.8 9G.8 RUN
0+88 95.4 9G.8 POOL
0+98 9G.2 9G.8 RIFFLE
I + I G 9G.2 9G.8 RIFFLE
1+25 95.8 9G.8 RUN 95.9 Lill
1+34 95.4 9G.8 POOL
1+51 9G. I 9G.7 RIFFLE
1+72 9G. I 9G.7 RIFFLE
1+84 95.7 9G.7 RUN
1+93 95.3 9G.7 POOL
2+05 9G.1 9G.7 RIFFLE
2+25 9G.0 9G.G RIFFLE
2+34 95.G 9G.G RUN
2+43 95.2 9G.G POOL
2+G I 9G.0 9G.G RIFFLE
2+73 9G.0 9G.G RIFFLE
105
z
95
Q
IL I
W
85
0+00 0+50
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
F-LEVATION FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT 5TRUCTURE
TYPE
2+81 95.6 96.6 RUN 95.7 LJH
2+89 95.2 96.6 POOL
3+02 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+19 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+30 95.5 9G.5 RUN
3+35 95.1 9G.5 POOL
3+52 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+G5 95.9 9G.5 RIFFLE
3+77 95.4 9G.4 RUN
3+85 95.0 9G.4 POOL
3+9G 95.8 9G.4 RIFFLE
4+1 G 95.8 9G.4 RIFFLE
4+2G 95.4 9G.4 RUN 95.5 LJH
4+37 95.0 9G.4 POOL
4+55 95.7 9G.3 RIFFLE
4+G9 95.7 9G.3 RIFFLE
4+87 95.3 9G.3 RUN
4+9G 94.9 9G.3 POOL
5+15 95.7 9G.3 RIFFLE
5+37 95.G 9G.2 RIFFLE
5+45 95.2 9G.2 RUN
STATION BED
INVERT 13KF
VATI N FACET STRUCTURE
IN T STRUCTURE
TYPE
5+54 94.8 96.2 POOL
5+72 95.6 96.2 RIFFLE
5+88 95.G 9G.2 RIFFLE
G+01 95.2 9G.2 RUN 95.3 LJH
G+1 1 94.7 9G. I POOL
G+25 95.5 9G.1 RIFFLE
6+41 95.5 9G.1 RIFFLE
G+51 95.1 9G.1 RUN
G+GO 94.7 9G.1 POOL
G+74 95.5 9G.I RIFFLE
G+88 95.4 9G.0 RIFFLE
G+98 95.0 9G.0 RUN
7+0G 94.G 9G.0 POOL
7+21 95.4 9G.0 RIFFLE
7+35 95.4 9G.0 RIFFLE
7+45 95.0 9G.0 RUN 95.1 LJH
7+55 94.G 9G.0 POOL
7+GG 95.3 95.9 RIFFLE
7+82 95.3 95.9 RIFFLE
7+93 94.9 95.9 RUN
8+01 94.5 95.9 POOL
1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
STATION
- - - - PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED THALWEG
5TRUCTURELOCATION
431©2005 Sod 4 Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights reserved.
5+50 G+00 G+50 7+00 7+50 8+00
LCV = LOG CRO55 VANE
LJH = LOG J-HOOK
PROP05ED STREAM LONGITUINAL PROFILE I
c
0
a
ZO O N Z -
aN
o
? mQ
? ? v

'0
-
a
{t}
o -I
LL
Z
z 0
W 0 Z

? 0 o
W ?
U-i
Q'
Cz U
z -
Z
0

Q O
> ? 0

? ;; n-
a?
a
aQ
Ov
V?
Npy xSe?
z
Oz
a?
a
a
?e
V1
Z
0 `3
O Q6j OL tU
z0? Nz -
?Q
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
VATI N FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
8+20 95.3 95.9 RIFFLE
8+39 95.2 95.8 RIFFLE
8+45 94.8 95.8 RUN
8+54 94.4 95.8 POOL
8+72 95.2 95.8 RIFFLE
8+90 95.2 95.8 RIFFLE
9+02 94.8 95.8 RUN 94.9 LJH
9+13 94.4 95.8 POOL
9+28 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
9+4G 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
9+52 94.7 95.7 RUN
9+GO 94.3 95.7 POOL
9+7G 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
9+92 95.1 95.7 RIFFLE
I0+01 94.G 95.G RUN
10+10 94.2 95.G POOL
10+24 95.0 95.G RIFFLE
10+45 95.0 95.G RIFFLE
I0+55 94.G 95.G RUN 94.7 LJH
IO+GG 94.2 95.6 POOL
10+85 94.9 95.5 RIFFLE
STATION BED
IN T BKF
ELEVATION FACET STRUCTURE
IN T STRUCTURE
TYPE
1 1+02 94.9 95.5 RIFFLE
1 1+14 94.5 95.5 RUN
1 1+23 94.1 95.5 POOL
1 1+40 94.9 95.5 RIFFLE
I I +G3 94.8 95.4 RIFFLE
1 1+73 94.4 95.4 RUN
1 1+51 94.0 95.4 POOL
I 1 +98 94.8 95.4 RIFFLE
12+18 94.8 95.4 RIFFLE
12+30 94.3 95.3 RUN 94.4 LJH
12+40 93.9 95.3 POOL
12+53 94.7 95.3 RIFFLE
12+70 94.7 95.3 RIFFLE
12+79 94.3 95.3 RUN
12+88 93.9 95.3 POOL
13+03 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
13+18 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
13+27 94.2 95.2 RUN
13+35 93.8 95.2 POOL
13+47 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
13+G4 94.G 95.2 RIFFLE
STATION B D
I WE T ATIO FACET STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
13+71 94.2 95.2 RUN
13+81 93.7 95.1 POOL
3+93 94.5 95.1 RIFFLE
14+10 94.5 95.1 RIFFLE
14+22 94.1 95.1 RUN 94.2 LJH
14+30 93.7 95.1 POOL
14+41 94.5 95.1 RIFFLE
14+G4 94.4 95.0 RIFFLE
14+7G 94.0 95.0 RUN
14+84 93.G 95.0 POOL
15+04 94.4 95.0 RIFFLE
15+21 94.4 95.0 RIFFLE
15+33 93.9 94.9 RUN
15+41 93.5 94.9 POOL
15+55 94.3 94.9 RIFFLE
15+75 94.3 94.9 RIFFLE
15+82 93.9 94.9 RUN 94.0 LJH
15+89 93.5 94.9 POOL
I G+08 94.3 94.9 RIFFLE
I G+23 94.2 94.8 RIFFLE
I G+30 93.8 94.8 RUN
o -
4Q- oW
Uz
Q z xU
zQ
wQ ?
m/ vQ- ?
J
N oC u z
0 I)
D
w W U F-
w ? z U
Z
O ? 0 Q
Ntu-Q
Q?Q 0
0
> 0
w
tL
9
0' a N N
a?
?V
a
fill
a
OV
V°
N
z
Ox
a?
Wa
v
a
V1
105
z
Q 95
Q
w
J
w 85
8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 1 G+00
STATION
- - - - PROPOSED BANKFULL
LCV =LOG CR055 VANE
PROPOSED THALWEG
LJI1 =LOG J-HOOK
STRUCTURE LOCATION
'61© 2005 Sod 4 Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights reserved.
PROP05ED STREAM LONGITU I NAL PROFI LE I I

o 3
0
o6
z 0 `
f)
L : m
D _
n? LL7
a- ?
I V
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
ELEVATION FACET STRUCTURE
INVEKT STRUCTURE
TYPE
16+38 93.4 94.8 POOL
16+51 94.2 94.8 RIFFLE
I6+66 94.2 94.8 RIFFLE
16+75 93.8 94.8 RUN
16+82 93.4 94.8 POOL
16+98 94.1 94.7 RIFFLE
17+ 16 94.1 94.7 RIFFLE
17+26 93.7 94.7 RUN 93.8 Lim
17+33 93.3 94.7 POOL
17+50 94.1 94.7 RIFFLE
17+67 94.0 94.6 RIFFLE
17+76 93.6 94.6 RUN
17+86 93.2 94.6 POOL
18+02 94.0 94.6 RIFFLE
18+21 94.0 94.6 RIFFLE
18+36 93.6 94.6 RUN
18+44 93.1 94.5 POOL
18+62 93.9 94.5 RIFFLE
18+82 93.9 94.5 RIFFLE
18+94 93.5 94.5 RUN 93.6 uH
19+03 93.1 94.5 POOL
105
0 95
Q
W
J
W
85
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
ELEVATION FACET STRUCTURE
INVERT STRUCTURE
TYPE
19+22 93.8 94.4 RIFFLE
19+42 93.8 94.4 RIFFLE
19+53 93.4 94.4 RUN
19+60 93.0 94.4 POOL
19+78 93.8 94.4 RIFFLE
19+97 93.7 94.3 RIFFLE
20+09 93.3 94.3 RUN
20+13 92.9 94.3 POOL
20+36 93.7 94.3 RJFFLE
20+54 93.7 94.3 RIFFLE
20+66 93.3 94.3 RUN
20+75 92.8 94.2 POOL
20+89 93.6 94.2 RIFFLE
21+07 93.6 94.2 RIFFLE
21 + 15 93.2 94.2 RUN 93.3 Lim
21+23 92.8 94.2 POOL
21+41 93.6 94.2 RIFFLE
21+55 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
21 +61 93.1 94.1 RUN
21+72 92.7 94.1 POOL
21 +88 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
STATION BED
INVERT BKF
V I FACET STRUCTURE
T STRUCTURE
TYPE
21+88 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
22+02 93.5 94.1 RIFFLE
22+10 93.1 94.1 RUN
22+15 92.7 94.1 POOL
22+34 93.4 94.0 RIFFLE
22+46 93.4 94.0 RIFFLE
22+55 93.0 94.0 RUN 93.1 LCV
22+64 92.6 94.0 POOL
22+81 93.4 94.0 RIFFLE
19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 2+50 23+00
STATION
PROPOSED BANKFULL
LCV = LOG CRO55 VANE
PROPOSED THALWEG
LJH =LOG J-HOOK
5TRUCTURELOCATION

1©2005 Soil * Environmental Con5Ultant5, PA. All rights reserved.
PROPOSED STREAM LONGITUINAL PROFILE III
pw _J
wt L
zzz? 0
Q z
LLIC) w n-
(n u Q
0 0
W W
ILQCz 0
0 . Z
O 0
a) Q
cn?Q N
0
0
w
tL U ?
d` ? N
a?
w
d?
^ w
?I
Ov
V$
"Mill
a '
a _G ?
N x
iC
z
Ox
a
?a
? e
V1 °
?o
IG+00 IG+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00
o€? 3
0=..
zo N ° -
Vmf i2 oN ?
?? nQ u
6.15
BKF
TYPICAL RIFFLE
• BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH 6.15 FEET
• RIFFLE CR055-5ECTION AREA 4.26 SQUARE FEET
• RIFFLE MAX DEPTH 0.85 FEET
• RIFFLE MEAN DEPTH 0.69 FEET
NON-RIVERINE ZONE

CREATED WETLANDS, EXCAVATE TO
DEPTH OF APPROX. 12'-18°,
BACKFILL WITH EXISTING 51TE
WETLAND SOILS
7.60
BKF
WETLAND SURFACE
TO BE GRADED WITH
MICRO-TOPOGRAPHIC
VARIATION AS DETERMINED BY
DESIGNER AT TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION
NEW FLOODPAIN * RIVERINEIWETLAND ZONE
E FLOY
Z
?\-PROP05ED
BAIJKFULL WIDTH RESTORED
STREAM CHANNEL
TYPICAL POOL
• BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH 7.60 FEET
• POOL CR055-5ECTION AREA 6.96 SQUARE FEET
• POOL MAX DEPTH 1.65 FEET
• POOL MEAN DEPTH 0.92 FEET
BANKFULL
ELEVATION
NON-RIVERINE ZONE
VERNAL POOL
w?
NFNL
Y?
"olu ?aN
Wu

z i
OZ
W
LU O u z ~
F "

?
C1J
T-
N
}N t '
F- C) N

CIZI
(f) W
a/ 0
n- ? Z bU
o ? 0
?g

(J? g

tu- z

Q

Q p
0
> D-
?U-
W
C
y

o
o
?
i
a4
4Q
V1 ?_
0 v
Ug
a?
?U
n?
Np
4
a z
a?
o? a
Oa
10 2005 Sod Environmental Consultants, PA. All r,ghts reserved. TYPICAL RE5T0 RED CHANNEL * FL00 D P LAI N C 8055-5 ECTI 0 N 5
BANKFULL STAGE
FLOW
STREAM CHANNEL BED_---?!-
7777,
ROCKS .. ,:, ..
FOOTER
PROFILE
ANE ARM

SCOUR POOL
R LOi
PLAN
RIGHT BANK
LOG J-HOOK * LOG CR055 VANE DETAIL
CK055 5ECTION
BANKFULL BENCH
BASE FLOW
WATER ELEVATION
T-r- , r
!I-11? ! 'i I? i I?=1II-
-i (-
PROFILE VIEW
_-1 I 1-1 I!-
111111i ANGLE-CUT END
• LIVE STAKES INSTALLED IN BANK
WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER
• 415 OF STAKE IN GROUND
• BUDS ORIENTED UPWARDS
• 3' CENTERS (APPROX.)
• CUT EXPOSED END OF LIVE STAKE
AFTER INSTALLATION IF DAMAGED
DUE TO INSTALLATION
(i.e. damaged bark, split ends, etc.)
LIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAIL
(NOT TO 5CALE)
(NOT TO 5CALE)
COIR MATTING
BASE FLOW
VATER ELE VAT
PROFILE VIEW
BANKFULL BENCH
Ill l1 ill
I - I
-I 12' ECO-STAKE
?- 24"ECO-STAKE0
2?
PLAN
MUN I VIM
o ?? 3
Zo e ( Z -
? a
E
o v
o

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 0 is
ECO-STAKE
TRENCHED TOP OF MATTING TO A
DEPTH OF AT LEAST 12', STAKE
OR STAPLE IN PLACE, E BACKFILL
TO DESIGN GRADE
• MINIMUM 24" ECO-5TAKE50
INSTALLED ALONG TOE OF MATTING
(Intercept between water surface and bank)
• MINIMUM 2' CENTERS ALONG BOTTOM • 12' ECO-5TAKESO INSTALLED IN BANK
• MINIMUM I' OVERLAP AT JOINING FLUSH WITH COIR MATTING ABOVE
SECTIONS OF COIR MATTING BOTTOM ROW OF 24" ECO-5TAKESO
• ECO-STAKE50 SPACED AT
MAXIMUM 3' CENTERS (APPROX.)
COIR MATTING DETAIL
(NOT TO 5CALE)
XTILE FABRIC
?lM
ANCHOR LOG
NOTES:
MATTING MUST BE PLACED OVER
EVERY EXCAVATED CHANNEL
SECTION AT THE END OF EACH
WORKDAY AND BEFORE THE
PUMP IS TURNED OFF.
H0 <
o
u7

U
Z
c
w C) Z
<

?J J lY V C
0
?
IZ N
? z
LOG E a
C)
O O

u
Q

a?
?Q
a
a?
V°
a?
N9
a^?
4)
Oz
u
' VJ
i
i
N_----- TYPICAL STRUCTURE, LIVE STAKE, COIR MATTING DETAILS
o?? 3
. 6 ` O0 ..
oD? oQ ?
?
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN NOTES:
I . EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY 5ECTION5 OF CHANNEL.
2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW. 20
EXISTING GROUND 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN _
ONE WORKING DAY. MATTING MUST BE PLACED OVER EVERY EXCAVATED CHANNEL ?} of N
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN SECTION AT THE END OF EVERY WORKDAY AND BEFORE THE PUMP 15 TURNED OFF. o v J
FILTER FABRIC 15-20 FT-+i (AS DIRECTED AT THE 4. PUMP AROUND SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONVEY MINIMUM OF I CF5 PER MI2 OF z o u Q
FOR DRAINAGE TEMPORARY SPLASH PA F W DRAINAGE AREA TO SITE UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN SPECIFICATIONS. Q z=
{NON-WOVEN) (SEE DETAIL LOCATE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION) ? O Z
AS AT THE
DEWATERING PUMP SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL PUMP AROUND t
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN TIME OFDCIONSTRUCTION)
(NOT TO SCALE) I . INSTALL SPECIAL STILLING BASINS AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED
GRAVEL CHECK PROJECT WOMNG AREA.
DAM AT CHANNEL TEMPORA Y 2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY W LU U Z
TERMINUS FLEXIBLE PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK 51TE TO THE Z
EX151NG SPECIAL 5TILLLING BASIN. 0 ° O
CHANNEL WORKING 3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM Z 0
AREA DIVERSION. z
SANDBAG15TONE? BASEFLOW g Z O
4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO
WORKING TEMPORARY PIPING DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF < N
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL ALSO FLOW INTO A
AREA SPECIAL STILLING BASIN. Q
5. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH > W
THE PLAN AND FOLLOWING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE IMPERVIOUS SHEET IMPERVIOUS DIKE G. THE CONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEWATER BEFORE
(NON-WOVEN) 4
(LOCATE AS REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
PUMP AROUND PUMP1 F W DIRECTED AT TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HO5FJPIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST.
IMPERVIOUS DIKE THE TIME OF 7. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE STILLING BASINS AND STABILIZE
CONSTRUCTION) DISTURBED AREAS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. e
(NOT TO SCALE) a
See Cofferdam Detail for Specific Construction Requirements a
of Temporary Cofferdam (Impervious Dike)
TYPICAL PUMP AROUND OPERATION
(NOT TO SCALE)
? V
TEMPORARY SEEDING 5PECINCATION5 V
a
L ? N
General Seeding Mulch
3 Areas where no substantial or significant progress is made for Mulching shall consist of small grain straw applied at a rate ?y
Seedinq Dates Seeding 5peoe5 Rate (Ibs/acre) of 70 lb5./1000 ft. Mulched areas shall be mechanicall M z
n more than 15 days should be temporarily seeded as 5q. ft.
follows. All areas should be seeded, mulched, and tacked. May I -Aug. 15 German Millet 40 tacked in place (or other approved tacking method). iOr y
Incidental shall not constitute substantial or si mficant Aug. 15 May I Rye (gram) 60
grading g No asphalt shall be used for tacking. Use jute, excelsior
e progress in construction activity. Seeding and mulching shall matting or similar material to cover exposed areas of
be done immediately following construction. All disturbed concentrated flow. x
areas shall be dressed to a depth of 8 mche5. The top
3 3 inches shall be pulverized to provide a uniform seedbed. Soil Amendments Maintenance a
follow recommendations of sod tests or apply 2,000 Ib5lacre Inspect and repair mulch frequently. Refertdize and reseed as
ground agricultural limestone and 750 Ibs/acre 10-10-10 required to maintain vigorous temporary vegetative cover o
fertilizer, during construction.
0
m
a
m .
r;
m
0
N EROSION CONTROL DETAILS I
02005 Sod Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights re5erved.
o€? 3
0= ..
zo" N z -
BIBnNG SLOPE
NOTES:
HEIGHT t WIDTH DETERMINED BY
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND
SEDIMENT STORAGE REQUIRED.
KEY RIP RAP INTO THE DAM
FOR STABILIZATION.
057
SECTION VIEW
PROFILE VIEW
TEMPORARY CHECK DAM
(NOT TO SCALE)
02005 Sod * Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights reserved.
'M
0.5-P
MOM rAMC
Min. 10 Gauge
Line Wires
SECTION VIEW
F[2D PUP W
TEMPORARY COFFERDAM
MULTI-U5E CONFIGURATION
(NOT TO SCALE)
0' LA_"
Min. 12-1/2 Gauge
Intermediate Wires
rade
G" Min. Cover
Over Skirt
ichor Skirt as
rected by Engineer/
signer
STANDARD TEMPORARY SILT FENCE DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
EIZ0510N CONTROL DETAI L511
RFMMC
NOTES:
HEIGHT 4 WIDTH DETERMINED BY
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND
SEDIMENT STORAGE REQUIRED.
KEY RIP RAP INTO THE DAM
FOR STABILIZATION.
TEMPORARY 5PLA5H PAD DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
Steel Post
wen Wire Fabric
It Fence Fabric
NOTES:
SILT FENCE MUST NOT BE
REMOVED UNTIL SEEDING IS
PLACED AND TEMPORARY
GRASS HAS GROWN.
Z0
Hd
?u _
Q Z Z? Q
? C,
N i
?7_ 0 0
bLI (f)
Lu t z zZ
? U
0C O
ELI
D_ Z
N?Q 0
Q0
w
W
C 0
0 1~V
0 ? V
? N
a9
a?
Ov
V?
a
N
d? a
V1
PROFILE VIEW
FRONT VIEW
PLANTING LEGEND
RIVERINE
EMERGENT
MARSH SPECIES
RVERINE TREE
* SHRUB SPECIES
MIX
NON-RIVERINE
TREE SPECIES
NON-RIVERINE
EMERGENT
MARSH SPECIES
W NON-RIVERINE
W
F SHRUB SPECIES
NOTE: RES TORED 5TREAMBANK5 TO
BE PLANTED WI LIVE STAKES
SITE
BOUNDARY

EMERGENT
MARSH
WETLAND AREA
NON-RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
EM
APPROXIMATE
RIVERINE
WETLAND
BOUNDARY
61© 2005 Sod * Environmental Consultants, PA. All Sod * Environmental Consultants, PA. All

ENT MA h - 1`
-LAND AREA
.r
?- / ROPOSED
NEW CHANNEL
reserved.

t
NORMA DRIVE
(GRAVEL ROAD)
ENT MARSH
LAND AREA
PROPOSED
NEW CHANNEL
51TE PLANTING PLAN

6
om

o
d

IL
? 00
N

w
V
.co

=

MAG, 1979 7
o
DI5 15G PG G54 a

SCAM Q Z o Q Z
O z

200 100 0 200 N

CONTOUR INTERVAL= 1' 0 Z
ALL CONTOURS SHOWN ARE EXISTING Z
LU LU z

00p 0
Q' W
to ? Q N

3 ?

EMERGENT MARSH o N
WETLAND AREA a
?dv
^ w
? oq
?LT a
N •
z
1. oz
SITE BOUNDARY q
M 8
V1 °
D €' 3
o 6 ` Os ..
zoo NNZ -
°??? mQ u
BE
/ MULCH: (3") AVG. THICKNESS
lz_ PREPARED ADMIXTURE
BACKFILL OR NATIVE SOIL
TAMPED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING - CONTAINERIZED
(NOT TO SCALE)
2 3
Open planting Place bare-root Close hole with
hole with seedling in hole - Shovel or Auger-
Shovel or Auger root collar at no air space
surface around roots
BARE-ROOT SEEDLING
PLANTING DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
TII
WOODEN STP
NOWBIODEGRADABLE
t SHRUB PLANTING - CONTAINERIZED
(NOT TO SCALE)
TREE SHELTER
W1 BASE APPROX.
I' INTO GROUND
TREE SHELTER DETAIL
TO BE INSTALLED ON ALL BARE-ROOT
AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTED TREES
(NOT TO SCALE)
MATERIAL SHALL BE
- TOTALLY REMOVED.
TOPSOIL MI
TAMPED ED
- - ADMIXTURE
- - - BACKFILL
TREE TAPE (3 AVOID TIGHT TAPING
AS IT PREVENTS NATURAL SWAY
CROWN OF ROOT BALL SHALL BE
SET SLIGHTLY ABOVE GRADE.
MULCH: (3') AVG. THICKNESS
STAKES (3)
REMOVE RBPEIS/3 OF BURLAPALL SHALL BE CUT
PREPARED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL OR NATIVE SOIL
TAMPED ADMIXTURE BACKFILL
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING - BALL t BURLAP
(NOT TO SCALE)

20
0,

4}}
N <
Q
o" '
Q Z
0 UZ
Z
? U

Z
W
n/
LY. W ?-

(?
?
u QZ
J
0 - 0
?
CL 0 Z W
J
0 O Q
? Z U =

W N
N

a Z_
I-
Lu ° g
0
C.
a?
?y
w
a
V?
N
a
6
z
?Oy z
a.
w?
?a
6
V1
©2005 Sod 4 Environmental Consultants, PA. All rights reserved. PLANTING 5C H ED U LE * PLANTING DETAI L5
APPENDIX A
Site Photographs
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.D1
0 equipment shed and residences in background.
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 10-Existing drainage ditch discharging to upstream end of restoration reach
(looking west).
Photo 9-Existing condition of restoration reach looking downstream (north). Note
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.1) 1
Photo 1-Existing stream immediately downstream of road crossing, note canal to the
is Little River in background.
LJ
erty.
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 2-Existing road crossing (24" diameter CCP) looking upstream onto the prop-
Watts Farm Restoration
is S&EC Project: 8099.1) 1
• ter CCP).
•
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 3-Upstream end of existing road crossing, near northern end of site (24" diame-
Photo 4-Existing stream (near downstream end) looking upstream (south) towards
woodline. Note equipment shed on right side of photo.
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.D1
Photo 5-Existing side drainage ditch near north end of side parcel looking west
towards woodline.

Appendix A
April 25, 2005
Photo 6-Existing property looking east towards woodline. Note Infinities Groundwa-
ter Gauge in center of photo.
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.D1
0
Appendix A
April 25, 2005
40 Photo 8-Existing stream (upstream end) looking upstream (south) towards woodline.
Photo 7-Existing property looking south (upstream) towards woodline.
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.D1
0 (looking east).
Appendix A
April 25, 2005

Photo 11-Existing drainage ditch discharging to upstream end of restoration reach
APPENDIX B
Reference Stream & Wetland Photographs
•
•
0
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.131
Appendix B
April 25, 2005
Photo 1-Reference reach cross-section #1, looking upstream.
Photo 2-Reference reach cross-section #2, looking upstream.
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project: 8099.D1
•
•
Appendix B
April 25, 2005
Photo 3-Riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 1)
Photo 4-Riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 2)
Watts Farm Restoration
• S&EC Project: 8099.D1
•
0
Appendix B
April 25, 2005
Photo 5-Non-riverine Reference Wetland (Gauge 1)
APPENDIX C
Preliminary Site Groundwater Data
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Monitoring Gauge Data Comparison January 2004 to June 2004
0
-5
-10

-15

-20

0
-25

0 1..
-30

CL
-
0 -35

G -0
`. -40
-45
0 0 0
c c c
r 00 Ul)
Ir-I
0
I
cu 3
N
0
1
cu )
N
0 0 It
UL U- U-
LO N
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0

L L L L L L L
0- 0- CL
LL G G < Q Q

t0 4 co U') co LO
N r- r- N ?
Day of Monitoring Period
0 0 It
L L
Q. 0- CC
I
O
N N
0
5cu
G
0
N
C1
5CU ?
` I
h ?
N
0
I
O
00
? N
-* W1 -n- W2 -x W3 )- W4 W5 W6
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Monitoring Gauge Data Comparison July 2004 to December 2004

0
-5
N Oft
-10

-15
L H
? _ -20

0 -25
0
r 3 -30
0
4 -35

-40
-45
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn

Q Q Q
- rn a a a a
:3 (D a) () a)
Q U) a
a?
N Q O 0 U>>>>
0 0 0 0 a) a) a)
O O z z z z o 0 o
?
00 N N
N N N 01
r r
CO N CO t?
(v e- N
O ti
M
?
00 to N Q) C.0
N N N
Day of Monitoring Period
* W1 -¦- W2 ( W3 )K W4 W5 + W6
APPENDIX D
Site Rainfall Data
3.00
y 2.50
r
'- 2.00
c?
c?
O
1.50
1.00
c?
D
0.50
0.00
1,& I
L
I
IL
IL
I
L M
E
1
1 1
1
1 11
.1
j
I
L 1
:
1 ;I
L-
UI
L-A
ll
0 0 0 0
C C C C 0
C 0
n 0
6 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0
L L L L 0 0
L 0 0
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cu cu cu cu
cu .
a)

LL -
a)

LL -
Q)

LL
a)

LL
cu cc M M a-

Q
CL a-

Q Q

Q
a
CL

Q
cu
M
cc >, C
cu C C

c
3
00 LO N

N
C6

N
LO
N
?-
0)
(0

N
V r 00 In r-

I- N
co LO

T-
N

N
CY)

N

(0

M

?

O

N

?

N

O 4
?-
N

Day of Monitoring Period
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Site Rainfall Gauge Data JanuaOry 2004 to June 2004
3.00
2.50
N
4)
r
V
? 2.00
C

D
1.50

C

1.00

0.50
0.00
Watts Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Site Rainfall Gauge Data July 2004 to December 2004
v v Iq ? ? ? ? ? "t ? ? It Iq Iq Iq ? ? v IV ?t ?t
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 1 1 I 1 1
3? 7 5 rn 6 m 6 a a a a a >>>>
:3 :3 :3 :3 Q Q (L) (1) (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a? a?
o L6 N rn to N (n Q (n CO CIO CO CI) e, Z Z Z Z
IT- N O N O C4 CO O 6 4 r 00 6 N O (D
N IT- N M N N N r
Day of Monitoring Period
APPENDIX E
Stream Morphological Characteristics Data Table
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Appendix I
April 25, 2005
Values
EXISTING E6 P ROPOSED C6 REFE RENCE REACH E6
Variable Min Avg Max Min Av Max Min Avg Max
Flood prone Width ft 8.63 19.75 28.15 26.7 27.48 28.2 42.99 43.55 44.11
Riffle Area S ft 4.16 4.24 4.31 4.02 4.23 4.49 8.06 8.12 8.18
Max Riffle Depth ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 2.71 2.94 3.17 2.71 2.94 3.17
Mean Riffle Depth ft 0.79 0.96 1.04 .57 0.58 0.6 0.94 0.96 0.97
Riffle Width ft 4.08 4.47 5.35 7.06 7.29 7.48 8.4 8.48 8.56
Pool Area S ft 5.1 6.0 7.2 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95 13.95
Max Pool Depth ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 3.06 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Mean Pool Depth ft 1.04 1.12 1.13 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Pool Width ft 4.89 5.34 6.42 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28 14.28

Dimensi onless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Wfpa / Wbkf 1.93 4.41834 6.29754 3.78 3.76 3.77 5.07 5.13561 5.20165
Pool Area / Abkf 1.23 1.42 1.67 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798 1.71798
Max Pool Depth / Dbkf 1.60417 1.72917 1.83333 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
Mean Pool Depth / Dbkf 1.09 1.17 1.32 11.97 12.52 13 1.02083 1.02083 1.02083
Pool Width / Wbkf 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396 1.68396
Values
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Av Max Min Av Max Min Av Max
Sinuosity 1.1 1.52 1.27
Meander Wavelength ft 500 600 700 66.69 70.66 74.65 34.81 103.74 240.88
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 1 of 3
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
Radius of Curvature ft 40 45 50 13.32 15.59 18.9 3.46 17.12 43.84
Belt Width ft 40 50 60 22.48 34.35 43.24 78.76 78.76 78.76
Dimensi onless Rat ios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
Lm / W bkf 111.8568 134.2282 156.5996 8.44177 8.9443 9.44937 4.10495 12.23349 28.40566
Rc / W bkf 8.94855 10.06711 11.18568 1.68608 1.97342 2.39241 0.40802 2.01887 5.16981
Wblt / Wbkf MWR 8.94855 11.18568 13.42282 2.84557 4.3481 5.47342 9.28774 9.28774 9.28774
Values
EXISTING PROPOSED REFERENCE REACH
Variable Min Av Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max
S riffle ft/ft 0.0016 0.00217 0.00272 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364 0.0001 0.0014 0.00364
S pool ft/ft 0 0.00014 0.00043 0 0.00047 0.00127 0 0.00047 0.00127
P - P ft 0 64.51 332.07 36.23 49.98 73.21 36.23 49.98 73.21
P length ft 0 67.13 332.07 29.94 53.41 8.22 29.94 53.41
Dmax riffle ft 1.36 1.59 1.73 L 2.94 3.17 2.71 2.94 3.17
Dmax ool ft 1.54 1.66 1.76 O6 3.2 3.58 3.06 3.2 3.58
Dimesionless Ratios
Variable Min Avg Max Min Av Max Min Avg Max
S riffle / S bkf ft/ft 0.73733 1 1.25346 0.08571 1 2.6 0.08571 1 2.6
S pool / S bkf ft/ft 0 0.06452 0.19816 0 0.33571 0.90714 0 0.33571 0.90714
P - P /W bkf ft 0 14.43177 74.28859 4.27241 5.89387 8.63325 4.27241 5.89387 8.63325
P length / W bkf ft 0 15.0179 74.28859 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835 0.96934 3.53066 6.29835
Dmax riffle / D bkf ft 1.41667 1.65625 1.80208 2.82292 3.0625 3.30208 2.82292 3.0625 3.30208
Dmax pool / D bkf ft 1.60417 1.72917 1.83333 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917 3.1875 3.33333 3.72917
Bankfull Slope ft/ft 0.00217 0.0014 0.0014
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 2 of 3
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Appendix E
April 25, 2005
Table 1: Existing, Reference and Proposed Stream Morphological Characteristics
Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX F
Existing Conditions Stream Data
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.13 1
1

C
O
tf?
N
W
XS 1 Existing
O Oround Point ? BanidUli Indicators
Ybkf - 5.4 Dbkf - .S
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 4.2
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix F
April 25, 2005
Existine Conditions Stream Data
Page 1 of 4
0 10 20 30 40
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
XS 2 EXISTING
a Oround Points i BanMUII Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Ybkf - 4.3 Dbkf - 1 Abkf - 4.2

C
O
t'R'S
N
W
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix F
April 25, 2005
Existing Conditions Stream Data
Page 2 of 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
o Oround Points
Ybkf - 4.1
97

c
O
-6:.
ca
N
W
90
XS 3 Existing
? BanMUII Indicators
Dbkf - 1
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 4.2
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Existing Conditions Stream Data
Page 3 of 4
Appendix F
April 25, 2005
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.1311
XS 4 EXISTING
O Oround Points ? Banidull Indicators V Water Surface Paints
1lbkf - 4.2 Obkf - 1 Abkf - 4.3

C
0
N
w
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix F
April 25, 2005
Existine Conditions Stream Data
Page 4 of 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
APPENDIX G
Reference Reach Stream Data
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1

C
O
t[t
N
ni
d Oround Points
4lbkf - 8.5
Reference XS 1
? BanidUll Indicators
Dbkf - I
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 8.2
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Reference Reach Stream Data
Page 1 of 2
Appendix G
April 25, 2005
-9 -4 0 4 9 13 17 22 26 31 35 39 44 48
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1

C
O
of
N
,IV
0 Oround Points
Wbkf = 8.5
Reference XS 2
? BanIdUII Indicators
Dbkf - .4
? Water Surface Points
Abkf - 8
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Reference Reach Stream Data
Page 2 of 2
Appendix G
April 25, 2005
-9 -4 0 4 9 13 18 22 27 31 36 40 45 49
APPENDIX H
Proposed Conditions Stream Data
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.1) 1
Proposed Typical Riffle
o Oround Points ? BanIdUll Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 7.2 Obkf - .6 Abkf - 4.2
1

c
O
tLf
N
W
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix H
April 25, 2005
Proposed Conditions Stream Data
Page i of 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Watts Farm Restoration
S&EC Project No. 8099.D1
Proposed Typical Pool
O Oround Points ? Bervidull Indicators ? Water Surface Points
4lbkf - 11.2 Dbkf - .9 Abkf - 10.6

C
O
t?
N
W
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Appendix H
April 25, 2005
Proposed Conditions Stream Data
Page 2 of 2
0 10 20 30 40
APPENDIX I
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Letter

Mme,
MAR 1 4 2005
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Adnunistrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
March 9, 2005
Jessica Regan
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
Re: Watts Farm Restoration Site, Perquimans County, ER 05-0373
Dear Ms. Regan:
Thank you for your letter of February 15, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
eter B. Sandbeck
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fart
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY do PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
APPENDIX J
Perquimans County Floodplain Coordination Letter
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
June 20, 2005
S&EC Project No. 8099.1) 1
Perquimans County
Planning Department
P.O. Box 45
Hertford, NC 27944
Attn: Mr. William Ethridge & Mr. Zeke Jackson
Reference: Watts Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
Minor Grading Win 100-yr Floodplain
Perquimans County, NC
Dear Sirs:
As discussed in our telephone conversations, Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA is
currently developing a Stream and Wetland Restoration plan for the Watts Property in
Perquimans County. This North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
funded project consisting of approximately 48 acres is shown on the enclosed location
map.
Proposed restoration efforts will include restoring an agricultural ditch to a naturally
meandering stream. Plans also call for minor floodplain grading and the filling of
agricultural drainage ditches to restore wetland hydrology throughout the property. The
entire site will be-planted with appropriate riparian and wetland vegetative species.
This site is located within the 100-year floodplain as determined by the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program (see enclosed floodplain map). Please advise what
additional information the County will require to approve the construction of this project
within the 100-year floodplain. If the County approves these restoration efforts without
Page 1 of 2
Watts Stream & Wetland Restoration June 20, 2005
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA Project No. 8099.D1
additional information, please provide a written response indicating approval for use in
project permitting.
We thank you for your assistance in this matter and look forward to the successful
completion of this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, PA
Sincerely,
Rebecca S. Wargo, EIT
Project Engineer
Attachments:
1. Project Location Map
2. USGS Vicinity Map
3. Floodplain Map
Cc: Tracey Morris - NCEEP
Salam Murtada, NCEEP
Page 2 of 2
0I
•

?.+ 34
r-.?r"C+'
M
?1
t:z _
,
?
y , y w .r- i?.m ?K a
' (?9 N J?! ' ". 4 {I 'f J
S' ? ?? ?
, ?
; ? ? , ???
t 7r? ?
?
?

' 'f? .?.: -.1?.? ,
;
F - ; ? ,?
'C?' ???? ?
? ? ••? ?),?
I
1 ..
+ Z'
? ?
?r+•
?d.'?
-
t
;?
7
/ ?
j
i? ,??
'? {
?
\ ` y
ir }
irt
?k
.
^t
ryP
?1
{` Fj
+
IXA

! 7
1 `
YYB v

N
robed t:
8099.) I Scale:
1': 2.4
miles

Figure I - Vicinity Map
rroject
Mgr.: P5 Date:
02-21-05
Watts Farm
Percqulman5 County, NC

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www.SandEC.com
f
i
1 i t I
•
•
•

v

ti, •?
,

44'
O a-* CIO
A
'
N
f
6
Project 0: 099. )1
8099.D1
1 "?:
1': 4000
FI ure 2 - USGS
9
N
Project Date: uconton Quad
Mgr.: PS 02-21-05
Watts Farm
Perclulman5 County, NC
c
Site Boundary
Watershed Boundary
i ?
i
IR I
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www,SandEC.com
0
•
L - *& ? A
.7

iviap output
Page 1 of 1
1_u._./l1 An 110 1 n1 0 I-__-_1 njmr%nz
'po
ot:p 1 o e4l
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Cyndi Karoly
Salam Murtada
Permit Application- Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration
July 14, 2005
Attached for your review are 2 restoration plans (1 sent to Washington Regional Office) for the
Watts Property Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Perquimans County. Please feel free
to call me with any questions regarding this plan (715-1972).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
attachment: Restoration Plan (2 originals)
D 19 kf-L;:-?5k LS 0 v
D
JUL 1 9 2005
TUNE R - BITER QUALITY
ORMWATER BRANCH
NCDENR
North Caroling Ecosysterrn Enhaneernent Program, 1652 Mail Service (uit^r, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 l M-715-0476 1 www.nceep.net