19970093 Ver 1_Complete File_19970303

m = = r i m r = r = m ! = = = = = = m
ER95007.4/8-1 PHOTO.CDR/PJS 0 0 1000 2000 3000 ]FEET

North Carolina
Global TransPark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Dover Bay
1956 Aerial Photograph
Craven County, North Carolina
FIGURE:
10-2
DATE: JAN 97
i = = = m m m = i m m ! = m m = = m m
= = = m = = = m = w r = = = = m

EK95007.4/Doverp
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
O
0
O
m

Ok
DD
cD -O
Q?
mO
0--
Q-
0 T
Q

N rth ?arolina
Glo?al TransPark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Dover Bay
1996 Aerial Photograph
Craven County, North Carolina
FIGURE:
10-5
DATE: JAN 97

t

L?

rJ1

(approximately 15 ft wide) and roadside ditches (approximately 2-6 ft deep). The original roads did
not appear to provide year-round access to the bay interior as fill material was saturated during the
winter and spring months. Drainage effects to the bay interior wetlands due to the constructed
seasonal roads is expected to have been limited.
The 1994 aerial photograph shows approximately 70 percent of the area surrounding the potential
mitigation site has been converted for agricultural use (Figure 10-4). The remainder of the area has
sustained drainage structure installation and conversion to intensively managed pine plantations.
The road network within Dover Bay has been extended and enlarged to support heavy machinery
and greater drainage capacity. During the road reconstruction period, road-side ditches were lowered
more than 8 ft in many areas. In addition, auxiliary ditches were constructed on the opposite side
of primary road corridors. During this process, the roads were widened to 30 ft or more and elevated
to provide year-round access. Approximately 10 mi of logging and access roads were constructed
within the potential mitigation site. In southeastern portions, vegetation was cleared and
undecomposed woody debris was scraped into windrows. Ditches were excavated at approximately
300 foot intervals and connected into a primary, constructed outlet which extended from the bay
agricultural area to the eastern sand rim. The area surrounding the primary outlet was also cleared
of forest vegetation and the photograph displays evidence of windrowing. The central and western
portions of the bay were subjected to clearing of forest vegetation. The southwestern portion of the
bay also received additional roadways and canals with evidence of disturbance threatening to
eliminate the bay as a functioning wetland system. The only remaining undegraded wetlands are
isolated within northeast portions of the site. Man-induced surface water in farm field ditches,
roadway excavations, and logging areas flows through the lowered sand rim breech and discharges
into Core Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River. Dover Bay resides within 4.2 miles of the Neuse
River.
Current aerial, photography (1996) demonstrates ecological degradation throughout much of the
potential mitigation site (Figure 10-5). Protection of remaining natural vegetation has been
accomplished by NCGTPA. Current environmental degradation appears reversible through
ecological restoration techniques coupled with connectivity to relatively undisturbed ecosystems.
These undisturbed systems potentially serve as reservoirs for wildlife to re-establish within restored
areas. State environmental agency personnel with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) have placed
high priority on the protection, restoration, and enhancement of Dover Bay as a unique natural area
of state significance.
10.1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology
10.1.2.1 Geology
The study area is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Coastal Plain
is comprised of sediments deposited since the Cretaceous Period, 138 million years before present.
The sediments were deposited during a series of transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic
Ocean. The North Carolina Geological Map (Brown et al., 1985) describes the primary geologic
10-2

unit in the vicinity to be the Castle Hayne Formation. However, the study area is underlain by the
Duplin Formation of Tertiary Age. The Duplin Formation is described as a bluish gray, shelly,
medium to coarse grained sand, sandy marl, and limestone, occurring mainly in the area south of the
Neuse River (Brown et al., 1985). Another documented geologic feature characteristic of the region
is the occurrence of Carolina Bays.
Dover Bay consists of two or more intersecting and partially overlapping Carolina Bays. Carolina
Bays are elliptical features whose ecological state may range from a lacustrine system such as Lake
Waccamaw, to a palustrine-dominated swamp, which was the status of Dover Bay prior to
disturbance. Topographically, the site represents a swale or slight depression enclosed within an
elevated sand rim. The longitudinal axis of the bay runs roughly northwest to southeast. Carolina
Bays are conducive to the formation of very poorly drained soils with high amounts of organic
matter in the interior, and a perimeter of elevated, excessively drained sands.
10.1.2.2 Hydrogeology
Hydrology in Dover Bay is driven by precipitation inputs and primarily vertical to semi-radial
fluctuations in the groundwater table. Hydrodynamics within the potential mitigation site have been
altered by extensive roadside canals, farm field ditches, and harvesting of forest vegetation.
Approximately 50,000 linear ft of ditches and canals have been constructed and connect portions of
the bay to canal flow extending through sand rim breeches and off the site.
Based upon water level measurements collected in the field, groundwater flow maps were prepared
for the study area for the dates December 29, 1995 and April 16, 1996. The April measurements are
contoured in Figure 10-6. Groundwater was encountered in the borings as part of a shallow,
unconfined surficial aquifer within 1 to 3 ft of the ground surface. Topographically, the study area
is generally expressed as a bowl surrounded by lands at higher elevations. There is a major drainage
canal running roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bay. As a result, local groundwater
flow within the bay tends to move from the perimeter toward the interior canals. The highest
groundwater elevations were measured in the southeast corner of the site within the agricultural/peat
mining fields.
The network of drainage ditches and canals in the study area currently collects runoff and
(discharged) groundwater and conveys it off-site via either one of two breaks in the sand rim. One
outlet discharges water eastward to Mill Branch, a tributary of Core Creek. The other outlet
discharges flow westward into series of agricultural drainage canals and subsequently into Mosley
Creek. Both streams serve as tributaries to the Neuse River.
10.1.3 Soils
Soils have been mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) (USDA 1989). Figure fO-7 depicts NRCS soil distribution. Soil associations
contained within the area include the Croatan-Dare, the Rains-Pantego-Torhunta, the Murville-
Ponzer-Leon, and the Kureb-Pactolus-Leon associations. Surficial soils identified were primarily
10-3

1

m = m i m M. M M m ow M. M. = M. W
roAGAA7 A /AAVCO /R 1 A OR /O_ IQ /11A1A
0
oL
0
0
9

r
FIGURE: GROUNDWATER CONTOURS FOR 4/16196
10-6 DOVER BAY
DATE: CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
9@0100D (Z-A?lnfl8lm
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

-I
0
CMA

d
rp
0
-4
0
c
c
Q
c
n
0

0

x
c
w
0
r
r A
r
00 o
Gloaal ?arolLna
rk
nf
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Q,
n
-o
v
C
?o?pz0o
? o
o 00 IT,
>?d
r.?C9c? „9C
O
??NOl7 ?
u
,O r
ao
?d
DOVER BAY SOILS
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0
r
FIGURE:
10.7
DATE: JAN 96

organic (histisols). HYdric and non-hYdric mineral soils (incePtisols sPodosols ultisols) compose
the rest of the soil regimes.
Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil layer" (USDA 1991). Hydric soils
were mapped on current aerial photography through systematic soil sampling and field surveys
performed in the spring of 1996. Based on the mapping, approximately 3192 ac of hydric soil occur
within the approximately 3361-ac mitigation area (Figure 10-8). Hydric soils identified include the
Croatan (Terric Medisaprists), Deloss (Typic Umbraquults), Masontown (Cumulic Humaquepts),
Muckalee (Typic Fluvaquents), Murville (Typic Haplaquods), and Torhunta (Typic Humaquepts)
series.
The primary hydric soil within the mitigation site is Croatan muck, which is a very poorly drained
' organic soil with slow to moderately rapid permeability. Within this soil map unit, organic material
comprises the upper 30 to 80 inches of the soil profile, with undecomposed woody fragments
common.
Croatan areas in the bay have been altered by roadway drainage, logging, farming, peat mining, and
catastrophic fire activities. An approximately 243-ac tract in southeastern portions of the bay has
been converted for farming and peat mining operations. Soil surfaces and vegetation have been
cleared, windrowed, and leveled with drainage structures constructed throughout the area. Roadways
and roadside canals have been constructed, apparently initiating subsidence within the corridors.
Mechanized clear-cutting has been undertaken within western portions of the bay and have caused
substantial soil disturbance and exposure due to logging trails, skid trails, and logging decks. The
eastern half of the bay sustained a catastrophic fire event in 1988, apparently after farm and road
drainage structures were constructed. Although periodic fire represents an essential component of
these ecosystems, the catastrophic fire appears to have burned through up to 30 inches of the organic
soil layer in some areas. Pronounced reductions in organic matter have altered soil structure and
composition in this catastrophic fire area.
Two riverine hydric soil map units, the Masontown and Muckalee series, appear to extend into the
mitigation area. These units, comprising approximately 11 ac, support the relic origin of a small
stream which extends from the eastern periphery of the bay towards the Neuse River. These series
support inter-layers of medium to fine sand, with deposits of silt-sized sediments. Although this soil
may have historically developed as a result of stream flow and deposition, a large ditch extending
from farm land and dissecting the area has eliminated stream hydrodynamics in the map unit.
Other hydric soils, including the Murville, Rains, and Torhunta series, are typically sandy loam in
' texture, poorly to very poorly drained, with permeability moderate to moderately rapid. These units
occur along the bay periphery in transitions to interior and exterior elevated sand rims.
IL?

10-4

PPORM7 amrnrFR/R 14 aR/P.iS/.imm
LJ
Non-bydric soils include the Kureb series (Spodic Quartzipsamments) and Leon series Aeric
Haplaquods). These upland soils typically occur along interior and exterior sand rims and represent
deep sands ranging from poorly to excessively drained with moderately rapid to rapid permeability.
Many of these rims have sustained excavation and sand mining activities. Along the southern
periphery, an approximately 75 ac flooded borrow pit has formed through mining of sands within
the Kureb map area.
10.1.4 Plant Communities
Seven distinct communities have been identified within the Dover Bay mitigation area. Six
communities suited for supporting terrestrial vegetation extend over approximately 3286 ac and one
' lacustrine community extends over approximately 75 ac. Community descriptions for existing
terrestrial systems have been adopted and modified from Classification of the Natural Plant
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Figure 10-9 depicts existing plant
' community distribution and associated acreages. A discussion of each community follows.
10.1.4.1 Pond Pine Woodland, Steady-State Variant (PPW)
' Undisturbed low-lying areas which exhibit prolonged saturation and thick organic surface horizons
support this community. This community, comprising approximately 246 ac, is characterized by
pond pine (Pinus serotina) as the dominant canopy species. Loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus)
' occasionally co-dominates. Other canopy species present include red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red bay (Persea palustris), and Atlantic
white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides). Tree basal area averages approximately 120 ft2/ac. The
shrub layer includes loblolly bay, red maple, sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), fetterbush (Lyonia
lucida), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Structure varies from nearly impenetrable, heavily vegetated
shrub layers to open "park-like" systems. Within these steady state areas, crown closure generally
eliminates herbaceous growth. However, herbaceous species such as cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea) occur within intermittent gaps.
10.1.4.2 Pond Pine Woodland, Catastrophic Fire Variant (FPPW)
This community appears to be a successional precursor to the steady-state pond pine woodland
described above. This community occurs over approximately 1787 ac of low lying areas which
' appear to have historically supported pond pine woodlands, but were subjected to a catastrophic fire
event in 1988. The fire event, which burned through portions of the peat layer, has resulted in a
unique combination of species distribution and structure. The system is characterized by an
intermittent canopy of pond pine and red maple. The shrub layer is extremely thick, with switch
cane, fetterbush, sweet gallberry, bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), and laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) dominating the area.
10.1.4.3 Streamhead Pocosin (SP)
This community covers approximately 11 ac of what may have been the origin of a small stream
before ditching and clearing. This community is characterized by a canopy ranging in coverage from
scattered to fairly dense, consisting of pond pine, red maple, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and tulip
i
10-5
1

rnnrnn"t /nnvro /7 1 r no /0 Ic

O
0
0
oLE
0
0
Y?
• V
. I
I I?t?1
I I I, I I
Iilliflllf,?lll
\ 1 Illillllflllllllllll
IIIfI?i?lfllll,?llll
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
l l l l l l l l l i l l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I i i l l l l l
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i l l i l l l l l l l,
1 1 1 1, 1, 1,, 1,,
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I i l i l l l l l l l
I l l l l l l l l l l l i t l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 l l l i l l l 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1!
I l i t I I I I I I I i l l l i
11111'llfl III11111111,11,111,1,+,II
f?lfllllll I Illlllllllfllllllllf
I i f i l l f l l l l l l l l
1 IIIII1111111 illllll?lllll
Illlifl?i?i?l I IIII
Ifll'I, II

;. yr.
. f

o
i
0
o
0

00
?o
o?

x
o..

-+?
ODnNX -v
Z

N X -0 -O
D C7

D

•
•
0 as O
( 3 ,^

VI V V C-)
,
CD (D
m
m o. o- c
-030 O Z
03
f0i Naa --4 0
N O 0 m
N c
r
• C 3 3
3 a' aa Q
fa I
rl
C)
I I z

i 00
v

r
fn a

' x . 0 (n

:: o oc? t7 ?

O l?

e w o •? D
?
ro
3 ?

W

0) .r D
n
0
j V PN?14 004?- '
0WtC?OVO (00
U
FIGURE: EKI3TNG PLAN' COMMUNMES MMOD CTGi?ABmf LEGEND
10-9 CRAVEN C?DOV HOBAY CAROLNA @fl@ Dff u OD@DDd)? SEE THIS PAGE
DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1

poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Atlantic white cedar may persist in some degraded areas. The
dense shrub layer is composed of sweet gallberry, bitter gallberry, fetterbush, red bay, laurel-leaf
greenbrier, titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). This area has been
heavily degraded by clearing, ditching, and road construction.
10.1.4.4 Xeric Sandhiil Scrub (XSS)
This community occurs along peripheral zones of the potential mitigation site, covering
approximately 109 ac along xeric sand rims. The community is characterized by an open canopy
of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and an open understory comprised of turkey oak (Quercus laevis),
bluejack oak (Q. incana), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). The
intermittent shrub layer includes red bay and wax myrtle. The herbaceous layer is dominated by
wiregrass (Aristida stricta), with bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and creeping blueberry
(Vaccinium crassifolium) common. Many of these areas have been degraded by periodic harvest of
timber and pine straw, excavations, and partial clearing.
10.1.4.5 Cutover (CO)
This community covers approximately 929 ac of areas that once contained forest vegetation, but
have recently had vegetation removed. Woody debris left from vegetation harvesting covers these
areas. Remaining vegetation is limited in extent. Species present include chokeberry, sweet
pepperbush, and fetterbush. Coppice sprouts of red maple are evident throughout this community.
10.1.4.6 Agricultural (AG)
This community covers 243 ac in southeastern portions of the site, representing an area converted
for agricultural or peat mining use. Natural vegetation includes bracken fern, dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), and goldenrods (Solidago spp.). Wetter seeps and ditch margins
typically contain rushes (Juncus spp.), red bay, pond pine, chokeberry, fetterbush, Virginia willow
(Itea virginica), and catbrier (Smilax glauca).
1 10.1.4.7 Open Water (OW)
This lacustrine community, covering approximately 75 ac, is located along the southern site
periphery. This community consists of a flooded borrow pit with abutting forest vegetation cleared
for hunting corridors. Limited aquatic vegetation occupies outer margins of the open water area.
10.1.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated with surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Based on
groundwater models coupled with field mapping, approximately 2421 ac of jurisdictional wetlands
and jurisdictional open waters occur within the approximately 3361 ac tract (72% of the site) (Figure
' 10-10). Of non jurisdictional land, approximately 169 ac consist of uplands and approximately 770
ac consist of historic wetlands converted for alternative land uses.
10-6
r
m m = ? = mm m M.- m. m = M, =. =. = m
ER95007.4/DOVER/7.15.96/PJS
0
Y
S?
0
it
I?
r (? ?'? 1 1 1 1' 11 1' I I I ?
I IIT 111'1'11 'I'I'?ttll I
I I I t l l I?1 I
11 1 1 1 1 1 /I I I I
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 ? I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
?, X 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
.,,,I, I I I I I I I I I I t l l
f l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I till 1111 Irl? Iltttltftllftllfl
111111 I I ?T I f l l l l l l l l l
I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I
I I 1 1 1 I I I l l l l l t l l l l l I' T''
I I ?'i•?" I I I{ 1 I ?l 1 t 1 I t 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I'h--?
I I? I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t l l l l
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l t l 1 1 1 1 1 1
I ??' i I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l I l t l l l l
1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1
I( l t l l 1 1 I l l l l l l l l l t I I I I I I I I I I
'/ I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
r 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I f t l l l l l l l l I l l l l l l l `t
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1)
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a
;?? I Itili,?l?l?l?l?l?ll I I( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f l l l l l l t l l l l l l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I l l l l l l l l l l l t I I I I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I I I I I I I
111111111 t 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
? 1 1 I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1111 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I
I l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I
I l t l l l t l l l l 1 1 I I I I I
1 111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
I I l l l f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 t,?
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) I I I I I I I I I
I I I l I 1 1 l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f t I ?
I I I I I I I I) I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ?? i 111 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I! 1 I I? I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 T-1 11 9 ^I?'f I l 1 1
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t I?1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1'1`1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1( 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1?? 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
r l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
I l l l l l l l l l l l l l t l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
??,?1,1,1,1,1,1,I,I,I,I,ll111111111111tllltlllllt Itltl 111111 ,I,f,l,l, ,1, 1 ?, ,I,t,?
ItT Illtlllttlltltltllllllllllllllllltltllltlll?lt I 11 III ILI 1 Itltllltl 111111
tl? ItI? tt11111111tltllltltltl1111111tllllllllllfllllltltl?,IIII 1 111'111'1'111'1111 111111
II I1llltllltllltllltllltllltltttlllllltlllllltlllt'I'II?1111 ,I Illtl?I?1,1,111,1'1 111'111 ?
1111 11r tlttltflllttllltllllllllllltltlttlltltltltlll?(1111 1111 It1?,4j1'?1?.LLL-{..II 1 I 1 /
I l t l I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t I f l l I I 1( 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1({ I I I 1 1( 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1 1{ t l l l l
I I I I I t I I I I l 1 I( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I t I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
,1 111\ ,1,1,III,I,I,I,I,Illllt'Illlltltltltllltltttl 1 ,1111111 1111 Illttllltl11,11
I I I? I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t l l l l l l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1` 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1{ I( 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I? I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I J l l l l t I I I
I I I I I t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I t I I l l l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
I 11 11 1 1 1? 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
11 I I I I I I I l l l l t l l l l l l l I I I I I I t l l l l I? I
'? 1111'1111111'11111?1111111'1111I1111'111'II ,Itltttltl Illtltltllltltn?l
11 ,I,t11111',1,1,'t11 1111f111111111111'11111 11111111111 111111111111111
JI I,I?,I?tlll,tlllfllt Itllltl,lllllllltltlll t t 1111111 tttlttlAltllltl
1 tltltltltltllllllltltl , ,I,I,t,111111'1 I,I 1
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l f I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I
I I
I I 1 1 1 11 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l t l l l l l
`?. I I I I 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
+I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I?1 I
I tt_?'' I I I I I I l l l t l I l t l l l l l l l l l
4.. I I I 't" I I I .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1? 1 1 1
?Itlllllt Ilr ltltllllllllllltlll I11?,I,I,f,t,l,t,1, ,I
?1.?? 1 1 I? I l l l t l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I
1 ?11 -f- 1 1 1{ 1 1 1 1! I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I? I h I I I 1 1 1 1( 1 ( I I I I I I I I
?1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1( 1 I l l l l l l t l $. __,_,t-?,y-//'
I I I ? I l l l l l t l l t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ??
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 •? L-f-?
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I. I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l l l l l l l t
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l l l l L
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1! 1 1 1 1
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 •? I I I I I I
I I Illtltlll?l IIy?IIIIIII11tIl ll.?llltllllltl, .
I I I I I I?I I I t l l l I I I I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l t 1 1 1
I I I I I 11 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ?{ I I I 1 1 I? I I I I I I
1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
11 1 1 1 1 I l l l l l l l t l l l l l l l
1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f ?"
1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?
1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1
I l t l l I I I I l l l l t l l l l l >
I I I I I I I 1 1 l'1 I I I I I I I I I I
I l l t I I I I t I I t I I l I l I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I{ I I I 11,1 1 1 I t
I I I I I J I I I I( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 ?I. , I I I I I
I I 1 1 l l( l l l l l l r ""f-T I I I I I
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1
1 1'11111' 111111f11111tlltlltftllltltltlt111
I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illtllltltlt
Ilt I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I -1.1 11.1 1. 111111 1111111111'1'1 I I I I I
i?? I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1
?- I l r I I lit I I I? I? I I
I t I I I I I 1 I t 1 T-F-I 1-? `TL?1?1 YI ?? ?.
I f I I I l I I I I l I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I l l l l l l l l l t l l l l
I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I y
?
?

I I I
I I I I
I l l t l
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 /
?
'f
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..I
I I I I I I 1,1,1 I I
I I I I I I I ..ss-I?'r ?? I I I I
I I I I I I.d I I I I I
"
lVl ?
I IIII I????I.?Itltltltlll I ?
1,111,1,1,1'1,111,1 ?
11111111111111 Itl

J I;l;t
1111
Illy
Ilt
I I

• m
0
Z ` Z

v
Z
v
L
C
D
0
O ° z
r
y m
a
o
> z
my C
U

W
(W (D
0
N
co n
(WD (N CD
CA
FIGURE- MODE-ED WETLANDS [ @0% @fpo0fl6Df LEGEND
10-10 CRAVEN C?Y? NORTH CAROLINA @o0??° a SEE THIS PAGE
DATE:
f III'
1'1'11
I III
.I

ii

Non jurisdictional areas include farm fields in the southeastern portion of the site, interior and
exterior sand rims, and modeled drainage zones along road canals.
Farm fields, which occupy approximately 219 ac of organic hydric soils, are considered "prior
converted" (PC) croplands. These PC areas were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically
altered to remove excess water) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that important
wetland values are no longer exhibited (Section 512.15 of the National Food Security Act Manual,
August 1988). Ditches have been constructed at approximately 300 ft intervals throughout the area
and natural vegetation has been cleared and windrowed.
' Roadside canals extend through central portions of the site. These canals range to 15 ft in depth and
effectively drain portions of the roadway area. A groundwater model, described in detail in Section
10.2.1, predicts drainage impacts sufficient to remove wetland hydrology from an approximately 300
ft zone adjacent to the canal. Based on the model, approximately 551 ac of road surface and adjacent
land has been removed from jurisdictional wetland status.
' Xeric sand rims, comprising approximately 169 ac, represent upland inclusions within the wetland
complex. These areas support non-hydric soils which historically supported areas not jurisdictional
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
' 10.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
Dover Bay provides suitable habitat for a number of federal threatened and endangered species. This
' habitat may support, or provides potential to reintroduce several listed species which are not
currently documented in Craven County (Table 10-1). Record review at NCNHP indicates no
' known occurrences of federal or state listed species within Dover Bay.
10.2 WETLAND RESTORATION MODELS
' A number of mitigation design studies have been utilized for restoration planning. These studies
include groundwater hydrology monitoring, stream analyses, and Landscape Ecosystem
Classification (LEC).
' 10.2.1 Groundwater Model
A hydrogeological site assessment was conducted in Dover Bay to determine existing conditions,
' wetland restoration potential, and restoration design. This detailed study is available as a stand alone
appendix item to this mitigation plan. The assessment included the installation of a series of
exploratory soil borings, the conversion of the soil borings into observation wells, and the collection
of water level measurements over an approximately two month period. In addition, staff stream
gauge installation and measurement was performed along the origin of a relic stream channel in
eastern portions of the bay. Hydraulic conductivity testing of the saturated zone and review of
' existing data for the region were performed and incorporated into the hydrological model. Site
surveys and detailed topographic maps were prepared to assist in model preparation and restoration
design.
1 10-7

7
L
Table 10-1
Federal and State Listed Species Which Potentially Occur or May be introduced
into Suitable Habitat Areas of Dover Bay
Listed in Swamp Pocosin Longleaf Pine/ Pondpine
Federal Listed Species Craven Forest Wiregrass Rim Woodland
County
Red-cockaded woodpecker- E X X X
Picoides borealis
Red Wolf - E X X X X
Canis rufus
Southern spicebush - E X X
Lindera melissifolia
Rough-leaf loosestrife - E X X
Lysimachia asperulifolia
Canby's dropwort - E X
Oxypolis canbyi
Cooley's meadowrue - E X X
Thalictrum cooleyi
Spring-flowering goldenrod - FSC X
Solidago verna
Savanna cowbane - FSC X X
Oxypolis ternata
Carolina goldenrod - FSC X X
Solidago pulchra
Venus flytrap - FSC X X X X
Dionaea muscipula
Bachman's sparrow - FSC X X X
Aimophila aestivalis
White wicky - FSC X X
Kalmia cuneata
LEGEND
Federal Designation
E: Endangered
FSC: Federal Species of Concern
State Designation
T: Threatened
SR: Significantly Rare
SC: Special Concern
C: Candidate

I

1
d

I

r

L

n

Table 10-1: Continued
Federal and State Listed Species Which Potentially Occur or May be Introduced
into Suitable Habitat Areas of Dover Bay
State Listed Species Listed in Swamp Pocosin Longleaf pine/ Pondpine
Craven Forest Wiregrass Rim Woodland
County
Black bear - SR X
Ursa americanus
Atlantic white cedar x X
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Scale-leaf gerardia - C X X
Agalinis aphylla
Flaxleaf gerardia - SR X X
Agalinis Uniifolia
Branched gerardia - C X X
Agalinis virgata
Bog bluestem - C X X
Andropogon mohrie
Spoonflower - SR X X
Peltandra sagittifolia
Yellow fringeless orchid - T X X
Platanthera Integra
Snowy orchid - T X X
Platanthera nivea
N. white beaksedge - C X
Rhynchospora alba
Shortbristle beaksedge - C X X
Rhynchospora breviseta
Georgia nutrush - SR X X
Scleria georgiana
Carolina asphodel - C X X X X
Tofieldia glabra
Henslow's sparrow - SR X X
Ammodramus henslowii
E. diamondback rattlesnake - SR X X
Crotalus adamanteus
S. hognose snake - SR X X
Heterodon simus
Mimic glass lizard - SC X X
Ophisaurus mimicus
Pigmy rattlesnake - SR X X
Sistrurus militarius
Dwarf salamander - SC X X X
Eurycea quadridigitata
Pine barrens treefrog - SR x
Hyla andersonii
Graceful goldenrod - SR X
Solidago gracillima

The groundwater modeling software selected as most appropriate for simulating shallow subsurface
conditions and groundwater behavior is DRAINMOD. This model was developed by Dr. R.W.
Skaggs of North Carolina State University (NCSU) to simulate the performance of water table
management systems. A detailed description of DRAINMOD wetland applications is included in
Section 7.2.
10.2.1.1 Model Description
The hydrology of various soil water conditions applicable to the study area was simulated using
DRAINMOD. Simulations were conducted for the time period from 1956 to 1986 using
climatological data from Greenville, North Carolina. Output from DRAINMOD was applied to the
site to determine existing (pre-project) condition and historic (post-project target) condition relative
to wetland hydrology criteria. Wetland hydrology is defined in the model as having groundwater
within 12 inches of the surface for 31 consecutive days (12.5% of the growing season). The growing
season is defined as the period between 18 March and 15 November (USDA 1989).
Simulations were run at Dover Bay to determine the distance between ditches for the establishment
of wetland hydrology (hydrological restoration zone) at the midpoint for drain depths of 4 ft, 6 ft,
8 ft, 9.3 ft, and 10 ft. Subsequently, the maximum radii of influence of the ditches and canals on
annual wetland hydroperiod was modeled. The goal of these last simulations was to determine at
what distance the drainage system would reduce the frequency of achieving wetland hydrology to
27 out of 31 years from a theoretical maximum of 29 of 31 years (hydrological enhancement zone).
The DRAINMOD simulation evaluated the Croatan series which occupies approximately 90% of
the potential mitigation site. The Croatan series has relatively high infiltration rates, and low
hydraulic conductivities, suggesting that drainage systems have relatively narrow zones of influence
on the soil. Ditch spacings were selected to determine the current radius and volume of influence
on wetland hydrology exhibited by the roadside canals, the channelized relic stream, and farm field
ditches at the site.
10.2.1.2 Existing (Pre-Project) DRAINMOD Results
The pre-restoration DRAINMOD simulation indicates that the study area has sustained loss of
wetland hydrology for 16 of the 31 years simulated at distances ranging from 221 ft to 312 ft from
the existing drainage ditches. Based upon these simulations, approximately 770 ac out of the 3361
ac site no longer supports wetland hydrology due to drainage (Figure 10-11, Appendix H).
Additionally, simulations were conducted to determine the radii of ditch influence on reducing
wetland hydrology criteria from the theoretical maximum of 29 out of the 31 years achieved to 27
of 31 years achieved (hydrological degradation zone). The maximum zone of influence modeled
extends from 460 ft to 689 ft from the ditch. This translates to a zone of potential degradation
adjacent to canals where wetland hydrology is achieved, but less frequently than expected if the site
had not been ditched. Based on the model, secondary hydrological degradation occurs within
approximately 498 additional ac of the site (Figure 10-11).
10-8

L
i
r?

7
i
J

ER95007.4/DOVER/8.14.96/PJS/JMM
a
o
r
N
O
O
O ? I I
I
I I I '1v`
II III
I)
r III III
I
I III
r
I II II IIIIIIII
II II II II
I II III i IIIII I III ?/
? ll II II I it II II ? /
lil I it III III III II I III ?I
I I I I i I
it III III I III II I III II II II
II III III III II 11 II
??-??, II I II I
rf"?
III IIII
I
III till '
Ill III I
Illlilil
11 II
I
III IIII
II
. / l I
I
II ? II
ii I ? II
it II f II
II I D Z Kx;or
a z xx0.Q0.
I I I _.. I • cD ? c? ? ca
I I I I I It o 0- 3 aaQ 0 o
IIII II'llrl I I II II ?? oo?a
\? ? I IIII IIII II I i II O- _o ? ? 0 m ? D
III I I I I I I I I I I I I n 00-.0' c
? -4,aNa ?-
IIIII?iI IIII IIIII II II tl o to tin o
I ? I I I I I I I i - 0
IIII I II IIII II I 111 y _ ? r
I I l t I ? ?, p- ITI
/I II ifl II I II ?I IIIII '? Z
S
I I I I I I I?1I I II I I 3 0 s ?
-a 3
I IIII IIIII 1111 II II ?' N 3 _
I I (•? I I I I I I I I I I I ? ? tQ
II I I II IIII II IIII '? ?. y
I I I I I I I I I D tOQn
i I I I I I I ?I ? O' O
3
Illiiilll III II II I ? C.
\ I III II 0 O_
II J O O
w D
cD p v 0
0) -1
?
(D 000 to W
N
FIGURE: AREAS OF IMPACTED WETI.AND HYDROLOGY 0@ @ffinoom
10-11 DOVER BAY 00@3)9)0
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

' 10.2.1.3 Historic Condition Post-Project Target) DRAINMOD results
' Historic conditions were modeled to determine site alterations necessary to restore historic
groundwater hydrodynamics, and wetland hydroperiods to the site. Under historic conditions, no
drainage structures were assumed to occur excluding the small stream origin described above.
' Simulations indicate that wetland hydrology, under historic conditions, is evident throughout the
Croatan soil map unit for 29 out of the 31 years modeled.
Based upon these simulations, if the ditches are effectively plugged and backfilled, those portions
of the site currently impacted by the drainage network should return to historic wetland condition.
Wetland hydrology criteria will be restored within approximately 770 ac and enhanced over a much
broader area. Based upon the differences in drainage values modeled, approximately 400 ac-ft (17
million ft') of water is being lost annually due to accelerated discharge within constructed ditches
and canals. From these results, it is reasonable to conclude that Dover Bay is in reality, drier than
' it has been historically.
Effectively plugging constructed ditches and canals within the ecosystem is projected to restore
groundwater hydrodynamics and wetland hydrology over a broad area within the complex.
Restoration design is described in detail in Section 10.3.
' 10.2.2 Stream Anal
The origin of a small stream channel and floodplain historically existed in the eastern periphery of
Dover Bay. The channel is evident in 1956 aerial photography as a moderately sinuous system
' which extends from an interior sand rim through the outer sand rim (Figure 10-2). The relic system
appears to exhibit features indicative of streamhead pocosin or Atlantic white cedar communities.
' An analysis of the stream origin was performed to predict appropriate alterations designed to restore
groundwater and stream gradients in the wetland. In addition, the potential for impacts to adjacent
' properties was assessed. A staff gauge was installed in the excavated stream channel which drains
eastward into Mill Creek. In addition, field surveys were performed along the channel to assess the
extent and impact of dredging and straightening within the channel.
Based on field surveys, the relic stream appears to have been dredged and straightened, on average,
approximately 3 to 6 ft below the historic channel bottom throughout the approximately 2000 ft
' segment in Dover Bay. During the period of April and May 1996, the average discharge through
the excavated channel at the stream gauge measured approximately 14.03 ft3/sec. This volume
' represents flow conditions during the early portion of the growing season and is expected to decrease
in mid-summer and to increase in late winter. It is apparent that this lowered channel is a significant
outlet for groundwater drained from the site. A flow as low as 3 ft3/sec on average will remove
' approximately 2,100 ac-ft (91 million ft') of discharged water from Dover Bay in a year, while an
average flow of 1 ft3/sec will remove approximately 700 ac-ft (30 million ft3) a year. Based upon
this data, it is reasonable to infer that the excavated and lowered drainage system within Dover Bay
may serve to create a sufficient gradient that groundwater from beyond the bay is drawn into the bay
and discharged via the stream outlet. Dover Bay is located on a local topographic high, and Carolina
'° 10-9

'
Bays in undisturbed condition are assumed to receive primarily precipitation inputs and function as
groundwater recharge wetlands. The data suggest that the existing drainage system has altered local
groundwater conditions sufficiently to convert the recharge area to a discharge zone via the lowered '
outlet.
As part of the mitigation plan for this site, reducing flow rate and discharge through this excavated
channel and promoting groundwater recharge functions is crucial to achieving restoration success.
In-stream structures such as weirs or grade stabilization devices (check dams) should be placed to
re-direct channel elevations and flow characteristics towards historic condition. Post-project flow '
through this stream outlet should allow sufficient drainage, similar to historic conditions, to
minimize potential for impacts to adjacent agricultural fields.
10 2 3 Landscape Ecosystem Classification
LEC, as described in Section 7.4, was applied to Dover Bay to characterize community dynamics '
across the landscape and establish a reference model for reforestation design. The assessment is
detailed as a stand alone appendix item to this mitigation plan. Eight LEC site units were identified
and mapped within the site: non-hydric sands, sub-hydric sand precipitation flat, hydric sand ,
precipitation flat, organic precipitation flat, organic precipitation depression, fluvial streamhead,
mesic to xeric sand rims, and open water (Figure 10-12). LEC map units are depicted in Figure 10-
13. Descriptions of general LEC site units and community restoration gradients follow.
10.2.3.1 Mesic to Xeric Sand Rims and Non-Hydric Sands
The upland LEC site units, mesic to xeric sand rim and non-hydric sand, occupy approximately 169 '
ac of the complex. These physiographic units extend up to 10 ft in elevation above the surrounding
organic soils or within the elevational gradient between organic soil flats and exterior sand rims.
Because the nonhydric sands occupy a low topographic position relative to xeric sand rims, soil and '
vegetation will reflect wetter conditions. These upland areas are characterized by a profile ranging
from somewhat poorly drained to excessively drained, consisting of coarse sand greater than 60 '
inches thick, with limited, if any, organic matter at the surface. Target natural communities consist
of gradations between xeric sandhill scrub and long leaf pine savannah adjacent to the bay interior.
10.2.3.2 Hydric Sand and Sub-Hydric Sand Precipitation Flat
The sub-hydric and hydric sand precipitation flat site units occupy approximately 53 ac. Site units
are located along the lower bay periphery adjacent to uplands or near the origin of a small stream ,
in eastern portions of the bay. Soils within this site unit appear to include the Deloss, Murville, and
Torhunta series. The site unit is typified by an organic surface horizon less than 10 to 17 inches thick
with a spodic horizon present or absent, dependent upon site unit designation (hydric sand vs. sub- '
hydric sand). Target communities include gradations between wet pine flatwood, pond pine
woodland, and streamhead pocosin/Atlantic white cedar forest near the stream corridor.
10.2.3.3 Organic Precipitation Flat and Organic Precipitation Depression
The organic precipitation flat and depression site units occupy approximately 3053 ac, usually found '
on wet edges and the bay interior, downslope from exterior sand rims. The site units are dependent
10-10 '

p I I I I I I•I?I?I?1?1?1111111 '? ,r,,
Dv IIIII111111111 `- 0 cA 0
O IIIillllliilll "' m W O a) r- Z
Z m o p 11 1111 I I IIII 11 I I I 111 11 1111 11 . r,t4 - {'' Z n m 0 z _
a v
TN =DV ? II If 1111111) IIII II I) IIII III '" OF W m G) Z D z
rp < I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?Y . `x r z m n-D -n
Z D? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIII I I r?ti'¢ r m? 9 O O Z
Z C> III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"{ <??
OD or. I I I I ?I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?. "?; t, z O m z
0 cvi) m 1 1 1 K Z I I I I I 1 1 ,. .. ap
cn m I I I I> m I I 1 I I 1 -G C/)
I iIzy 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I
I I I I z>
IIImc)Illlll }
1 1 1 1 m- I I I I I _ ?;
I I I D-n IIIIII
1111cc IIIII ?.
v rTl I I I < I I III :•- '?
*O I I I IZmD 1 1 1 1 1 N ??
N-W
Iq 0 x I I I -Ir 1 1 1 1 1
02 0003
I I I I wO I I I I
?-d-v 00c)
rnZZ rn cam= III 1 1 1 1 1 -v cn c') 0 O
mm r. a Iill???llll c7 r --t D-I6
>m I I I i l l l l l l l r' p= mm m
A m O p D_It7Z>m
y??0 ?? I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I ,? W ?_ O(/)°on
:.,
zp rn pOp I I I I I I I I I I I i' 4^i.P?t?' O D c T0. -o Z ZZ Z(A
z v c c Illlllillfl rn D
ao coo t l l l l i l l l l F,?.. .t c m -np -nz
p -r-I I I I I I i l i l i l.:? O
cn C I t IIII I I I I `' "' -- ( - I 0
rn I I i l l l l l l l '''
IIIIIIIIII
Ilillllill
(IIIIIIII;
IIIIIIII r?+ `.: .t.?'.
O 111111 ?"
IIII 11 11 I I ?:;:, a to m
(ill ?4r a
cf)
III ?,r• C -? m
(n > 0
0
D 111'}° m D r ?A
cn m0Z *C I I &rs I.
C -0Z
?D Z o C I ?A"r$a r W n 'U
7 i I7
rt v i I
mnC() rn i "k r- z ?o r-
_>Z- Z m0c I I= xkfa .. {_ (31 f) ° O rAZ?'?1
om 0 5g; :6
WOO O m OH II I?$ ' p m rn ?' Z-i
I; ;s r m c m
AA n c?3 0 r
m m
,:. ,. rn
vm D ??? III "'N? ?z
z ?o::,.,, r O
m I * : D rn 'r1?I
1- AIM s
C/) O
v n Z m Z m
D I I i "., a O n a m v p 0
3: Q-
• ?' m a -c :9 m
IIIII :'!. ;' c/) U) 0 FO -n m w
I I I I I `? t` c/) cn m <
I l l l l l y_ °)
I I I I I ,???
?"?'? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •? ?'
D 11111115
1111111I?, •? ??''•.. •
T IIII III I ??? ? , t?. ? •?,?.: ? •?.•?.;. •.!'.
IIIIIIII 1, ti `• .? ,,, .,• °. , ?.
r IIIIIIII '.0'
-? IIIIIIII 11111i!• _ '
I I I I I I I I I ._??
r0 (ID I I I I III I i IIII IIII _
i l 1 1 1 1 1 1 III IIIIIillllllllil
z CD
0 i l l l l l l l l rT1
V v a Ov t' i I 1 l 11 i' I I I l I I IIIII fill IIII iili IIII ?' t to
73 rn- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111--IIII II v 0
n? ?n I t l l l l i l i Ill fill rIIII m m = y; t m v: ao O
?z O n0 IIII 1 1 1 1 1 II IIII=11 '? -fit -° ?:
m C z X
a = D I i i l i l l l l I I I D -IIII = z 3 n c, n rn 0
z? I I I I IIII I II t11=11 O m_ m m D m_
_m z
?°? I I I I I I I I IIll p IIII= W O z ?• r- O n
m ? 0 I I 1 1 1 11 1 IN[* "III-11 C m O X m C7
m pN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIII?IiII_IIII m m O a -o fA
P
W a CO I l t l I I I I I- L: m C Z 7C O z D
IIII' IIII=ll m Z rn; a m z
iIIiII(IIIII__Till IIII=•
Co Em m I I I I I I I I I "IIII `IIII-' ,`, 0
vD I I III I I I I111_1111=f111 t? ?y ?_
Z
s Y _ ;
a cn IIII= IIII- ,?:• ?. , ?
z I I I I III 1 1 11=_1111= ;4; .t
z Illlllll'I 1111 +
D I I I I I I i l l 11 _ 1111
I II 1 A .
111111111,
N rth -Carolina
GloTal ransPark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DOVER BAY MITIGATION LANDS
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
;0m
z
v
cl)
0
m
m
0
0
cl)
i
m
09
0
FC211
U)
cl)
0
0
z
,•-.
r
m
n
m
c
z
??
V+
FIGURE:
10-12
DATE:
M M M. M- ? M M = M- =- M. M. ' M M M.. III- M
coaFnm d/nnvr*pn1 R QF/P.Iq

0
.Q-
3
w x -0 -0 -0 -0 z
r
m
0
0zIxz(A,T00 -0 r m
M
o

-< -4C 00 D

(40 O.MW D N

0
3
"O
D' m

fD

O
a "n co
N
00 d
C

a
0

n
w
W
0
V..-?tJrNN-? ?D
U? .. W M A tp O? V (n
FIGURE: LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEM CLASSIRCATION H@U% @fMOB /C`ffl n- EGEND
10.13 DOVER BAY SEE THIS PAGE
DATE: CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLNA

1

upon thickness of the organic surface layer and convexity/concavity in the landscape. Fire history
may also affect organic soil features and the extent of these landscape units. Target natural
communities include pond pine woodland, bay forest, and peatland Atlantic white cedar forest.
10.2.3.4 Fluvial Streamhead
The fluvial streamhead site unit occupies approximately 11 ac and includes the origin of a small
stream. Soils consist primarily of organic layers interspersed among minor silt/fine sand deposits,
suggesting inclusions of the Masontown series and/or Muckalee series. This site unit appears to
have historically supported a small stream before degradation from ditching, land clearing, and road
construction. Target communities may include streamhead pocosin or streamhead Atlantic white
cedar forest.
10.2.3.5 Open Water
The LEC site unit, open water, supports an approximately 75 ac lacustrine system, situated along
the southern edge of the restoration area. The site unit is identified as an area of permanently
flooded, free-standing water. Target communities consist of cypress/tupelo fringe forests along
peripheries of the lake and aquatic vegetation communities within the lake interior.
10.3 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
10.3.1 Groundwater Restoration
Site alterations to restore groundwater flow dynamics and wetland hydrology include: 1) backfilling
of ditches and canals; 2) placement of impermeable plugs at systematic intervals along drainage
structures; and 3) soil modifications to enhance filtration and retention functions in the complex
(Figure 10-14).
Ditches identified in Figure 10-14 will be backfilled with on-site materials. Along roadway canals,
the existing road fill will be reinserted and compacted into the drainage channel. In the farm land
area, on-site fill and borrow from adjacent uplands will be utilized. The backfilled canals, road
corridor, and ditches will be contoured to elevations approximating the adjacent wetland surface.
Due to the lack of on-site backfill material in some areas, select ditch segments may remain as
standing water fragments isolated by impermeable plugs.
Impermeable plugs will be placed along canals/ditches in the mitigation area (Figure 10-14). The
plugs will provide an additional barrier to preferential flow of groundwater in the backfilled
channels. Failure to minimize preferential migration may allow the former ditches to "short circuit"
groundwater flow at the site, subsequently jeopardizing restoration efforts. The plugs may either
consist of clay-rich select backfill, crushed stone, or sheet piles driven into the ground. Should clay-
rich backfill be used, the material will be placed in 6 inch lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the
maximum dry density calculated using the standard proctor test (ASTM-D-698). The clay dikes or
equivalent durable structure will be sized, located, and constructed to effectively prevent lateral
drainage within the ditch and canal network. In general, the plugs will extend, at a minimum, to 2
ft below the existing bottom of the ditch and 5 ft beyond the ditch wall (width). The final plug at
10-11

ER95007.4/D0VER/8.14.96/PJS/JMM
0
r
8
O
= !, =I = m m
FIGURE: WETLAND HYDROLOWAL RESTORATION PLAN UIJOO tIlSUU `' a1g@800 )
10-14 DOVER BAY @0@) ;JfQ Ul?f DWpf G'a
CRAVEN CaINW, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the western canal terminus should consist of a larger sheet pile coffer dam or hardened structure
installed along the property boundary. The structure should be installed along the outer edge of
backfill to stabilize the material and prevent plug/backfiil degradation.
Modifications to surface soils are proposed in agricultural fields to increase surface storage, reduce
runoff, and increase infiltration. The fields will be plowed in a cross-hatch pattern of hummocks and
swales to maximize surface roughness and provide enhanced microtopography. The maximum
' difference in elevation from the crest of a hummock to the base of a trough should not be greater
than 12 inches. The fields should be planted with designated species immediately after scarification
is completed.
Roads on-site should also be effectively removed during the backfill process. Exposed surfaces
should be scarified and mulched, with organic spoil material incorporated into the soil prior to
' planting. The goal of roadway modification is to effectively eliminate vehicular access corridors
from the wetland landscape and increase hydraulic connectivity within the site.
10.3.2 Stream Restoration
Flow within the channelized stream segment in eastern portions of the bay will be elevated to
approximate historic condition through the establishment of grade stabilization structures or weirs
in the channel (Figure 10-14). The structures will be designed to promote reduced discharge rates
and passive deposition of stream sediments; thereby restoring stream bed elevations over time.
(elevated by 3-4 ft). Figure 10-14 depicts conceptual locations for weir structures. After the road
bed and culvert are removed from the stream crossing, the former road crossing may represent a
suitable location for weir construction in the channel. Another weir structure is anticipated within
the elevated sand rim crossing along the eastern mitigation area boundary.
10.3.3 Soils
Land use practices have impacted soil characteristics within the potential mitigation site. Impacts
include the minimization of hydric conditions in upper soil horizons, reduction of organic matter
content through accelerated decomposition, placement of spoil ridges along the site, and degradation
i or elimination of surface microtopography. Filling of canals and ditches as proposed during
hydrological restoration should serve to reintroduce hydric soil conditions and halt long-term
reductions in organic matter content. Further soil remediation tasks include removal of roads, re-
establishment of surface microtopography, and reconstruction of the sand rim breech associated with
the streamhead area.
During hydrological restoration efforts, ditches will be plugged using clay-rich fill and plugs with
material obtained, wherever feasible, from existing roadways and spoil areas within the site. Any
spoil remaining after hydrologic restoration will be removed from the site. Filled.areas will be
graded to restore historic elevations between abutting wetland habitats.
Reference modeling within relatively undisturbed areas of the site indicates the presence of complex
microtopographic relief across wetland surfaces. Small concavities, swales, and hummocks
10-12

associated with vegetation growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the system.
Large woody debris and partially decomposed litter provide additional complexity across the
wetland soil surface. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface roughness will
be implemented. Limited scarification will be implemented during planting activities to promote
hummock and swale formations. Surface scarification between planted trees will further promote
microtopographic complexity in the restoration area.
10 3 4 Natural Community Restoration
Restoration of wetland forested communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland-dependant species across the landscape.
Ecotonal gradation exhibited by LEC modeling contributes to area diversity and provides secondary
benefits, such as enhanced feeding and breeding opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and
other wildlife. Community restoration in Dover Bay consists of a long-term, prescribed fire regime
and planting of characteristic forest elements.
10.3.4.1 Prescribed Fire
Planned vegetation associations at the site are typically fire-maintained. A prescribed fire plan is
essential for implementation and retention of characteristic vegetation patterns across the landscape.
An initial prescribed fire will be necessary to reduce fuel loads and non-essential vegetative
competition prior to the initiation of planting efforts. Due to high fuel loads in portions of Dover
Bay, initial prescribed fires should be conducted during winter months. Lower ambient air
temperatures, combined with higher moisture levels, should keep the fire within manageable levels.
Midstory fuel loads and shrubby vegetation competition will be targeted with this prescribed fire.
A successive summer fire will be implemented to reduce ground level fuel loads and ground cover
vegetative competition. The combination of these prescribed fires will facilitate access for planting
of the potential mitigation site. A continued prescribed fire plan at approximately 3-7 year intervals
will maintain fuel loads, promote community development, and reduce the potential for catastrophic
fire events.
10.3.4.2 Planting Plan
LEC modeling was utilized to develop primary plant community associations that will be promoted
during community restoration activities. Associations will be distributed across the landscape within
the appropriate LEC site units. Target vegetation associations include: 1) xeric sandhill scrub; 2)
wet pine savanna; 3) wet pine flatwood; 4) pond pine woodland; 5) bay forest; 6) peatland Atlantic
white cedar forest; 7) streamhead Atlantic white cedar forest; and 8) lake-fringe, cypress-tupelo
forest. Associations will be planted in the designated area depicted in Figure 10-15. Planting
elements by target community are outlined below.
10-13

-=-AM =, M =. M M M_ M- rte: =,- M, M M M M. M M M
rnncnn f /nMTD /4 1 A OR /O IC / 11/1A

O
O
8li
O
V

?° +
+ +
0 rrn Q 0 + +
F N r-nn p000 + + + +
rn r,
rrl
m + + + +
00000 .:. ' °.. + + + + +
+ + + + + +
0 0 p000pp0
0,0 ° . ?? • + + +
0 OOQ0 0000 O + +
01000,00
+ +
Ll-L + + + + + + + +
+ t + + + + +
-N' - t + + + + +??+
I
+ t +
+ +
+ t + + +?
+

+I+ t +
+ +
+ I + 1/
+1 ---_- ,
.L y, T }
+ + a/-y{
0}

1 _ St } C
ssssssssss? ? ?
z z z z z z z z z z z m ?;
4 1-4 -4 -4 -4 ??? j :I z -D
z z z z z z z z z z z z
00 W v 0 N A w N?1 v
D
0
W
p 0
M can o
a D D
v - -1 co
(D
O
o c
v 3
0) v a) -+ -• (Jl tW 0) -P (A LFJ ;h. A Q
0 0 4 0 0 NP0 -lb- M tD
u
FIGURE: PLANTM PLAN @Cjc9) p00Df LEGEND
10-15 DOVER BAY C?aDOO L?J?? ll UG1C11 c?lf'?CW SEE THIS PAGE
DATE: CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Pine Savannah (Planting Area #91
1. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
2. Pond pine (Pinus palustris)
3. Blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica)
4. Southern red oak (Quercus falcata)
5. Bluejack oak (Quercus incana)
Xeric Sandhill Scrub (Planting Area #8)
1. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
2. Blue jack oak (Quercus incana)
3. Dwarf post oak (Quercus margaretta)
Wet Pine Flatwood (Planting Area #6)
1. Pond pine (Pinus serotina)
2. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
3. Swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora)
4. Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
5. Red bay (Persea palustris)
6. Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
7. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)

Pond Pine Woodland (Planting Area #4, #5, #1)
1. Pond pine (Pinus serotina)
2. Loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus)
3. Red bay (Persea palustris)
4. Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
5. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
6. Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)
7. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
8. Virginia willow (Itea virginica)
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest (Planting Area #2)
1. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
2. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
3. Swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora)
4. Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)
Bay Forest (Planting Area #3)
1. Red bay (Persea palustris)
2. Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
3. Loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus)
10-14
F?

Streamhead Atlantic White Cedar Forest Intergrades lanting Area #7)
1. Swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora)
2. Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulip fera)
3. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
4. Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)
5. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
Lake-Fringe Cypress-Tupelo Forest (Planting Area #10)
1. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
2. Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)
In reforestation areas, 435 stems per ac of designated species will be planted on 10 ft by 10 ft
centers. In wetland supplemental planting areas, approximately 109 stems per ac will be planted on
average 20 ft centers and will vary dependent upon specific needs across the landscape. Upland
plantings will utilize a 15 ft by 15 ft spacing (194 stems/ac). Species will be alternated within
adjacent centers at the relative densities determined by detailed planning. Table 10-2 depicts the
total number of stems to be planted within each planting area. In summary, approximately 664,000
trees will be planted within the 3361 ac complex.
Planting of bare-root seedlings will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants
to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Removal or control of
competing nuisance vegetation will be implemented as necessary to ensure adequate survival of
target wetland and upland plants.
The planting plan consists of implementation of site modifications (ditch filling, surface roughing,
crown removal, weir construction, etc.), acquisition of available wetland species, planting of selected
elements, and periodic inspection of community development. The species selected for planting will
be dependent upon the local availability of seedlings at the time of planting. Advance notification
to nurseries (1 year) will facilitate availability of many non-commercial elements.
10.4 DOVER BAY RESTORATION SUMMARY
Approximately 3361 ac of natural area will be contained in perpetuity within Dover Bay. Of this
total, approximately 169 ac constitute uplands and 3192 ac support current or historic wetlands.
Based on this proposal, ditch filling activities will restore jurisdictional wetland hydrology to
approximately 759 ac with enhancement of groundwater hydraulics extending over a large majority
of the area. Approximately 11 ac of riverine wetland restoration may also be achieved through
stream restoration and ditch plugs along the eastern site periphery. In total, approximately 664,000
tree stems are proposed for planting within the restored bay farm, road corridors, clear-cut tracts, and
catastrophic fire areas.
Based on the plan, approximately 770 ac of jurisdictional wetland restoration, 2294 ac of wetland
hydrologic and community enhancement, and 128 ac of wetland preservation are contained in the
mitigation area. The 128-ac wetland preservation area consists of a pristine pond pine-bay forest
10-15
fl

i

J

TABLE 10-2A
Dover Bay Wetland Planting Regime
Vegetation
Association
(Planting area) Pond Pine
Woodland
(Area 1) Peatland
Atl. White
Cedar
Forest=
(Area 2) Bay Forest
(Area 3) Pond Pine
Woodland
(Area 4,5) Wet Pine
Flatwood
(Area 6) Stream
Ad. White
Cedar
Forest
(Area 7) Lake-
Fringe
Cypress-
Tupelo
(Area 10) TOTAL
STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target; Area
(acres) 435/ac
654 ac 435/ac
335 ac 435/ac
144 ac 109/ac
1162 ac 109/ac
58 ac 109/ac
17 ac 40/ac
75 ac
2445 ac
SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
Pond pine' 71123 (25) 31665 (25) 1581 (25) 104369 (17)
Loblolly bay 56898 (20) 7286(5) 50112 (80) 25332 (20) 139628 (22)
Red bay 28449 (10) 6264 (10) 12666 (10) 316(5) 47695(8)
Sweetbay 28449 (10) 6264 (10) 12666 (10) 316(5) 47695(8)
Atlantic white cedar2 28449 (10) 102008 (70) 12666 (10) 556(30) 143679 (23)
Pond cypress 14225(5) 7286(5) 6333(5) 185(10) 1200 (40) 29229(5)
Bald cypress 14225(5) 14573 (10) 12666 (10) 371(20) 900(30) 42735 (7)
Water tupelo 14225(5) 185(10) 900(30) 15310 (2)
Virginia willow 28449 (10) 12666 (10) 41115(7)
Swamp blackgum 14573 (10) 632(10) 371(20) 15576(2
Yellow poplar 185(10) 185(--)
Loblolly pine 1581 (25) 1581(--)
Swamp chestnut oak 948(15) 948(--)
Willow oak 948(15) 948(--)
TOTAL 284492 145726 62640 126660 6322 1853 3000 630693(101)
1: Some non-commercial elements may not be locally available at the time of planting. The stem count for unavailable species should be
distributed among other target elements based on the percent (%) distribution. One year of advance notice to forest nurseries will promote
availability of some non-commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2: The availability of Atlantic white cedar stems depends upon demand from other programs such as the Dismal Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge. If target stem counts are not available, the acreage planned for Peatland Atlantic white cedar forest (Planting Area # 3; 335 ac)
' may be reduced accordingly.

u
TABLE 10-2B
Dover Bay Upland Planting Regime
Vegetation Association
(Planting area) Xeric sandhill
scrub
(Area 8) Pine
savanna
(Area 9) TOTAL
STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target
Area (acres) 194/ac
110 ac 194/ac
61 ac
171 ac
SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
Longleaf pine 14938 (70) 7100 (60) 22038 (66)
Pond pine 1775 (15) 1775(5)
Bluejack oak 2134 (10) 2134(6)
Dwarf post oak 2134 (10) 2134(6)
Laurel oak 1067(5) 592(5) 1659(5)
Blackjack oak 1067(5) 1183 (10) 2250(7)
Southern red oak 1183 (10) E. (4)
TOTAL 21340 t 1833 33173 (99)

1

d
1
L

d
iJ
1

ii

1]
remnant in the southwestern periphery of the site. The preservation area is included as part of a
comparative reference standard for restoration planning and functional assessment purposes (detailed
in Section 12.0).
10-16

11.0 MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
Monitoring of wetland restoration, enhancement, and protection efforts within NCGTP mitigation
lands and Dover Bay will be performed for a 5 year minimum after implementation or until success
criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for hydrology and vegetation components within both
wetland mitigation sites. Soils within both mitigation areas are classified as hydric; vegetation and
hydrology parameters on hydric soils will be verified. Therefore, no post-implementation soil
monitoring is proposed. Water quality monitoring and stream channel monitoring are also proposed
for hydrological enhancement components of this plan.
11.1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
While hydrological modifications are being performed within NCGTP mitigation lands and Dover
Bay, surficial monitoring wells and nested deep piezometers will be designed and located in
accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers' (USACE), Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). The surficial
monitoring wells will consists of 2-inch diameter PVC pipe with 10-slot well screen inserted to no
greater than 24 inches in depth. The nested, deep piezometers will extend from approximately 60
inches in depth (Dover Bay) to 72 inches in depth (NCGTP site), based on geomorphology.
11.1.1 NCGTP Site
Approximately 58 surficial monitoring wells and 24 deep piezometers will be placed within NCGTP
wetland mitigation areas (Figure 11-1). Monitoring wells will be imbedded within vegetation
sampling plots to correlate data at each sample location. In addition, two submerged flow loggers
(stream gauges) and two ambient water quality monitoring stations will be established within the
riverine mitigation area. Rain gauges will be placed and sampled in proximity to stream flow
loggers.
11.1.1.1 Stonyton Creek.
The Stonyton Creek floodplain will be monitored through establishment of seven transects extending
from the outer edge of the floodplain to the stream channel (Figure i 1-1). In each transect, three
shallow monitoring wells and one nested deep piezometer will be placed in representative landscape
positions. Within each transect, a stream cross-section will be measured annually to evaluate
changes in channel morphology. Measurements will include stream depth, width, bank slope, and
levee elevation.
Within the Stonyton Creek channel, stream gauges and water quality monitoring stations will be
established in the vicinity of SR 1581 (upstream project terminus) and SR 1004 (downstream project
terminus). Ambient water quality monitoring samples will be collected and analyzed periodically
as described in Section 7.2, to identify trends in water quality related to mitigation and development
effects on the system. Reports will be submitted annually for review.
11-1

?J

1

'0 c

+ + ? +
+ 4 a + + +
T + + , T
?i,?,i + + + f ?
n
?
p
. p
?
{
ypL

•'`!F!!!'`?l:gf.";itl « ++ ? +*+ f`:ii`? 70Lt YS IoC[ YS
+ + + a + '. , •Qy 1.71MDIM/Q Hd'Nll
« , ? r ? « .:..., W
f , + + ?
j VM N7fi0110aiKJt
.,..
t+1

• N
* 2

+ V

,

lob

W ! + a +
+
11 111 {f ? (iii.
.,r 114 n V N '^^1` ?.`?
•
11 V
?•
i'
I
i is `j?ji
;i.
'1
11
P

?

D

4C
mo
Om
?111PIIO?E

o O M M (D (D
o o < 0 ?n
°
? Q o Q n.cam m u
CD Q?333 rr
6 co -1 o 3 m ti9
at 0 a- 0 a- -n -n -n
m
,?Z-
CF
o °
"a 0 -
rt 0
0
s? v

cm
-1
3 1
i
.
Lo v
i N
co 0
3 N 3

grz-aMo-n mnc -n -n

D

A C
C) I ?
CA
> n o
?
3
2
.
?g °m o
° °0 o n
o, rr A o
op c,.o ,
o 3
3 c to to
° N N

? o
3
0. ono

M
D
-o

n $
N o

D ??
r- $
m
o
0 ?
0
0

11.1.1.2 Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors will be sampled through establishment of six transects across riverine wetland
segments (Figure 11-1). The transects will include two to three shallow piezometers and one deep
piezometer. Similar to Stonyton Creek, channel cross-sections at each transect crossing will be
measured on an annual basis to track channel variations.
11.1.1.3 Interstream Mitigation Areas
Seven transects will be established within interstream mitigation areas. Each transect will contain
three to four shallow monitoring wells, with one to two nested deep piezometers. Monitoring
locations will be approximately 500 ft to 750 ft apart. However, locations may be adjusted within
' each transect to ensure appropriate coverage of all ecosystem types intercepted. Ecosystem types
represent map areas which support similar soils, landform, and target community structure.
Hydrological sampling in wells and piezometers will be performed throughout the growing season
' at intervals necessary to evaluate the hydrology success criteria within each map unit (Figure 11-1).
11.1.2 Dover Bay Mitigation Area
Monitoring devices to be used will include approximately 39 shallow monitoring wells and
approximately 19 deep piezometers. The devices will be contained within five transects oriented
perpendicular to the east-west road through the Dover Bay mitigation area and two transects oriented
perpendicular to the main north-south road (Figure 11-2). Additional recording wells will be
established systematically within the agricultural field located in the southeastern portion of the
mitigation area. One transect will be positioned to include an area which may have historically
supported a fluvial streamhead forest.
A stream gauge and rain gauge will be placed in the relic stream origin near out-fall along the eastern
mitigation area boundary. Flow data will be downloaded periodically and flood hydrographs
generated. Two channel cross-sections will be measured annually in the vicinity of grade
stabilization/weir structures. The cross-sections will be evaluated for changes in the stream channel
over the 5-year period of this monitoring plan.
Monitoring wells will be imbedded within vegetation sampling plots to provide representative
coverage within each of the proposed community restoration map units (see Section 10.0).
Hydrological sampling will be performed concurrently with monitoring at the NCGTP site at
intervals necessary to evaluate the hydrology success criteria.
11.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
' Hydrological success criteria include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5% of the growing
season in the NCGTP mitigation lands and Dover Bay during average climatic conditions. In
NCGTP interstream mitigation areas (mineral soil flats), hydrological criteria may include minor
areas supporting saturation/inundation for between 5% and 12.5% of the growing season. These 5%
to 12.5% inclusions must be connected to acreages supporting wetland hydrology above 12.5% of
the growing season based on well data. Areas supporting wetland hydrology for 5%-12% of the
growing season during the sample period are also required to support hydrophytic vegetation and

11-2

ER95007.4/DOVER/8.14.96/PJS/JMM
0
r
O
SN
O

L/) U)
D D
-0 ?
r
rn m
--i r
70
Z O
c/ -I
rn p
Z
D
C
G7
FIGURE: MONITORING PLAN Ha PROD QDnfloo )
11-2 DOVER BAY @Q@ of Q (` J ? ; DD@T9)l?a
. DATE: CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

hYdric soils. If wetland parameters are marginal after at least two years of monitoring, as indicated
by vegetation and hydrology components, consultation with USACE personnel will be undertaken
to determine jurisdictional extent in these transitional areas.
Flood event frequency and elevation of each flood event, as recorded by stream and rain gauge data,
' will be utilized to substantiate overbank flow dynamics in Stonyton Creek and to evaluate changes
in stream discharge within Dover Bay. The gauge data will be coupled with measured stream cross-
sections to evaluate changes in stream channel elevations resulting from mitigation. At NCGTP,
success criteria for stream bed load stability includes target elevations determined during engineering
design for grade stabilization and stream reconstruction segments (estimated at approximately 1 ft
' to 4 ft below full bank elevation based on reference). At Dover Bay, gauge and cross-sectional data
are expected to indicate that total stream discharge is decreasing and bed elevations are stable or
rising. The target frequency of overbank flow and channel enhancement calculations will be based
' on construction plans and will require average climatic conditions including an average distribution
of peak storm events.
' 11.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with USEPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (USEPA 1990) and USACE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided.
11.3 .1 NCGTP Mitigation Lands
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed
to verify planting success and to determine initial species composition and density. Stems within
sample plots described below will be tagged immediately after planting to monitor mortality and
browsing impacts. Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented,
if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual inspection on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between October 1 and October 31 after each
growing season until the vegetation success criteria described below are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, vegetation plots will be
correlated with hydrologic sampling sites to provide area-related data on hydrological and vegetative
' parameters. Approximately 58, 0.10-ac plots will be established within the approximately 1169 ac
wetland area (Figure 11-1). The plot distribution will provide a 0.5% sample. In each plot sample,
' vegetation parameters to be monitored include average tree height, species composition, density,
basal area, and planted stem mortality. Shrub composition/density and herbaceous species
presence/absence will also be recorded.
'' 11-3

11.3 .2 Dover Bgy Mitigation Area '
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed
concurrently with monitoring at NCGTP. Sample plots will be marked and planted seedlings tagged
for mortality assessments. After the first year, approximately 39, 0.10 ac vegetation sampling plots
will be established within the approximately 3191 ac wetland site (Figure 11-2), to provide an
approximately 0.12% sample of the wetland area. Sampling plots will be correlated with hydrologic
monitoring sites and sampled as described above.
11.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA '
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component supports
community elements necessary for a jurisdictional wetland determination. Target vegetation
characteristics are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. '
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species stems/ac must be surviving
for the at least 5 years after initial planting. Characteristic tree species are those elements
enumerated in the planting plan, along with natural recruitment of species such as sweetgum, red ,
maple, and loblolly pine.
At NCGTP, loblolly pine (softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10% of the 320 stem/ac
requirement. At least five other character tree species must be present, and no species can comprise
more than 20% of the 320 stem/ac total.
At Dover Bay, At least three target tree species must be present in the 320 stem/ac total with each
species comprising more than 10% of the composite sample. Target species include pine, loblolly
bay, red bay, Atlantic white cedar, cypress, and sweet bay. Supplemental plantings will be
performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part of the ¦
vegetation success criteria. Development of a forested wetland canopy over several decades and
restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of desired ,
wetland understory and groundcover populations. Ocular estimates of the percent cover of shrub and
herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
11.5 REPORT SUBMITTAL
An "as built" plan drawing of the area, including initial species compositions by community, and ,
sample plot locations, will be provided after completion of planting. A discussion of the planting
design, including species planted, species densities, and numbers planted will also be included. The
report will be provided within 90 days of completion of planting. '
Subsequently, annual reports will be submitted to appropriate permitting agencies following each
assessment. Submitted reports will document the sample locations, along with photographs which I
illustrate site conditions.
0
11-4
u

Surficial well data will be presented in tabular/graphic format. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will be calculated within each sample location.
Stream gauge data, hydrographs, and measured cross-sections will be presented. The frequency,
duration, stream bed trends, and depth of overbank flow will be calculated and described. Water
quality monitoring will be presented in tabular format. Trends in water quality will be described and
contingencies for amelioration suggested, as needed.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, character tree mean
density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will be calculated.
Estimates and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of understory and groundcover
species will be generated.
' 11.6 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, NCGTPA will coordinate
with natural resource agencies and implement necessary mechanisms for contingency. For
t vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring periods will be implemented if
community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and distribution requirements.
' Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies in the
event that wetland hydrology criteria are not achieved during the monitoring period.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
' monitored until the Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.

1
11-5

12.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
12.1 INTRODUCTION
A Reference Standard Functional Assessment (RSFA) has been developed for this project. The
model is based on reference standard (relatively undisturbed) wetlands in the project region as an
indicator of functional capacity and performance. This methodology is patterned after the
hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach to wetland functional assessment being developed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The model represents a comparative method for quantifying impacts to
our wetland base (functional loss) and the mitigation needed to off-set these impacts (functional
gain). "No net loss of wetland functions" represents the primary objective of this effort.
The functional assessment approach assumes that the hydrology and geomorphic setting of a wetland
drive wetland functions and dictate the types of functions a wetland can perform. Wetlands to be
evaluated are classified by geomorphic setting, dominant water source, and the primary direction of
water movement. This grouping allows for the development of a functional profile for each wetland
class. To apply the approach to a set of wetlands with similar characteristics for a given geographic
area, reference wetlands with similar characteristics are located in the same physiographic region or
subregion.
The reference wetlands define the target for functional performance of their representative wetland
class and represent the variability in functional performance for that class in a region. The reference
wetlands are required to be relatively undisturbed and typical of the regional land use patterns.
The ability of a wetland to perform a particular wetland function is evaluated by using indicators
(V,). Indicators are easily observed or measured attributes of a wetland that are evidence of a
particular function's occurrence. Indicators include hydrology, geomorphology, soil, and vegetation
variables. For instance, high water marks, mud stains, or debris lines are all indicators of the depth
of inundation (Vi.., ) in a wetland. Indicators observed in the field are supplemented with published
information such as NRCS soil surveys, Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) studies,
and National Forest Service (NFS) data. The information gathered from observing indicators and
published data is used to calculate indices of functional performance.
The indices of functional performance are scaled so that the maximum sustainable performance
(reference standard) for the function is a value of one. Subsequently, the functional performance
indices for assessment wetlands are measured and scaled between a value of 0.0 to 1.0 based on
specific conditions relative to the reference standard. The functional performance score for an
assessment site is termed the Functional Capacity Index (FCI). For general descriptive purposes,
an FCI score of 0.75 may be interpreted to indicate that the site is performing at 75% of functional
capacity for the modeled function. The FCI is subsequently multiplied by the acreage of the
assessment area to determine Functional Capacity Units (FCUs) exhibited by the site. The difference
between pre-project FCUs and post Project FCUs provides an indication of net functional loss or
gain result from a particular activity.
12-1

J
J

1
L

1

I

H

This RSFA is subdivided into four primary stages, classification of project wetlands, establishment
of a reference data set and reference standards by wetland class, wetland impact assessments, and
wetland mitigation assessments. Additional information on this quantitative analysis can be obtained
from the stand alone technical memorandum appended to this mitigation plan.
12.2 CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECT WETLANDS
For this study, three wetland classes have been targeted for assessment: riverine, low order
blackwater streams; mineral soil flats; and organic soil depressions (Carolina Bays) (Brinson 1993,
Brinson et al. 1995). Each class has been further subdivided into model wetland subclasses based
on vegetative structure and/or composition (Table 12-1).
Table 12-1
Model Wetland Classes and Subclasses
I Class: Riverine, Low Order Class: Mineral Soil Flats Class: Organic Soil Depressions
Blackwater Streams (Carolina Bays)
Subclass: Hardwood Dominated Subclass: Hardwood Dominated Subclass: Pine Dominated Forest
Forest Forest (OSD Pine Forest)
(MSF Hardwood Forest)
MENEENEM Subclass: Pine Dominated Forest
(MSF Pine Forest) WEENAVEM
Mineral soil flat subclasses (MSF pine forest, MSF hardwood forest) occur along the center of broad
interstream divides in the project region. These areas typically exhibit between 0% and 1% slopes
throughout the flat. These interstream wetlands typically occupy landscape positions of upper-most
elevation in the watershed. Wetland hydrology is driven primarily by precipitation and vertical to
semi-radial fluctuations in the groundwater table. Restricted lateral drainage and lack of pronounced
slope promotes periodic soil surface saturation, isolated ponding, and development of mineral hydric
soils such as the Rains, Pantego, Torhunta, and Murville series. Wetland vegetation typically
dominates and includes characteristic communities such as nonriverine wet hardwood forest,
nonriverine swamp forest, wet pine flatwood, and pond pine woodland. The mineral soil flat
wetland class is subdivided into two subclasses for this assessment based on characteristic natural
communities: hardwood dominated forests and pine dominated forests. Scaling of performance
indices utilized to predict functional capacity varied between the pine and hardwood dominated
subclasses.
The organic soil depression subclass (OSD Pine Forest) also occurs along broad interstream divides
in the region. Hydrological inputs and landscape position are similar in character to MSF subclasses.
However, Carolina Bays represent oval depressions along the interstream divide which typically
exhibit greater periods of soil saturation/inundation and organic matter accumulation at the soil
surface. OSD Pine Forests typically exhibit 0% to 1% slopes with wetland hydrology driven
primarily by precipitation. Predominantly vertical fluctuations in groundwater are anticipated with
12-2

I
¦
radial to semi-radial groundwater flow evident along the outer bay periphery. Radial groundwater
flow or lateral discharge is promoted in these interstream depressions when ditching and drainage
breeches have occurred in characteristic outer sand rims. Reduced rates of decomposition in soil '
anaerobic environments promote development of organic hydric soils such as the Croatan and Dare
series. Mineral hydric soils occur along the periphery of these bays and include soils characteristic
to the MSF subclasses described above. Characteristic wetland communities in this model include
'
pond pine woodland, wet pine flatwood, and Atlantic white cedar forest. This Carolina Bay model
includes community types which succeed to steady state forest structure under conditions of natural
or prescribed fire. Steady state forest structure is evident within all reference sites for OSD Pine '
Forest. Low pocosin and high pocosin, which lack forest structure, are not represented as a reference
standard for comparison in this model. '
The riverine, low order blackwater stream subclass includes forested, upper reaches of streams in
the project region. These wetlands typically occupy the lowest landscape position in the watershed. '
The subclass contains relatively slow flowing blackwater streams and broad floodplains which
receive surface and groundwater drainage from a watershed generally ranging from 2,000 to 10,000
acres in land area. Wetland hydrology is driven primarily by stream overbank flooding with riparian
¦
discharge of stream and groundwater into the floodplain also representing a significant source for
hydrology. Periodic overbank flow and riparian groundwater discharge promote soil saturation and
inundation for prolonged periods during the growing season. Soil types formed in these wetlands '
typically include the Bibb, Johnston, Masontown, and Muckalee series. Characteristic communities
include small stream swamp forests and backswamp, cypress-gum inclusions.
'
In the second phase of this assessment, the four project wetland subclasses were modeled through
identification; sampling, and evaluation of reference wetlands in the project region. '
12.3 REFERENCE STANDARDS
After project wetlands were classified, a reference wetland data set was developed to generate a '
functional profile for each subclass. The reference domain for this project was defined to encompass
the Inner and Outer Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina (Figure 12-1).
Reference wetlands were selected through systematic regional searches using aerial photography, ¦
NRCS soil surveys, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, USGS topographic mapping, and
local sources. Agencies including the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, the NFS, and the N.C.
Forestry Commission were contacted for additional information. Identified sites were ground
truthed to determine the state of alteration and disturbance. Heavily disturbed or altered sites were
rejected and sites which exhibited relatively steady-state conditions were targeted for sampling. '
Fifty eight plots were established in the reference standard small stream and interstream divide
wetland types described above. The plots were sampled during the summer, fall, winter, and spring
of 1995-96. Component variables measured included live vegetation structure and composition,
detrital biomass estimates, soil characteristics, iandform, wildlife observations, and hydrologic
features. ¦
12-3 ¦

I I

J

f'

Wetland functions utilized in this model were established primarily from research studies and
published data for several regional wetland classes, including riverine wetlands (National
Guidebook, Brinson et al. 1995), depressional wetlands (Workshop 1995, unpublished), and mineral
soil flat wetlands (Rhinehart et al. 1996, unpublished). These studies also provided the foundation
for development of indicator variables (VJ used to predict functional performance. Additional
variables were applied in instances where features presented evidence concerning the functional
performance of certain wetland functions.
12.3.1 Riverine Model
The riverine model utilizes fourteen wetland functions outlined in Brinson et al. (1995). Reference
standards for low order blackwater streams were established through plot sampling and evaluation
within Crooked Run of southwestern Jones County, Bear Prong in the Hoffinan State Forest of
Onslow County, several sites in vicinity of NCGTP, and several tributaries within the Croatan
National Forest of Craven County. Wetland functions and performance variables modeled within
these riverine systems are depicted in Table 12-2. The riverine, reference standard model and
variable scales are contained in Appendix I.
As an example, the function "Dynamic Surface Water Storage" is evaluated by assessing eight field
variables (Table 12-2; (Vf,,q + Vd dge + Vfeed + (Vinund + Vmicro + V.,hrub + Vbtree + VcWd)/5)/4). The field
variables represent indications of channel water input onto the floodplain, surface flow pathways in
the floodplain, and the relative volume of water for storage Within the project reference data set,
the frequency of overbank flow (Vf,,,), extent of dredging activities in the mainstem channel (Vd,,,dgj,
and extent of ditching in feeder stream channels (Vfeed) appears to affect surface water inputs onto
the wetland floodplain surface. In addition, microtopography (Vmicro) and vegetation (Vftub, Vbtrev
VcWd) influences dynamic surface flow pathways. The average depth of inundation (V inund) provides
a measure of the volume of water received by the wetland for storage. Each variable is scored from
0 to 1.0 based on specific conditions relative to the reference standard (Appendix I). The variables
are inserted into the formula to calculate a score between 0 and 1.0. In the evaluation site, if past
dredging and a lack of forest structure are evident as specified in the detailed assessment methods,
the site may receive an FCI score of 0.75. For descriptive purposes, the score may be interpreted to
indicate that the site is performing at 75% of functional capacity for dynamic surface water storage
relative to the reference standard. The FCI (0.75) is subsequently multiplied by the acreage of the
assessment area to determine Functional FCUs exhibited by the site (0.75 x 100 ac = 75 FCUs).
12.3.2 Interstream Divide Model
Separate reference standards and functional models were developed for MSF hardwood forest, MSF
Pine Forest, and OSD Pine Forest classes and subclasses. However, the primary functions selected
for modeling and a majority of the variables selected as indicators of function were synonymous
within the interstream divide wetland group. Therefore, the three models were combined into one
functional model, titled "interstream divide wetlands", for this project. Functional differences exist
between OSD Pine forests and MSF forests. Nutrient cycling and biomass storage functions differ
significantly based on the extent of organic material (peat) storage in OSD Pine forests. In addition,
groundwater movement and ditching patterns required for groundwater discharge differ in
12-4

n
TABLE 12-2
Wetland Functions and Assessment Variables
Riverine Wetland Subclass
Riverine. Low Order Blackwater Stream (Third order or less), Hardwood Forest'
Functions Variables
1.0 Dynamic Surface Water Storage Vfr«, - Frequency of overbank flow
Vd,Wge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Index: (V f,, + Vdredge + Vfeed + (Vinund + V.i. + VA.b Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
+ Vbtree + V.,d)/5)/4 Vinund - Average depth of inundation
Vmi. - Microtopographic complexity
Vshtub - Density of the shrub layer
Vbtr« - Tree basal area
VC, d - Coarse woody debris
2.0 Long Term Surface Water Storage Vi.nd - Average depth of inundation
Vhw. r - Cover of long term standing water (> 1 week)
Index: (• inund + V,. + (Vdredge + Vieree + Vfeed)/3 + Vdmdge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
( `' orgdep + Vmicro + VmaJ/3)/4 Vle,,ee - Presence and structure of stream levies
Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Va,gden -Presence of organic matter accumulation in
backswamp areas and depressions
Vmiero - Microtopographic complexity
Vm,,,, - Macrotopgraphic relief
3.0 Energy Dissipation Vfreq - Frequency of overbank flow
Vdredge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Index: ((Vfreq + Vdredge + Vfeed)13 + (Vbank + V.. + Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Vmi.)/3 + (Vd.. + Vb. + V?d)/3)/3 Vbank - Presence of shrub and submerged vegetation along
stream banks
V.. - Macrotopographic relief
Vmiero - Microtopographic complexity
Vdt ee - Tree density
Vb,1ee - Tree basal area
V,,d - Coarse woody debris
4.0 Subsurface Storage of Water Vdredge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Index: (Vdredge + Vfeed + Vredux + Vp,re + Ve)/5 Vred.x - Soil redoxymorphic features
Vpore - Soil porosity
vet - Evapotranspiration (E/T) rates
5.0 Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Vdmdge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Discharge Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Vanbin - Subsurface flow from uplands into wetland
Index: (Vdredge + Vfeed + V-bin)/3
6.0 Recycle Nutrients and Nonessential Vbtree - Tree basal area
Elements Vstmta - Number and attributes of vertical strata
Mitt,, - Thickness of the litter layer
Index: (Vbt,. + Vatrata + Vetter + Vanag + (VC171,d + Vsnag - Frequency of standing dead trees
V1o,,)/2)/5 Vmd - Coarse woody debris
Viegs - Stages of decompostion of coarse woody debris

n

n
1
0

0
L

0

0
Wetland functions, variables, reference standards, and terminology adapted from project data, Brinson et al. (1995),
and, "Guidebook for functional assessment of riverine wetlands: Inner Coastal Plain of Chesapeake Bay (1 st and I
3rd order streams of Maryland)" (Workshop 1995, unpublished).

r

r
TABLE 12-2 Continued
Wetland Functions and Assessment Variables
Riverine Wetland Subclass
Riverine, Low Order Blackwater Stream (Third order or less), Hardwood Forest
Functions Variables
7.0 Removal of Elements and Compounds Vf,eq - Frequency of overbank flow
Vd,edge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Index: ((Vffeq + Vdfedge)/2 + Vfeed + Vsubin + (Vm1Cf0 + Vfe d - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Vmi.b + V?Ofe)/3 + Vb.)/5 Vsubin - Subsurface flow from uplands into wetland
Vmiem - Microtopographic complexity
Vmi,c,, - Surfaces for microbial activity
Vpore - Soil porosity
Vb ree - Tree basal area
8.0 Retention of Particulates Vsedim - Retained sediments
Vffeq - Frequency of overbank flow
Index (VSedim + (Vfreq + Vdredge)/2 + (Vfeed + Vsubin)/2 + Vdredge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
(V.i,:,O + Vsaa„a + Vbaee + Vdt,. + VC1vd)/5)/4 Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Vsubin - Subsurface flow from uplands into wetland
VmiC,O - Microtopographic complexity
Vs,ra,a - Number and attributes of vertical strata-
Vb, e - Tree basal area
Vd„ee - Tree density
VCWd - Coarse woody debris
9.0 Organic Carbon Export V ffeq - Frequency of overbank flow
Vdtedge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Index: (Vf,, + Vd7edge)/2 + (Vsubin + Vfeed + Vlevee)/3 + Vsubin - Subsurface flow from uplands into wetland
(VeWd + V1O99 + Vi1t1, + VorgmaU/4)/3 Vrad - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Vl,,,e - Presence and condition of stream levies
VCWd - Coarse woody debris
ViOgs - Stages of decomposition of coarse woody debris
Viitte, - Thickness of the litter layer
VoWat - Organic matter in wetland
10.0 Maintain Characteristic Plant Community VCOmP - Species composition for tree, sapling, shrub, and
groundcover strata
Index: (Vwmp + Vregen + Vcmpy + (Vd.. + Vb„ee)/2)/4 Vregen - Species regeneration from seedlings, saplings, and
clonal shoots
VCWOPY - Canopy cover
Vd,7ee - Tree density
Vbvee - Tree basal area
11.0 Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass V.nn - Frequency of standing dead trees
Viittef - Thickness of the litter layer
Index: (Vsnag + V,iEu + (V.-.d + V,Ogs)/2)/3 VCWd - Coarse woody debris
VW, - Stages of decomposition of coarse woody debris
0

TABLE 12-2 Continued
Wetland Functions and Assessment Variables
Riverine Wetland Subclass
Riverine, Low Order Blackwater Stream (Third order or less), Hardwood Forest
Functions Variables
12.0 Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat Vsnag - Frequency of standing dead trees
Vmad1e - Presence of very mature trees
Index: (VS„ag + V... + VPao1s + Vgap, + Va„a,a + Vg-cavity Vp,,.,a - Presence of ephemeral pools
+ V j, + (Vd + Viogs)/2)/8 VPPs - Presence of canopy gaps due to tree fall
V,,r1,a - Number and attributes of vertical strata
V9--ty - Abundance of near-ground nesting cavities in trees
v6p - Presence of tip mounds
V,,,,d - Coarse woody debris
V,ogs - Stages of decomposition of coarse woody debris
13.0 Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity Vfreq - Frequency of overbank flow
Among Wetland Classes and Vdredge - Evidence of primary channel dredging/lowering
Wetland/Upland Ecotonal Habitat Vfeed - Evidence of ditching in feeder channels
Vh,d. - Surface and subsurface hydraulic connections
Index: ((Vfmq + Vd,,gj/2 + (Vfeed + Vbydcoa)/2 + between the riverine wetland, slope wetlands, upland
Vcoead13 riparian areas, and stream channels
Vc,,,eae - Contiguous vegetation cover and/or corridors
between wetland and upland and between wetland
classes
14.0 Maintain the Distribution and Abundance VhC1P - Distribution and abundance of herptiles
of Vertebrates Vbi?d - Distribution and abundance of resident and migratory
birds
Index: (Vherp + Vbi d + V..,na,)/3 V..., - Distribution and abundance of mammals

u

7
n

I
interstream depressional and interstream flat wetland types, with varying effects on the wetland.
However, all three systems evaluated in this model succeed to steady-state forest structure with
precipitation and vertical groundwater fluctuations dominating wetland hydrology. Individual
functions are not directly comparable between subclasses. However, functional categories
' (hydrodynamic, biogeochemical, biological) may provide a comparable parameter for the interstream
divide, wetland group.
Ten functions are applied in the interstream divide wetland classes as depicted in Table 12-3.
Reference standards for MSF hardwood forest, MSF pine forest, and OSD pine forest, were
established within relatively undisturbed tracts in the Croatan National Forest of Craven County,
' Grindle Pocosin in northern Pitt County, the Hoffinan State Forest of Onslow County, and within
the Dover Bay mitigation area. Appendix J contains the interstream divide model and method of
measurement for each indicator variable by subclass.
12.3.3 Model Calibration
The interstream divide and'riverine models were tested and calibrated on a set of wetland sites
' ranging from prior converted farm land to relatively intact wetland complexes. The functional score
generated by the variable formula is designed to provide a comparable depiction of functional
performance on a scale ranging from reference standard capacity (1.0) to lack of potential for
functional expression (0.0). Test assessment teams were dispatched to identified sites to rate
variables relative to the established standard. The results were assessed for variations, trends, and
consistency in the model. -
During initial phases of the calibration process, variables used to predict functional performance
were placed sequentially under each function heading on the field data sheets. Subsequently,
variables were measured or visually assessed, rated, and plugged into the formula to predict function
at the site. However, trends were noted in the collected field data based on the function being
evaluated. For example, the variable Vmacrv (macrotopographlc features) is applied in two riverine
functional performance formulas: long term surface water storage and energy dissipation. The rating
of this variable was influenced in several test assessment teams based on knowledge of the function
being evaluated. Vm.ro rated higher in the long term surface water storage function than the energy
dissipation function if standing water was actually observed in swales and backswamp areas. In
essence, the variable score within the surface water storage variable was affected by a rainfall event
' during the test period. Subsequently, variables for assessment were extracted from the functions and
evaluated by the field assessment team in alphabetical order. This alteration in field methodology
' resulted in decreased bias because variable scores are measured or evaluated independent of the
function being assessed.
During the calibration process, several functional trends were noted including the effect of clear-
cutting or a lack of vegetation cover on riverine wetlands. A riverine wetland which is clear-cut
typically drops by 40-50% performance relative to the reference standard. The influence of clear-
cutting or a lack of vegetation cover is apparent for biological functions. However, vegetation
disturbance generates pronounced reductions in hydrodynamic and biogeochemical functions as

12-5

TABLE 12-3
Wetland Functions and Assessment Variables
Interstream Divide Wetland Subclasses
Mineral Soil Flat Pine Forest, Mineral Soil Flat Hardwood Forest, and
Organic Soil Denression (Carolina Bav) Pine Forest'
Functions Variables
1.0 Store Surface Water Over Short Term Vdi,e,, - Presence of ditches
Index VSU,ep,m - Soil surface permeability
MSF Hardwood Forest: (Vdi,a, + V?,dPefm)/2
MSF Pine Forest: (Vd1Leh + VSufp )/2
OSD Pine Forest: (Vdiwh + Vsu,rpe,m)/2
2.0 Store Surface Water Over Long Term VdWh - Presence of ditches
Index V,,,a2, - Cover of standing water
MSF Hardwood Forest:
Vdimh if ditches present on-site. Vm.,, - Moss cover
(Vdiu;h + Vwa,er + Vmoss + Vunveg + Vmicm)/5 if
ditches not present on-site Vun„eg - Cover of unvegetated or grass/sedge dominated
depressions
MSF Pine Forest:
Vditch if ditches present on-site. Vmicru - Microtopographic complexity
(Vdi,.h + Vwa,er + V.m + Vunveg + Vmicm)/5 if
ditches not present on-site
OSD Pine Forest:
Vdi.h if ditches present on-site.
(Vdi.h + Vwa,er + V. + Vunveg + VmiJ/5 if
ditches not present on-site
3.0 Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term Vdi,en - Presence of ditches
Index V,,&o - Soil redoxymorphic features
MSF Hardwood Forest:
Vdil.h if ditches present on-site. Vp0re - Soil porosity
(Vdi.h + Viz + Vp0,e + V j)/4 if ditches not
present on-site Ve„ - Evapotranspiration (E/T) rates
MSF Pine Forest:
Vdil,h if ditches present on-site.
(Vdi.h + V,ed. + Vpo. + VeJ/4 if ditches not
present on-site
OSD Pine Forest:
Vdi,ch if ditches present on-site.
(Vdit.h + Vex + V,fe + Va)/4 if ditches not
present on site
1:

0

n

0

ariables reference standards and terminology adapted from project data, Brinson et al. (1995),
variables,
Wetland Functions,
Rhinehart et al. (unpublished), Workshop on Depressional Wetlands (July 1995, unpublished), ESI 1994, and ESI
1995. '

ER95007.4/Ref dom.cdr
Jastit . r r: t attt orq ' '
r / { Ind. ?YaBe. '? ?ec? ..,? Hab J 7 ', t; ?1 ` - I crrYrft'
La n S ??r.,?+ r , _
\ 1 a_
to c
81?Httl \
N F?` ,tto?S' t ?? ?, C,itutl'?na
F trs: pee0
iarnitt •1'd?„triyACC' 3 r • - h?? < .ri .
tft - ?t...".•.t.' ? it•ta?i''(?e Y :'t?"... \t ^?^?•^
n21 Rr at,Tl?' .r •t • t/ iu - r s ?,t?tl r..
'a" v-.1.?"".•r.a r artt.51•ipPe f . J1 :: 9y' '`r c -r_ •r-tt'e*-+. - ""?.__.?.Rr."" Coakley
.,tnerc+nxn inL oti3 Y_ ?, ]I'• i; s", Hn?;ell
5r//
arbor
?? 1 U dy 'vl' ..l t` H {"- l r-j ,i .f? 1=11-•-? ,t{ / +* '`` a Y - r' ryy r?i,'..
rj'aylor ?•, ?7 7\ F Woldtt'am? ?,: '•. y i
`,. ta it Crossr ds 't's. E w" JJJ"-
tsttl e e St psb
7070 'd V.
tiricktar?trTnzt n3 A iy(j- ,
rr>s?lrrrnr9s Cr ssrnads to ,v,., "',;: •,t, t" ? t ••.•s..xs'•?='?x, , illw ? '
-? {,r,., Cang armeia t a n r. )
n ._ Wt Plea Sa nt... -•! ..,. -'?„._.t,'=j' ?c',> - Vth el
- •.?i,r r
M,CitY' ?;? \ , i Pine?Opn
?? ( ,/• ,ope t.._... ,r r• V'sttr. :ci .. r ?. .eb ', .?..y ..
ddtPSex ?
tr Gra
33¢nt ev t ( Z Nan ,1,} ;
?.._. .• .l , 'l., ", 77Q WhNg3 Hr?tr .+ t? ?,. !liF, n5i
i ' l>t Lewis ; " ,
3t i•• .t)akloY`""? )
JJJ + y
.. y Rn5tlbi«
i
t by / C3ri?gnrsitic:;? vntuixi Hld .
`Slnis ."j`(. i .-• .:, ••?,......^: i?rt5F .a 'i ! 60 , l.t?,s ) J: "b%1SItt0?T y \_.? I i ..
cr?h?YUtt?nka? t (4/"?
+
?.Siott "'.?.?. - .....-,.??sft.., ,,., ?_ •,? I. ? r' ?`' Stv'x..5 Y .s--_!v_ ?Sn tti,w?ch. I f .. .y •r,•:•;-w•Y? '?,
y: (Crus^ od 3 a.er i{SUt1
?. 1?.2 .. / CHroo lvsernas a?ds - 7u., 3 F° 61 6 i 11 4S1to t' \ Y m, hirhar?, ? 11 :o'.. t. ) -r
,
%? ?. r r
r ti? 1 N\ u :
Bru?
ro {
Ce 1`87'?:r `Z n? y? p• r, h" { + n
U horn y.
Tres (; ssvoetda z t; >' t' rysdale !Savato8a P? • ;t'o'ddy ` ????_ 1vTineolu ia•
OSsroa s' Lurc2n, , .+ ••, _..? \ , ! ''% '"''y - _ attu•{us . ?'' ?, l ,
ar, t f
t E ?'', yRlack t`Ta w fr : • '?'` J c • i l I r. » 3?tntituvrrk. f?; it s 'it 3a i t
?. tss -- J er%+ _ ?< _ ,? trC:f' -"ke -^ Qisre k - Ysa
E9nVif,. , ftt .!/'.. 'c?7 \`\ a- - -! Ydsalta',/tttta f? ? +
?Soyatte " 'itaiiti6hSti3a : 4 15tontiuKg Tvvl 1 + r r y a
r '%' I>;6311 .•,.r•...y ... Y.•.-,4-"r•' K
f t` UTH£RM ?a PI+Arttlur -"+ ,.?_. ..,7_ r I :''•-?Y ?
Marltt to S n+n t t r(?l3nrC513Y1?t Wat,r,lri
77 _ snt ton ,r ? r' ,
80 F4le, : '?` yr ... 1' {. . }?..; roA ??" ' ?j ?`? '`ti ( 3? `l, n } o%-"" a„-.?• ,t' . _
22Q, "_.+?• •>''°t 1.,. \?+ IT • : ( t f f inn }' •.... dr?l i43tt' ?'t
Raleigh J r r.' ,?; dt,(nyrn 1 -
' rertlottti ?1 of r 3} )" t' ` /r nfls., e... / 7 J _.
indelt
??urrck - in WintkXvrt(E n. /j 1 r ?t
230
(?
4tzXre ri ry 1'a c4 (, }r b ?ty3 ?, !S \.?.t
t °1 Bent ;uah«rta l/ ?i.. l ent tbi+ Ire I )?3 r.6. Ja
, Sf
Outer
'ina t.eGe Transition Q ifs _- 210 E E j? ?n_s?idtrae `" t,j} „? .•`; 'sct,r,c rs ,t - C
oastal
rrndn i. i Yder. ?? ahCi}tturdine ?M 4cC , e
3
fr,
` r: !', ,atetnvfn iibnr?,;l''y: •? ,, ; +i 9 'r!' ) Plain
._(y(rPPoint
Litt!at,al9'
, ? r, `?••• au str" ? f ,si ?i?taQkes.tnn ,,.f? r. ,:.
..'••-t. 1 ?"`••,`^ f ? Be1fOs?.-•` ? .?'~'J .Jr '! (`;?j_ '' ?? Hanrahrsn `` ,;\ ` 3irnar ?, ? ? I' . r a.
\ t Gt7?dSfSU +Ft'rti
i r iftnh.
-.. ' r low asott ! - - r ti! tnoi Al ` . -. 1. -`" >annerir:t
}?/? ''f .?j `-.??? i i ? \1?k'?--•--.??; r^ } 190,
Iz?j` ?. r u+-• net?? ?'T' s.? r/t-•? ?t .,?,Nrnunte 4,uP4f
?\ .+r• } t. 3i ,`? '+c- ,tit ? ` ;?
3_i {, F .r (mst3tUfy Yl ..t driS 170
tlpt' I , ... . i 1 ( F ti; xt j +
iii Liles, 30 r4' ,•,? jl , w !•' ! i.. , ?".? )d yr"r. •t ./*,1_
11rs?/"`.? •.. j,? ,?- "s,/ r
w *7EUU/ U?t.,v. t a Y...Y, 3
180 ? ? y,PKS •s c',• Ifif Pho '? ? ..
!' ,+?31?•t `
aGrari&?,r, 160 f?, J !' ?., N\ l• ': -- t.?:Y;;
150 _ t can wwl;k.".,
,:':! -r: ?' ; t I`• J
dle • I - t.,.•
i ( 0u s( i :....., r A F'btt n rbak ? ? 6y 4 ? C* .
I + 1 >I { f rn +??y? ( .51 Q M 1 1 ``r Jsi+3n
r'ti.._.-- ?'?G U'- -/L? i:: r. ''r 1• 't3ave Yi- Q)
rings 1 7 Jr' ; M ' I \ i y1' `:: -» i, H
MOUnt t t1 /^? Vp} c?F'o,k 1 ! Jr+sper %
5?' + ; s v ~~ M1bvq City
t F U 1 t ?t ~
Mocks °?r?'". \ ` ` Y t 3„J t:te; Hi
?. H30 (!i v+G • r t` : ?iuECakvL cllhl s' ` St(ia r c
(. `` " ` / •. r / ?) V _ _ `-r ro`• 'vT,t r \y?l 'T 1 lyn,ltla ur ant' t r ?,.. e
?/ t 1." ' / -,? ` ? •},. B?:3v? 4 y F+ytn?tiyr?',?" •?.,.,,, ra ? ,.;ksv,•x, r r"-""3.? i3arhr,.a .
t '' - ,* 41 Cta?it v l s iitt+fis r r
.'l' 4+50 ('iUtl to tee
3WS ?' 11rteF Ru f? '? \•• ? [` A f q
,
1 \1 " Bridge ? .f '.:,-tr ?-•. ?,. , . '?`iac • f1LV BUrf
:ie :,
! .. . Neau anr;ri3`,, j Albert3ct?,?-.? ..?'' `?....?, ?/' ' . <: --^ },j`.:i '' 'i "?l,'?, - at'?ts CI'(q .. j. ' - ..
} Fe3son -
fE Phn1ItP•• \ .;.' r t 7 l ;
(oJ L t 1 Jo3testown Crossr ^} .. r ?i2~ n Tt t ? tlht3n35 t i W,
P:t'it,tti;l-.i' r- ,"• i 11Q °{l•;Fi°r?,+ f2trs,?„"'? %? Thu srt?t??..} jc J3,ttpi?tiu t',
,? t3owde'n I t., J? .. rtp ?!., .-A .
r
1 Y' " '' - t1 Zen t E ?C?n` N
,
?
20 `.
-r LT ti, .? rnfort.._..i 140
- ' . _._.-,.•- ?...,?'.t tiSCktl`).. i ltunteen
' 720 ? -
"?i . (taj ?. i.i1 ._ 'w'"'T`'t•^_ Pa Jarrnnn 7303 N.
q -? r#(j- tj 1 f?
''•! . E.llic'e tifS1 rV Fittffr ` to - Z, 530 ; - " 740 `t:h@ti?y f+t lr.
s ,`mom"`„ '?\ 4 ?a+tLJ,.; ?E&c r 1' 1
t r 3(rn3t NYC nair?tn{tta 1 f l I 750
r; i1' `\ sutav3l7A,` I f3 a Il (( ;} t( \ »:?? 'w" 520 lt r]AMi f in 1
/I` t 32Q v+i Ct3llr
daYSVi?Ie- o a?FFF F'o' t {3r 4/ I
_ e.
wr t
ti r' atlsvitt tw t 3c.}tt w ,. -, i??. S 710 tck ,
I `l 'c, a r a j' ?, ,'?, .Y? ,,,fir, .a
f '? s clip /'` '>•:' ',•,? f ist OF ` r? i 130 .,1. .BrtNrar3e - C.c} G4Q 1
Marxn ?. ....
?t rn ,a !•r•.? `? :?.-. .?_... \•r ?'1 '???, i?rrt?+ssr3Ct3 J'?/ ;f A4"^N..ako' ?• f?a?.. •'rM H.a
': 1. 4 -?. 40 r _ 310 ???rt7
VOL ntial PkArran' ;shrrtbn
Reference Domain ,, A- ° i
evrlttrSY.,-
.?`0 t, y ? ,... Cr •?f'-'-..?- '.Ivlsteady? '` ? /J \,yo Z mr artdi c. / ' r - ? `', r? ft?St .,? ?..-.;,
rlwa ?" 1 •; l .V2 'tit ?( J/ t ?'S (
`<•?'° ? ??' J V rr? \ `itsltas "' ) tii
X}`'loan ??g
? S ?'-..,1 t 143f .? `•• --... j _ erJ~ \'Y? 1!<?1 r ' rs Kdw-••"-r• ,i •M1 ( WilC(N+
B tl3t l 33 a., l tl 1S1 t?tllt a J± f` .- J
1
. cvachs+
: Y't Ur ess t°ia 1 r 3" " i, a "
tier
1 1
:• - ?. . '_ ?. r i•iWUcrt -',. ? :tltead`?rrvSas?3 „) ;?.
dLnHV c?en ''I 74.. _.? ! Outer ilrt y karl.s
/ fJi 3, M- Fr`1 ?? (\ 1` r SW,r ..s coastal
f Zr n.. n \., s+u ` ater Yato
;;?? Ne ons Crbssr,aa r?s'! ?l .. - ? ? ', t' ?,,.: ??/,. _ _••! V ?^ti t .t• rw•ald
a ... _ .:._ . V ona 3 ,7 . 1 Ca t3seeltlr
it?'p t I yr t_ Plain
• D'1sIP 11;
f { m ., - , f
,r{ t U s 1 +
A \. t: "sa ;' Ct 4 ? _ W a y , ??'al3zasr InIef
Ed n(- o :n,?s \ ..?;L? , +-rt '? a' ?"µ 1?1 +. /?///?fl?1`jiEruw•ss:lrzlaf - I
piney
P 9 W-d r t +1 + ? ? ?s y E` +
_.- t ?? if.•3..»r""r?l in9alk °' ".. <L i.sttln -t Jn1'-.haW ,4tvGr Jr
.._4 Number
Wetland Subclass
Ward' Category
Atkin". s; l . dti. A v «. Ot t.-., r y had iulckAcrea`'
4? ; • t orntr St t}y(y?i, sr, C s 14 q ) %
Aaoks 100,200 Riverine, low order blackwater stream,
.? ,,. ,i; r ??r C: + v .. Y ?'YY tanrlrl hardwood forest
300 Mineral soil flat, pine forest
t G^+ Na rto kY Nairr7 *5 ?' » lri a ,
1? t;k?'i +ty ?? 500 Organic soil depression, pine forest
. ,` Woodside \' ' ?polnt
w r,>t hs ?=' s 700 Mineral soil flat hardwood forest
i:tr r p:.'°•1. r , C'>• ? ,1'xs#39o1 ?t? r,r
' yC Ctllt,ur flarFi sEatt qx? opsallBeatch
0 20 M(
ui RiE.diw 'rr] 4;,, i.s'tttl k9yri' «. yM.is 0 30 Km
-scot
Y i e Map Source: LISGS, State of North Carolina, 1:500,000. 1972
.bra , "?` ' • .^
'itkla lbh if] let.
c
ransparl
AMP c
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FIGURE:
12-1
DATE: JAN 97

1

TABLE 12-3 Continued
Wetland Functions and Assessment Variables
Interstream Divide Wetland Subclasses
4.0 Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and Vdiceb -Presence of ditches
Surface Water Discharges
Vaadeta - Wetland outlets
Index
MSF Hardwood Forest: (Vdilh + V.„,Iej/2
MSF Pine Forest: (Vdircb + V.11.)/2
OSD Pine Forest: Mitch + V..d.)/2
5.0 Recycle Nutrients and Nonessential Vbtree - Tree basal area
Elements
Vsttara - Number and attributes of vertical strata
Index
MSF Hardwood Forest: V,itter - Thickness of the litter layer
/
(Vbtree + Vs. + Vlitter + Vsnag + (Vcwd
+V,,,,)/2)/5 Vsnag - Frequency of standing dead trees
MSF Pine Forest: V?„d - Coarse woody debris
/
(Vbtree + Vstra. + Vlitter + Vsnag + (Vcwd
+Vto,)/2)/5 Vlogs - Stages of decomposition of coarse woody debris
OSD Pine Forest: Vorg - Thickness and structure of the organic soil layer
(Val, + Vb1ee + (Vstrata + Viitter + Vsn,)/3 + (V,„d (OSD Pine Forest only)
+ V,a,)/2)/4
6.0 Maintain Characteristic Plant Community V"',,,p - Species composition for tree, shrub, and herb layers
Index Vregen - Species regeneration from seedlings, saplings, and
dwood Forest:
MSF Ha clonal shoots
r
(V.., + Vregen + V.., + (Vdtree + Vbtree)/2)/4
V.py - Canopy cover
MSF Pine Forest:
(V..p + V nen + V.py + (Vdtree + Vbtree)/2)/4 Vdtree - Tree density
OSD Pine Forest: Vbtree - Tree basal area
(V..p + Vregen + Vcanopy + Mwee + Vbtree)/2)/4
7.0 Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass Vsnag - Frequency of standing dead trees
Index Vetter - Thickness of the litter layer
MSF Hardwood Forest:
(Vsnag + Viitter + (Ve d + V,ogs)/2)/3 VC11d - Coarse woody debris
MSF Pine Forest: Viegs - Stages of decomposition of coarse woody debris
(Vsnag + Vlitter + (Vc d + V1e,)/2)/3
Vorg - Thickness and structure of the organic soil layer
e Forest
:
OSD Pi (OSD Pine Forest only)
n
/
(Vorg + (Vsnag + Vlitter)/2 + (Vcwd + V,o,)/2)/3

TABLE 12-3 Continued
Wetland Functions and Assessment Variables
Interstream Divide Wetland Subclasses
8.0 Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat Vs,g - Frequency of standing dead trees
Index V,natare - Abundance of very mature trees
MSF Hardwood Forest:
M., + V... + Vp.,l + Vg ps + Vstrata + Vg-?ty VP., - Presence of ephemeral pools
+ V,;p + (V?d + Viogs)/2)/8
Vgaps - Presence of canopy gaps due to tree fall
MSF Pine Forest:
(Vsnag + Vma,„re + Vpoo,s + Vg v, + Vs,, + VUp + Vstrata - Number and attributes of vertical strata
(Vmd + Vj.g,)/2)/7 ,
Vg.„ity - Abundance of near ground nesting cavities in trees
OSD Pine Forest: (MSF Hardwood Forest only)
(V., + V..'. + vpools + Vgaps + Vstrata + V'P +
Mwd + Viogs)/2)/7 VUr - Presence of tip mounds
V,Wd - Coarse woody debris
V,ogs - Stages of decomposition of coarse woody debris
9.0 Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity Vhyd,:.n - Surface and subsurface hydraulic connections
Among Wetland Classes and between the interstream flat wetland, slope wetlands,
Wetland/Upland Ecotonal Habitat riparian areas, and/or stream channels
Index Vc,,n,;g - Contiguous vegetation cover and/or corridors
MSF Hardwood Forest between wetland and upland and between wetland
(Vhydcon + Vcontig + Vpatch)/3 Classes
MSF Pine Forest Vpatch - Vegetation patchiness
(Vhydcon + Vcontig + Vpatch)/3
OSD Pine Forest
( hydcon + Vcontig + Vpatch)13
10.0 Maintain Distribution and Abundance of Vherp - Distribution and abundance of herptiles
Vertebrates
Vbird - Distribution and abundance of resident and migratory
Index birds
MSF Hardwood Forest
(Vherp + Vbird + V....,)/3 Vmantmal - Distribution and abundance of mammals
MSF Pine Forest
(Vherp + Vbird + V....,)/3
OSD Pine Forest
(Vherp + Vbird + V....,)/3
11
0
0

u

1

N

well. Physical processes including energy dissipation, dynamic surface water storage, nutrient
cycling, removal of elements and compounds, and particulate retention typically exhibit an initial
drop of 20-30% and continue a gradual decline for up to 20 years after forest vegetation is removed
(detrital biomass changes). Based on the model, the structure and composition of wetland forest
vegetation substantially influences riverine wetland functions evaluated by this project. Vegetation
structure is critical for maintenance and sustainability of riverine hydrodynamic and biogeochemical
functions.
After variable and function calibration within the reference data set, the model was applied to
potentially impacted wetlands at NCGTP. The model results were evaluated to determine wetland
functional losses within each class and the appropriate methods for wetland functional replacement
based on impacted resources. Results of model testing provided information on appropriate
mitigation design for this project. Functional variables associated with restoration of forest
structure, especially in riverine wetlands, were targeted for functional replacement use.
12.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
12.4.1 Riverine Wetlands
Potentially impacted riverine wetlands at NCGTP (106.4 ac) were subdivided into 5 wetland
assessment types based on site characteristics including vegetation composition, vegetation structure,
hydraulic features, degree of disturbance, and soil map units (Figure 12-2). Table 12-4 provides a
brief description and the measure of functional performance for each assessment type. Pre-project
FCIs, post-project FCIs, and riverine FCUs potentially lost as a result of development are
summarized in Table 12-5. The FCUs potentially lost are totaled by function and averaged by
functional category (hydrodynamic, biogeochemical, biological) to estimate appropriate replacement
needs for this mitigation plan. Total wetland loss (post-project FCI = 0.0) was assumed for impact
areas, with the exception of a stormwater management facility representing Assessment Type 202
(Table 12-5).
The RSFA indicates that potentially impacted riverine wetlands along upper reaches of Stonyton
Creek are performing below functional capacity. Based on the model (Table 12-5), hydrodynamic
functions are performing at 56% (0.56) of capacity due primarily to degradations associated with
periodic removal of vegetation structure, dredging activities in the mainstem and feeder channels,
reductions in inundation/overbank flow, and accelerated sediment inputs from surrounding land uses.
In addition, the lack of forest within the floodplain and along upland riparian buffers has degraded
biogeochemical and biological functions relative to reference (performing respectively at 48% (0.48)
and 43% (0.43) of functional capacity). Based on the model, an average of 50.2 FCUs represent the
net wetland functional loss resulting from development within the 106.4 acre riverine impact area
(Table 12-5).
12-6

C10302001 WLl_ALLAMU
_ t,. ?4 •? II t ? t
t t i t
s
5
. i
`1.. I I W 400
t k
{
N ? p
f 3
V T t ?
-n -
'?
ca oo
W
1 1 '.
.
s ,
-n
- ?? ',
2- -n
N
J
1
T? W
V

D - D m> - A U <
Z 51
.
?OD 00
cl) - LM -4 r
N
Z m
N m o ''ooD 3 m
N ? m
ANA
*7 N
.
W ?
W 'n
J
N
M
(.4 !t
(
to
O

0
m W
OD

0
_ 14
W
OD to 0) (m Ln
{

b
VO?OVN A NOD Of-W ?'
A WAODA Ut (!I -4W0 (A K)

9

1 .

NA >0000 ? 01
Oi U?AWN??
A .".,
X
?> ...
m s.
m
: .
rq
r
N
ono
+D
pO
O
FIGURE: REFERENCE STANDARD North Carorina
2-2 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Global nansPark PERMIT AREA
DATE: AUG 1996 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AREAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE 12-4
Description of Impacted Wetland Assessment Types
Riverine, Low Order Blackwater Streams'
Assessment Type 201 (Figure 13-1): This 51.5-ac floodplain area of Stonyton Creek contains emergent and low
scrub vegetation within a maintained corridor adjacent to the existing JetPort facility. Trees and forest strata are
not present in the floodplain or along adjacent uplands (Vb., Vd., V.,y, V?, d = 0.1; Appendix K). The stream
channel appears to have been dredged and exposed periodically with incoming sediments noted in the dredge
channel and feeder ditches (Vdfedge, Vfeed, Vsedim, Vbank = 0.5). Periodic mechanized clearing activities appear to
have leveled the wetland surface and limited detrital biomass features throughout much of the area (V.,,, V11 f,
Vmi. = 0.5, V,,,, = 0.1). The assessment type includes floodplains along Stonyton Creek which reside under the
proposed footprint for runway construction. Based on the model, this wetland assessment type is functioning on
average at 49% of functional capacity relative to the reference standard. The area rated lowest (0.21-0.25) for
nutrient cycling, habitat structure, and detrital biomass functions (Table 13-5). [Average 23.7 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 202: Assessment Type 202 includes a 27.4-ac wetland area upstream of the proposed runway
crossing (Assessment Type 201). This floodplain segment contains intermittent trees (primarily sweet gum) with
near complete mortality of the forest canopy evident (Vbtr, V..,, Vftee = 0.5). This area has sustained dredging
and heavy sedimentation within primary and feeder channels, but periodic mechanized clearing of vegetation
does not appear to have occurred (Vd,ed,, Vfeed, Vsedim, Vba„k = 0.5). Farm field ditches extend into the floodplain
and all adjacent uplands consist of agricultural lands (Vbydcon = 0.5, V.ntig = 0.1). Based on the model, this area is
functioning on average at 60% of the reference capacity. Nutrient cycling, biomass, and habitat functions rated
somewhat higher than Type 201 (0.40-0.65) due primarily to the presence of remnant forest structure and the
lack of vegetation clearing impacts. Dredging, sedimentation, and near complete mortality of trees represent the
primary degradations affecting modeled functions.
This area comprises a proposed stormwater management facility situated upstream of the proposed airfield
facility. Several wetland functions will be minimally maintained in the stormwater basin with post-construction
functional performance averaging approximately 6% of reference functional capacity. [Average 14.8 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 203: Assessment Type 203 contains approximately 9.8 ac within upstream reaches of
Stonyton Creek and two isolated sites in first order tributaries at NCGTP (F24 and F41). These wetland sites
exhibit evidence of disturbance, dredging, waste dumping, antecedent farming, and sedimentation with uplands
cleared to the floodplain edge (Vd,edge, Vfeed, Vsedim = 0.5). However, a mid-successional forest canopy dominated
by disturbance adapted species persists in the wetland (Vdtr, V..py, Vbank, Vrtte, = 1.0). Based on the model, the
area is functioning, on average, at 63% of reference capacity. Isolation, dredging impacts, and diversion of water
through drainage structures represent the greatest factors affecting surface water storage (0.54) and other
functions (interspersion and connectivity = 0.37). [Average 6.2 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 204: This approximately 10.4-ac area represents a farmed wetland surface, adjacent emergent
dominated floodplain, and dredged channel along the southern fork of Stonyton Creek. Active plowing and
planting of crops appears to occur in dryer years. Overbank flow may occur infrequently during wetter seasons
influenced by a peak storm event (Vf,eq, Vd,,dge, Vbank, Vf.?d = 0.5). However, vegetation structure is generally
unavailable to retain water or stabilize soils along the channel M1,eo Vdmw V,Wd = 0.1). Based on the model, the
area is functioning at 45% of capacity. Farming and dredging appear to have minimized functional performance
for energy dissipation, nutrient cycling, and particulate retention (0.36-0.44). The lack of habitat structure is also
evident (0.20). [Average 4.7 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 205: Assessment Type 205 includes approximately 7.3 ac of jurisdictional ditches constructed
within former stream channels or attached to stream channels in downslope positions. These ditches typically
extend through agricultural fields and exhibit no indications of overbank flow Mmy Vinund = 0.1). The ditch
bottoms range to 10 ft wide and ditch banks are typically near vertical. Vegetation is periodically bush-hogged
in the channel and plowed for crops immediately adjacent to the channel (V.., = 0.5). The lack of riverine
wetland hydrodynamics and vegetation cover suggests that these drainageways provide limited wetland function.
Based on the model, Assessment Type 205 is functioning at 18% of reference capacity. (Average 1.3 FCUs Lost]
1: Referenced variable scores are depicted in Appendix K.

TABLE 12-5
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Riverine Wetlands
Impact Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Lost Due to Proposed Development

I

Wetland Function
RSr
Assessment Type#201
(51.5 acres)
Assessment Type#202
(27.4 acres)
Assessment Type #203
(9.8 acres) i
FCI Pre-
FCI2 Post-
FCI3 FCU
Loss° Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss
Hydrodynamic Functions
Dynamic Surface Water Storage
1.00
0.64
0.00
33.0
0.70
0.03
18.4
0.55
0.00
5.4
Long Term Surface Water Storage
Energy Dissipation 1.00
1.00 0.79
0.42 0.00
0.00 40.7
21.6 0.79
0.61 0.06
0.01 20.0
16.4 0.54
0.67 0.00
0.00 5.3
6.6 '
Subsurface Storage of Water 1.00 0.55 0.00 28.3 0.60 0.06 14.8 0.75 0.00 7.4 ,
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge 1.00 0.50 0.00 25.8 0.50 0.07 11.8 0.50 0.00 4.9
Biogeochemical Functions ME ME am I
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.00 0.21 0.00 10.8 0.65 0.00 17.8 0.80 0.00 7.8
Removal of Elements and Compounds 1.00 0.47 0.00 24.2 0.55 0.05 13.7 0.57 0.00 5.6 ,
Retention of Particulates 1.00 0.49 0.00 25.2 0.59 0.05 14.8 0.58 0.00 5.7
Organic Carbon Export 1.00 0.52 0.00 26.8 0.67 0.02 17.8 0.67 0.00 6.6
Biological Functions ME
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.00 0.30 0.00 15.5 0.40 0.03 10.1 0.69 0.00 6.8
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.00 0.23 .0.00 11.8 0.75 0.00 20.6 0.83 0.00 8.1
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.00 0.23 0.00 11.8 0.49 0.00 13.4 0.69 0.00 6.8
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.00 0.45 0.00 23.2 0.45 0.07 10.4 0.37 0.00 3.6 '
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.00 0.67 .0.00 34.5 0.67 0.37 8.2 0.67 0.00 6.6
AVERAGE FCI/FCUS 1.00 0.46 0.00 23.7 0.60 0.06 14.8 0.63 0.00 6.2
1: RS Reference Standard: The reference standard functional score =1.0 (100% of capacity).

2: Pre-FCI The pre-project Functional Capacity Index (FCI) provides a measure of functional performance under existing conditions relative to the
Reference Standard. The index value can be interpreted as a percentage of the functional capacity being performed by the assessment type (i.e.'
0.75 x 100 = performance at 75% of functional capacity)
3: Post-FCI The post-project FCI provides a measure of functional performance after impacts occur. Total wetland loss is assumed for all impacts
excluding a proposed strormwater management facility upstream of the proposed runway (Assessment Type #202).
4: FCU Loss The Functional Capacity Units (FCUs) potentially lost by development plans are calculated by multiplying the FCI loss by unit area (e.g. (Pre-
FCI (0.64) - Post FCI (0.0)) x 51.5 acres = 33.0 FCUs Lost). 1
5: Avg. FCI/FCU The average FCUFCU provides an indication of average functional performance across the range of wetland functions measured in the
assessment areas.

11
1
TABLE 12-5 Continued
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Riverine Wetlands
Impact Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Lost Due to Proposed Development
Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #204
(10.4 acres) Assessment Type #205
(7.3 acres) TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
(106.4 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss
Hydrodynamic Functions M EE ,0:.56 0.01 58.5
'
Dynamic Surface Water Storage 1.0 0.51 0.00 5.3 0.14 0.0 1
1.0 0.60 0.01 62.8
Long Term Surface Water Storage 1.0 0.75. 0.00 7.8 0.10 0.0 0.7 0.72 0.02 74.5
Energy Dissipation 1.0 0.37 0.00 3.8 0.19 0.0 1.4 0.47 0.00 50.0
Subsurface Storage of Water 1.0 0.55 0.00 5.7 0.29 0.0 2.1 0.56 0.02 57.5
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge 1.0 0.50 0.00 5.2 0.10 0.0 0.7 0.47 0.02 47.9
Biogeochemical Functions
ME

0.48

0.01

49.7
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.36 0.00 3.7 0.17 0.0 1.2 0.39 0.00 41.5
Removal of Elements and Compounds 1.0 0.42 0.00 4.4 0.13 0.0 0.9 0.47 0.01 48.9
Retention of Particulates 1.0 0.44 0.00 4.6 0.23 0.0 1.7 0.50 0.01 52.1
Organic Carbon Export 1.0 0.48 0.00 5.0 0.13 0.0 0.9 0.54 0.01 56.4
Biological Functions ME all 0.43 0.03 43.4
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.30 0.00 3.1 0.20 0.0 1.5 0.35 0.01 36.2
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.40 0.00 4.2 0.17 0.0 1.2 0.43 0.00 45.8
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.20 0.00 2.1 0.14 0.0 1.0 0.33 0.00 35.1
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.50 0.00 5.2 0.10 0.0 0.7 0.42 0.02 42.6
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.50 0.00 5.2 0.50 0.0 3.7 0.64 0.10 57.5
AVERAGE FCUFCU 1.0 0.45 0.00 4.7 0.19 0.0 1.4 0.49 0.02 50.2

12.4.2 Interstream Divide Wetlands
Approximately 764.5 potentially impacted interstream divide wetlands have been subdivided into
six assessment types (Figure 12-2). A general description of each assessment type is contained in
Table 12-6. Total wetland loss was assumed in all projected interstream impact areas (Table 12-7;
post-project FCI = 0.0).
The model indicates that impacted interstream wetlands are Performing on average at approximately
66% of capacity relative to the reference standard (Table 12-7). The functions exhibiting the most
degradation include the maintenance of groundwater/surface water discharges (51 %), spatial habitat
structure (46%), and interspersion/connectivity (56%). These interstream wetlands are fragmented
in the agricultural landscape with ditches extending from within or nearby to the wetland into
constructed outlets connecting to area streams. Systematic clear-cutting within the assessment areas
has reduced species diversity (66% of capacity) and altered nutrient cycles (60% of capacity) as
compared to the reference standard (Table 12-7). Total loss of wetland function is assumed as a '
result of development (Post-FCI = 0.0).
Based on the model, approximately 505 FCUs represent the net functional loss resulting from '
development within the 764.5 acre interstream impact area. Net losses were targeted for replacement
through mitigation plans outlined in this document. After mitigation plans were completed, the
RSFA was applied to quantify potential functional gain in wetland restoration areas. '
12.5 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT
Three wetland mitigation areas were targeted for functional assessment purposes: NCGTP riverine
mitigation areas (294 ac), NCGTP interstream mitigation areas (875 ac); and Dover Bay interstream
mitigation areas (3192 ac). The pre-project condition was modeled by function and compared to '
target post-restoration condition. The post-project functional assessment assumes that the mitigation
plans will be implemented under the specifications outlined in this document and that wetland
restoration areas will be protected from substantial disturbance in perpetuity. The influence of
development around NCGTP mitigation areas has been taken into account in this assessment.
However, encroachment into mitigation areas by urbanization is not expected and has not been
considered. After restoration activities are completed, NCGTP mitigation lands and Dover Bay are
modeled to succeed to steady state communities altered significantly only by natural events. The
proposed Wildlife Management Plan, Landscape Development Guidelines, and Environmental
Education and Public Interest Program encompassing these sites is expected to further promote long '
term protection from man-made disturbance in these areas.
Approximately 3 51 acres of uplands have been incorporated into the NCGTP site wetland restoration ,
plan as reforestation buffers and wildlife linkage corridors. In addition, approximately 169 acres of
uplands have been incorporated into the Dover Bay mitigation area as suitable habitat zones for
threatened or endangered species. Although not directly evaluated as a unit area in this functional
assessment, these upland buffers and corridors have been incorporated into the model based on
projected influence on buffered wetland function. ,
12-7 1

TABLE 12-6
I Description of Impacted. Wetland Assessment Types
Interstream Divide MSF Pine Forest and MSF Hardwood Forest'
I

Assessment Type 101 (Figure 13-1): This type includes approximately 53.2 ac of mid-successional to steady-
state pine flatwood wetlands. The area appears to support wetlands functioning similar to the reference standard.
Noted disturbance to functional variables include landscape fragmentation (V.nt;g,, Vlyde?n = 0.5), ditches placed
intermittently within and nearby to the site (Vditeh, Vp.1 = 0.5), and reductions in wildlife observations (Vmammat
0.5). This type is modeled as performing at 87% of reference capacity. [Average 46.3 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 102: The approximately 331.3-ac area encompasses pine flatwood areas immediately adjacent
to the existing JetPort facility. This type was clear-cut in the last 15 years; early successional thickets dominate
the site (Vcomp, Vea,opyl Vdttce, Vm„d, V?,ata = 0.5). Large canals are situated along the site periphery with
intermittent ditches extending into the area (Vd;ich, Voadet = 0.5). Based on the model, this cut-over type is
performing at an average 62% of capacity relative to the reference standard. [Average 205.4 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 103: Assessment Type 103 includes approximately 66.0 ac of remnant, transitional hardwood
forest. The sites are fragmented by adjacent clear-cutting, and agricultural fields (Vwntig, Vh,d.,, = 0.5). Ditches
are constructed nearby to the sites with constructed outlets extending from the interstream wetland edge to
downslope stream corridors (Vditeh, V.W l = 0.5). Periodic clear-cutting and antecedent ditches are evident along
with reductions in tree species diversity, standing snags, mammal indications, and bird identifications (Vwmp,
V,nag, Vmammal, Vbitd = 0.5). Based on the model, this type exhibits a pre-project average functional performance at
76% of reference capacity. [Average 50.2 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 104: The approximately 98.9-ac area maintains recently cut-over interstream wetland sites
Mtrata = 0.25; Vd,= = 0.1; Vbtre, Vew& = 0.5). These small isolated tracts contain disturbance adapted species
situated in proximity to ditches, road corridors, and farm fields (Vditeh, Vm,aet = 0.5). Reductions in surface
hydrodynamic features are evident (Vunveg, V,,, ,t , = 0.5). The model indicates that this type is functioning at an
average 54% of capacity due to fragmentation, logging, and partial drainage. [Average 53.4 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 105: This type includes approximately 182.7 contiguous wetland ac north of the existing
JetPort. The site contains hardwood forested wetlands that have been cut in the last 20 years. The early to
transitional period of succession is characterized by dense scrub vegetation among remaining intermittent trees
(V.mp = 1.0; Vent, ,, Vbtr. Vm.. = 0.5). Ditches and constructed outlets occur along the site periphery and
extend into the wetland at several locations (Vditeh, V.,,et = 0.5). This type is modeled as performing at 72% of
reference capacity. [Average 131.5 FCUs Lost]
Assessment Type 106: This approximately 32.4-ac area comprises three isolated wetland fragments located
within the JetPort facility. These tracts represent areas containing less than 15 contiguous ac, with drainage
impacts noted (Vditeh, Vondet„ Vwaten Vnnveg = 0.5). The timber appears to have been cut in the last 20 years with
disturbance adapted transitional periods evident (V.mp, Vbtrce = 0.5). The model indicates an average
performance at 52% of reference capacity. [Average 16.8 FCUs Lost]
1: Referenced variable scores are depicted in Appendix L.

TABLE 12-7
n
J
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Interstream Divide Wetlands
Impact Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Lost Due to Proposed Development
Wetland Function RS' Assessment Type #101
(53.2 acres) Assessment Type #102
(331.3 acres) Assessment Type #103
(66.0 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCIZ Post-
FCI3 FCU
Loss° Pre-
FCI Post
FCI FCU
Loss Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss
Hydrodynamic Functions
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 0.75 0.0 39.9 0.75 0.0 248.5 0.75 0.0 49.5
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.90 0.0 47.9 0.90 0.0 298.2 0.60 0.0 39.6
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.88 0.0 46.8 0.75 0.0 248.5 0.81 0.0 53.5
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.75 0.0 39.9 0.50 0.0 165.7 0.50 0.0 33.0
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 1.00 0.0 53.2 0.52 0.0 172.3 0.90 0.0 59.4
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 1.00 0.0 53.2 0.58 0.0 192.2 0.88 0.0 58.1
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 1.00 0.0 53.2 0.67 0.0 222.0 0.83 0.0 54.8
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.93 0.0 49.5 0.40 0.0 132.5 0.81 0.0 53.5
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.67 0.0 35.6 0.50 0.0 165.7 0.67 0.0 44.2
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.83 0.0 44.2 0.67 0.0 222.0 0.83 0.0 54.8
AVERAGE FCUFCU$ 1.0 0.87 0.0 46.3 0.62 0.0 205.4 0.76 0.0 50.2
r-r
L

L 17

1
1: RS Reference Standard: The reference standard functional score =1.0 (100% of capacity)
2: Pre-FCI The pre-project Finctional Capacity Index (FCI) provides a measure of functional performance under existing conditions relative to the
Reference Standard. The index value can be interpreted as a percentage of the functional capacity being perormed by the assessment type (i.e.
0.87 x 100 = performance at 87% of functional capacity)
3: Post-FCI The post-project FCI provides a measure of functional performance after impacts occur. For the purposes of this assessment, total wetland loss
is assumed (i.e. post-project functional performance measures 0.0)
4: FCU Loss The Functional Capacity Units lost by proposed development plans are calculated by multiplying the FCI loss by unit area (e.g. (Pre-FCI (0.75)
- Post FCI (0.0)) x 53.2 acres = 39.9 FCUs lost).
5: Avg. FCUFCU The average FCI/FCU provides an indication of average functional performance across the range of wetland functions measured in the
assessment areas.
i

TABLE 12-7 Continued
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
' Interstream Divide Wetlands
Impact Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Lost Due to Proposed Development

LJ

J
Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #104
(98.9 acres) Assessment Type #105
(182.7 acres) Assessment Type #106
(32.4 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss
Hydrodynamic Functions
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 0.75 0.0 74.2 0.75 0.0 137.0 0.75 0.0 24.3
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.70 0.0 69.2 0.90 0.0 164.4 0.60 0.0 19.4
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.69 0.0 68.2 0.75 0.0 137.0 0.63 0.0 20.4
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.50 0.0 49.5 0.50 0.0 91.4 0.30 0.0 9.7
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.39 0.0 38.6 0.65 0.0 118.8 0.60 0.0 19.4
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.43 0.0 42.5 0.75 0.0 137.0 0.56 0.0 18.1
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.53 0.0 52.4 0.75 0.0 137.0 0.67 0.0 21.7
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.22 0.0 21.8 0.44 0.0 80.4 0.40 0.0 13.0
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.53 0.0 52.4 0.67 0.0 122.4 0.23 0.0 7.5
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.67 0.0 66.3 1.00 0.0 182.7 0.50 0.0 16.2
AVERAGE FC1/FCU° 1.0 0.54 0.0 53.4 0.72 0.0 131.5 0.52 0.0 16.8

TABLE 12-7 Continued '
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Interstream Divide Wetlands
Impact Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Lost Due to Proposed Development '
Wetland Function Reference
Standard TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
(764.5 acres)
FCI Pre-FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Loss
Hydrodynamic Functions 0.71 0.00 544.7
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 0.75 0.0 573.4
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.84 0.00 642.2
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.75 0.00 573.4
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and Surface
Water Discharges 1.0 0.51 0.00 389.9
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions 0.63 0.00 479.1
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.60 0.00 458.7
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.66 0.00 504.6
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.71 0.00 542.8
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.46 0.00 351.7
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.56 0.00 428.1
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.77 0.00 588.7
AVERAGE FCI/FCW 1.0 0.66 0.00 505.3

I,]

7
iJ

I

12 5 1 NCGTP Riverine Mitigation Areas
The model was applied in approximately 294 acres of riverine wetlands located within the Stonyton
Creek mitigation area and four proposed wildlife corridors. The model compared existing conditions
to target conditions after upland buffers, stream reconstruction, waste removal, and other mitigation
activities are performed. The riverine mitigation areas have been subdivided into seven assessment
types based on hydrological, vegetation, wildlife and soil characteristics. The assessment types and
functional scores are described in Table 12-8 with locations identified in Appendix A (Figures A-1
to A-7). Although the model does not evaluate early successional stages of development in
mitigation areas, the sites are expected to approach steady-state conditions under the restoration and
land protection regime proposed (Post-Project Condition).
12.5.1.1 Pre-Project
Under existing condition, the riverine mitigation areas are modeled as performing at 59% of
functional capacity for hydrodynamic functions, 53% for biogeochemical functions, and 55 % for
biological functions (Table 12-9). Primary features indicating degradation include periodic dredging
of the -primary channel, ditch construction in secondary channels, and near complete mortality of
trees in the floodplain. Other deleterious features include evidence of waste dumps, lack of
vegetated buffers adjacent to the floodplain, and accelerated sediment deposition from surrounding
land uses and drainage structures. Water quality functions associated with particulate retention,
removal of elements and compounds, and recycling of nutrients generally rated below 50% of
functional capacity under existing conditions. Under existing conditions, FCUs generated by the
riverine wetland average approximately 164.6 units within the 294 acre, proposed mitigation area
(Pre-FCI (0.56) x 294 ac).
12.5.1.2 Post-Project
Mitigation plans were evaluated for accrual of function towards steady-state conditions. Variables
degraded by long-term sediment loading, such as microtopography and soil porosity, may not
progress towards the reference standard over time. Therefore, these variables were generally held
constant between pre-project and post-project assessments.
Based on the model, average functional performance should progress to approximately 88% of
capacity over time (Table 12-9). The greatest functional lift occurs for maintenance of characteristic
plant communities (pre-FCI = 0.39, post-FCI = 0.94%). A majority of existing wetlands lack forest
structure, contain > 70% sweet gum in remaining stems, and contain negligible abutting forests in
upland riparian areas. The planting plan as outlined in this mitigation plan, coupled with
hydrological modifications, establishment of upland forested buffers, and the monitoring program,
' are expected to generate the 55% lift in community support functions. Other functions are expected
to sustain similar increases in performance due to restoration plans.
' Post-project conditions indicate a leveling of function at 88% of capacity. Assuming a 32% increase
in function due to mitigation plans (88%-560/o), approximately 94.7 FCUs are generated by the
project. Potential accrual of mitigation credit due to the 32% functional lift from mitigation is
detailed in Section 13.6. Again, the 32% functional lift may only be realized if restoration plans are
12-8

TABLE 12-8

Description of Mitigation Wetland Assessment Types '
Riverine, Low Order Blackwater Streams'
Assessment Type 207 (Appendix A: SC 5, SC 7, SWC 5, WWC 2): This assessment type contains
approximately 21 ac composed of dredged stream channel (Vdredge, Vfeed, Vinand, V,evy = 0.5) in areas cleared of
most forest vegetation (Vbtr=, Vdt,, V,..p = 0.1). The largest representative in the type includes a pastured
floodplain area immediately east of NC 58 (SC 7, 12 ac). The area contains a spoil ridge adjacent to the channel
(• beak = 0- 1), lacks significant overbank flooding characteristics (Nfi q = 0.5), and does not appear to be connected
through surface water interactions with the stream channel (Vhyd.n = 0.1). Under existing conditions, the type
averages 37% of capacity.
Mitigation activities affecting post-project variable scores include spoil ridge removal (VIE , = 1.0), grade
stabilization (V&edge = 1.0), reforestation (V,.mp, Vbtrea Vdt,, = 1.0), buffer establishment (Vsedin, = 0.5), bank
ameliorations (Vb,,k = 1.0). Post-project variables not expected to approach performance capacity include VeOn,;g,
Vhydcon, Vmacrw Vorgdep, Vpore, Vsedim, and Vsain (post-project score = 0.5). Mitigation and protection are projected to
restore the type to 93% of capacity. [Average 11.8 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 208 (SC12): The approximately 175-ac area contains floodplains suffering near complete
mortality of trees (Vb,r,e, Vea„opy, Vcontigr Vsnag, Vmawre = 0.1). Heavy sediment inputs are evident within the main
channel and ditched feeder channels (V.,,din, = 0.1; Vfeea = 0.5). The main channel has sustained past dredging
(Vd,edge = 0.5), intermittent braiding, with spoil ridges and pasture fences erected on channel banks (Vbank = 0.5).
Numerous waste dumps, abandoned automobiles, and chemical storage containers are scattered throughout the
unit. Based on the model, the type is functioning at 58% of capacity.
Mitigation activities affecting variable score include reforestation (VCOmp, Vbtr = 1.0), stream reconstruction
along braided segments (Vdredge = 1.0), waste removal, buffer establishment (V.n,ig, VSedim = 0.5), revegetation of
stream banks (Vbank = 1.0), and protection. The area is projected to approach an average 94% of capacity due to
restoration. [Average 63.0 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 209 (SC 8, WWC 1): This approximately 46 ac area includes remaining forested remnants
along Stonyton Creek and Wildlife Corridors. Species composition consists primarily of stressed transitional
sweet gum and loblolly pine (V,,,mp, Vregen, Vbtr« = 0.5). Ditching is evident in primary and secondary channels
(Vdredge, Vf,,w = 0.5). Farm fields have encroached into the floodplain along the northern area periphery (V:„bin -
0.5). Based on the model, this type functions at an average 77% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activites designed to restore wetland function include supplemental planting with characteristic tree
species l • comp, Vregen, Vbtree = 0.5), grade stabilization in the dredged channel (Vdredge = 1.0), upland buffer
establishment (V,,,,ntig = 0.5; VhydC ,,, = 1.0) and modification of ditch segments in the floodplain (V&ed = 1.0). Post-
mitigation condition is estimated to approach 94% of reference capacity. [Average 7.8 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 210 (SC 10): This type includes approximately 19 ac of open water within pond
impoundments. Impoundments within the riverine wetlands have altered most function variables (score = 0.1)
with agrucultural fields extending to the impoundment edge. The lack of cover along the pond periphery,
negligible woody debris, and lack of habitat structure have further reduced model function. Under existing
condition, this type is modeled to function, on average, at approximately 15% of capacity.
Mitigation activities designed to affect variable scores include planting of shrub vegetation along pond edges,
reforestation of 100-ft buffers adjacent to the impoundment, and installation of nest boxes throughout each
system (Vbird, Vcontigi Vlop, Vmammai = 0.5). This type is projected to function at 19% of capacity after mitigation.
[Average 0.8 FCUs Gained]
1: Referenced variable scores are depicted in Appendix K.

TABLE 12-8 Continued
7-
L

F

7

Description of Mitigation Wetland Assessment Types
Riverine, Low Order Blackwater Streams'
Assessment Type 211 (BCW 3, NWC 1): This approximately 19-ac area includes lower floodplain reaches
within the Briery Run and Wheat Swamp Wildlife Corridors. Although feeder channels have been excavated
through the floodplain (Vfeed, Veubin.Veedim = 0. 1), the primary channel appears to remain undredged and exhibit
characteristic overbank flow throughout much of the area (Vd,,,ge, Vf,,,q, Vinuml = 1.0). Forest structure persists in
disturbed condition with past clearing and logging evident (V.m,, Vb., V, i,,, = 0.5). The floodplain frimge has
been converted to agricultural fields (Vwndg, Vhydeon = 0.5). The area exhibits an average functional performance
of 68% relative to the reference standard.
Targeted mitigation activities include grade stabilization, buffer establishment (Vfeed, Vsubin.V,edim = 0.5),
supplemental plantings, and protection from logging/clearing (V,:,,mP, Vbtree, Vg-,,,i y = 1.0). Post-mitigation
function is projected to approach 87% of capacity. [Average 3.6 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 212 (SC 2, SC 3, SC 9): This approximately 8-ac area encompasses fill material along dikes,
landfill sites, and roadway crossings in the floodplain. Hydrodynamic function variables are typically not
exhibited as the type is elevated above the floodplain surface (Vfreq, Vdredge, Vinund) VIwaten Vhydwn = 0.1). However,
forest cover has developed in some areas (Vbtr?, Vim, Vdm = 0.5). Based on the model, the type is functioning,
on average, at 27% of capacity.
Mitigation targeted towards function variables include removal of fill and grading to elevation of adjacent
floodplains ((Vfreq, Vdredgv Vinund, Vlwater = 1.0, Vhydwn = 0.5), and reforestation with community elements (V.P,
Vbtree = 1.0). Post-mitigation function is projected to approach 85% of capacity. [Average 4.6 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 213 (BCW 1; WWC 3): The type encompasses approximately 6 ac consisting of former first
order stream segments converted to interfield ditches. The ditches bisect agricultural fields situated within the
proposed Briery Run and Wheat Swamp Wildlife Corridors. The ditches no longer appear to support most
wetland functions (average 17% of capacity).
Mitigation activities include recontouring of ditch banks to promote wetland connectivity, with reforestation
efforts in adjacent 100-ft buffers (V.ntig, Vhyd. 0.5). The channel bottom will be stabilized and reforested with
appropriate species to promote passive redevelopment of stream characteristics. Based on these measures, the 6-
ac wetland area is expected to approach an average 68% of capacity relative to the reference standard. Variables
associated with native channel morphology are not expected to contribute to restoration capacity (post-project
Vbank) Voontiv Vdredge7 Vfeed, Vbydeon, =0.5; Vinund, Vfreq, Mere, Vorgdep, Vpools = 0.1). [Average 3.1 FCUs Gained]

TABLE 12-9
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Riverine Wetlands
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Through Restoration
Wetland Function RS` Assessment Type#207
(21 acres) Assessment Type #208
(175 acres) Assessment Type #209
(46 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCIZ Post-
FCI' FCU
Gain° 6FC Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions
ME

ME
Dynamic Surface Water Storage 1.00 0.44 1.00 11.8 0.66 1.00 59.5 0.73 1.00 12.4
Long Term Surface Water Storage 1.00 0.63 0.92 6.1 0.79 1.00 36.8 0.92 1.00 3.7
Energy Dissipation 1.00 0.32 0.94 13.0 0.62 1.00 66.5 0.83 1.00 7.8
Subsurface Storage of Water 1.00 0.55 0.90 7.4 0.60 0.90 52.5 0.70 0.90 9.2
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge 1.00 0.37 0.83 9.7 0.50 0.83 57.8 0.50 0.83 15.2
Biogeochemical Functions
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.00 0.21 1.00 16.6 0.49 1.00 89.3 0.90 1.00 4.6
Removal of Elements and Compounds 1.00 0.31 0.87 11.8 0.50 0.87 64.8 0.62 0.87 11.5
Retention of Particulates 1.00 0.38 0.81 9.0 0.47 0.81 59.5 0.66 0.81 6.9
Organic Carbon Export 1.00 0.39 0.94 11.6 0.76 0.94 31.5 0.81 0.94 6.0
Biological Functions
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.00 0.10 1.00 18.9 0.35 1.00 113.8 0.69 1.00 14.3
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.00 0.23 1.00 16.2 0.62 1.00 66.5 1.00 1.00 0.0
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.00 0.23 .1.00 16.2 0.44 1.00 98.0 0.88 1.00 5.5
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.00 0.30 0.75 9.5 0.53 0.83 52.5 0.67 0.83 7.4
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.00 0.67 1.00 6.9 0.83 1.00 29.8 0.83 1.00 7.8
AVERAGE FCUFCUS 1.00 0.37 0.93 11.7 0.58 0.94 62.8 0.77 0.94 8.0
1: RS Reference Standard: The reference standard functional score = 1.0 (100% of capacity).

f.

C

r
D
11

1
2: Pre-FCI The pre-project Functional Capacity Index (FCI) provides a measure of functional performance under existing conditions relative to the
Reference Standard. The index value can be interpreted as a percentage of the functional capacity being performed by the assessment type (i.e.'
0.75 x 100 = performance at 75% of functional capacity)
3: Post-FCI The post-project FCI provides a measure of functional performance after restoration and management is implemented and the type approaches
steady-state conditions. '
4: FCU Gain The Functional Capacity Units (FCUs) potentially gained through mitigation are calculated by multiplying the FCI gain by unit area (e.g. (Post-
FCI (0.93) - Pre FCI (0.37)) x 21 acres = 11.8 FCUs gained). '
5: Avg. FCI/FCU The average FCI/FCU provides an indication of average functional performance across the range of wetland functions measured in the
assessment areas. '

0

0
0

TABLE 12-9 Continued
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Riverine Wetlands
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Through Restoration
Wetland Function RS Assessment Type#210
(19 acres) Assessment Type #211
(19 acres) Assessment Type #212
(8 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions
Dynamic Surface Water Storage 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.74 0.88 2.7 0.16 0.85 5.5
Long Term Surface Water Storage 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.88 0.92 0.8 0.10 0.83 5.8
Energy Dissipation 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.82 0.94 2.3 0.23 0.78 4.4
Subsurface Storage of Water 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.0 0.72 0.80 1.5 0.28 0.80 4.2
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.40 0.67 5.1 0.10 0.67 4.6
Biogeochemical Functions M ME M
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.00 0.10 0.14 0.8 0.75 1.00 4.8 0.55 1.00 3.6
Removal of Elements and Compounds 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.0 0.47 0.77 5.7 0.18 0.73 4.4
Retention of Particulates 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.61 0.75 2.7 0.19 0.73 4.3
Organic Carbon Export 1.00 0.10 0.13 0.6 0.66 0.83 3.2 0.20 0.89 5.5
Biological Functions
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.0 rO.6 1.00 5.9 0.40 1.00 4.8
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.00 0.10 0.17 1.3 1.00 4.8 0.50 1.00 4.0
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.00 0.10 0.13 0.6 0.78 1.00 4.2 0.48 0.94 3.7
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.00 0.10 0.23 2.5 0.60 0.67 1.3 0.10 0.67 4.6
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.00 0.40 0.67 5.1 0.67 1.00 6.3 0.37 1.00 5.0
AVERAGE FCUFCU 1.00 0.15 0.19 0.77 0.68 0.87 3.65 0.27 0.85 4.6

TABLE 12-9 Continued
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Riverine Wetlands
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Through Restoration
Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #213
(6 acres) TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
(294 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions
' M EE 0.59 0.87 83.4
Dynamic Surface Water Storage 1.0 0.12 0.46 2.0 0.60 0.92 93.9
Long Term Surface Water Storage 1.0 0.10 0.33 1.4 0.73 0.91 54.6
Energy Dissipation 1.0 0.14 0.62 2.9 0.59 0.92 96.9
Subsurface Storage of Water 1.0 0.29 0.60 1.9 0.60 0.86 76.7
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge 1.0 0.10 0.50 2.4 0.44 0.76 94.8
Biogeochemical Functions ME ME 0.53 0.84 92.8
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.13 1.00 5.2 0.52 0.94 124.9
Removal of Elements and Compounds 1.0 0.13 0.56 2.6 0.47 0.81 100.8
Retention of Particulates 1.0 0.21 0.55 2.0 0.47 0.75 84.4
Organic Carbon Export 1.0 0.10 0.51 2.5 0.66 0.87 60.9
Biological Functions 0.55 11
0.91 107.4
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.20 1.00 4.8 0.39 0.94 162.5
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.10 1.00 5.4 0.61 0.95 98.2
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.12 0.89 4.6 0.49 0.94 132.8
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.10 _0.43 2.0 0.49 0.76 79.8
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.50 1.00 3.0 0.76 0.98 63.9
AVERAGE FCI/FCU 1.0 0.17 0.68 3.0 0.56 0.88 94.7
?J

1
E

E

u
1
F_
L

1

implemented, monitored, and the system is protected under perpetual steady-state (old growth)
condition in perpetuity.
12 5 2 NCGTP Interstream Mitigation Areas
12.5.2.1 Pre-Project
Interstream mitigation areas at NCGTP were modeled under existing conditions; approximately 875
wetland acres were subdivided into six assessment types (Table 12-10, Appendix Figures Al-A7).
The pre-project assessment indicates that proposed mitigation areas perform at an average 77% of
functional capacity for hydrodynamic functions, and 69% of capacity for combined biological and
biogeochemical functions (Table 12-11). Primary degradations include clear-cutting, ditching,
construction of wetland surface outlets, and fragmentation in the agricultural landscape. Based on
the model, 674 hydrodynamic FCUs and 604 biological/biogeochemical FCUs are currently
provided within the approximately 875 ac area.
12.5.2:2 Post-Project
Post-project conditions were forecast to increase from an average 72% (existing condition) to 96%
as restored and protected wetland habitat. The net gain in function (28%) is generated primarily by
removal of ditches and constructed outlets, reforestation in wetlands, reforestation of upland
discharge slopes in wildlife corridors, and protection benefits as the ecosystem approaches steady-
state forest structure. Functions not projected to reach reference standard condition (1.0) over time
include the maintenance of characteristic groundwater and surface water discharges and the
maintenance of interspersion and connectivity. Although wildlife corridors, ditch plugging,
reforestation, and downslope hydraulic alterations are projected to enhance these functions, limited
fragmentation of groundwater hydrological gradients may persist.
Based on the model, 149 hydrodynamic FCUs and 248 biologicallbiogeochemical FCUs may be
generated by mitigation plans in the approximately 875 ac area (208 FCU average; Table 12-11).
12 5 3 Dover BU Interstream Mitigation Area
The proposed Dover Bay mitigation area encompasses approximately 3191 potential wetland acres
and 169 acres of uplands. The wetland area was subdivided into 11 assessment types for modeling
purposes (Figure 12-3). A description of each assessment type is included in Table 12-12.
Assessment type 116 in southwestern portions of the bay represents the reference standard for
organic soil areas of Dover Bay. Consequently, no functional gain in this model can be achieved
through mitigation activities in the approximately 128 acre, relatively undisturbed wetland area
(Table 12-13, pre-project and post-project FCI =1.0 or 100% of capacity). However, the inclusion
of pristine wetlands within or adjacent to restoration areas has been requested by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program to avoid functional losses that would occur under standard timber harvesting
operations. The remaining, approximately 3064 acres were also modeled for pre-project and post-
project condition.
12-9

ER95007.4/DOVER/PJS

Sli
0

a-4
444
A .4
A

'
. , .$1
.

\

? + . + . + ? . « ,111
? ? ,111,1
? ? ? ? + ?
+
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 111111
?
4 ? + f ? f ? ? ? ? 111111
a ? ? ? , ? + + ? ? ? ? 1111 1

.? T f?? f? f+ T f f ? I I

? ? ? r ? ? ? t « f + «
+
T I
11,'; ?I ' y
? 4 y ` y `+ *y « y + t + + + 4
1
1'11 4 4 1 11111 1 ? ? « ? ? « i +
? ?
I
1
? 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 ????? ?+
1
1
? f f ? ? T
1
4
4
1
1
4
,q
1
1
T ?I?I
1 I
1 III
+ 111, 4 4 1,1,11 ? t « r « 111111,
? ? M 1
1
1
1
1
1 ( I
1
1
1
1
1
+ 11111 4 4 4 11
1
1
1
4 ?
4
4
1
1
1
,
,
4
4
,
+ 111111
1 1
? ? 1111,1 I
1
1
« 1 1
1
4 4 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
? 111 4 4 111 ? 1111
f +
11 ?1I?1
4 4
?
.
1 1
? + ? « i 11111111 4 1111111
Ili?1 I I I
+ ?
+
+
?
?
+
I
1
?
?
I I
+
+
?
1 '
'
+
1
a4-4
I I ? I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
(
I
I

0o17n @E)nooom)
@Qobfo 7gg)oD@DDfP[K
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I 4 '1 (n
rfl
Z----
O
Za)(Nl.06L4 00000 0) Z
I '? cQ r-
fl
v rrl
--o ? ?
7 m z
o W D 0
Q C) (D
N ((D OO
O O
C
N L4 (A L4 :3
W(A(O-4N-WO0, -P 00 OD n D
c?D
N
REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT/MMATION TYPES
DOVER BAY
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE:
12-3
DATE: JAN 97

TABLE 12-10
' Description of Mitigation Wetland Assessment Types
NCGTP Site Interstream Mitigation Areas (MSF Hardwood Forest)'

7

r

Assessment Type 108 (Appendix A; NIM 6, SIM 3, SIM 5, SIM 6): This type includes approximately 288 ac of
recently cut-over to early successional sites. The area is separated from upland and riverine wetland habitat by
farm fields and interfield ditches (V,;.ntig = 0.5; Vhyacnn? Vont,e, = 0.1). The lack of forest structure and disturbances
to vegetation have reduced variables associated with nutrient cycling, detrital biomass, and habitat maintenance
(Vbtree+ Vdhu) Vsnagi Vcmpy, Vg-cavity = 0.1; V,t„d = 0.5). The type is modeled as performing at 62% of reference
capacity.
Mitigation activities designed to restore function include tree planting programs, reforestation of wildflife
corridors, and backfilling of constructed outlets. The type is expected to approach reference standard capapcity
after mitigation. Hydraulic connections within the adjacent upland slopes and ancillary constructed outlets may
persist (Vhyd.n, Vm,d. = 0.5). Based on the model, post mitigation performance is expexted to approach 96% of
capacity relative to the reference standard. [Average 97.9 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 109 (NIM 3, NIM 4, SIM 4): This approximately 123-ac area encompasses mid-successional
hardwood forests apparently sustaining partial drainage from ditch networks and constructed outlets nearby to
the site. Minor portions of this unit have been converted to pine plantation (Vbvce, Vman,re, Vsnag - 0.5).
Hydrological degradation is also evident within indirect indicators (Vdilh, V.., VKa? = 0.5; Vondet, Vhydcon = 0.1).
Based on the model, this type is performing at an average 71% of reference capacity.
Targeted mitigation activities include backfilling of nearby ditches and outlets (Vnutl, Vhyd.n = 0.5; Vditch = 1.0),
supplemental planting plots (Vbt, = 1.0), snag creation (Vsnag = 1.0), and restoration of linkage corridors (V.ntig =
1.0). Post-mitigation function is projected to approach 96% of reference capacity. [Average 30.8 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 110 (NIM 5, NIM 8, SIM 9): Assessment Type 110 includes approximately 153 ac of mid-
successional to steady state hardwood forest tracts. Noted disturbances include fragmentation from uplands and
riverine wetlands (VOntig = 0.5), adjacency to constructed drainage systems (Vhyd.n, Vo„t,,, = 0. 1), and reduced
snag density (Vsnag = 0.5). This type exhibits a pre-project average functional performance at 87% of reference
capacity.
Mitigation design entails removal of adjacent ditch networks (V?tie1 Vhyd,,,,n = 0.5), snag creation/supplemental
planting (Vsnag =1.0), and restoration of forest corridors (VOntig = 1.0). Post-project performance modeled at 96%
of functional capacity relative to the reference standard. [Average 13.8 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 111 (BCW 4, NIM 7): This approximately 20-ac area consists of prior converted farm land in
upper reaches of the Briery Run Wildlife Corridor and a dirt road bed in the Northern Interstream Mitigation
Area. These sites do not support jurisdictional wetlands under existing condition. The functional assessment
generates an average functional performance at 13% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling and plugging of drainage ditches and reforestation of unvegetated
wetland surfaces. The model indicates that the type will approach 96% of reference capacity due to
restoration. [Average 16.6 FCUs Gained]
1: Referenced variable scores are depicted in Appendix L.

TABLE 12-10 Continued

Description of Mitigation Wetland Assessment Types
NCGTP Site Interstream Mitigation Areas (MSF Hardwood Forest)'
Assessment Type 112 (NIM 1, SIM 1, NIM 2, SIM 2): This type includes approximately 59 wetland ac
immediately adjacent to ditches which extend into the interstream mitigation areas l • d;cch, Vmlll Vhyd.n = 0.1)-
Residual forests persist along these ditched corridors (V$„ag, Vb,,..., Vcwd = 0.5). The type is modeled as
performing at 52% of reference capacity.
Mitigation primarily entails backfilling and plugging of ditches and supplelemental plantings within the corridor.
Post-mitigation function is projected to approach 96% of cacpacity relative to the reference standard.
[Average 30.0 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 113 (SIM 8): This approximately 232-ac area comprises mid-successional forested wetland
areas in proxinity to constructed ditch outlets (Va,,,,?, = 0.1). Past disturbances have reduced forest structure and
various habitat components (V,,ontig, Vgaps, VmaWre, Vsnag, Vgcavity = 0.5). The model indicates an average
performance at 85% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling of proximal ditch outlets = 0.5), snag creation (Vsnag = 1.0),
supplemental planting (V,,a„opy = 1.0), and protection of forest structure from logging (Vg-a„iTy„ Vmal, = 1.0). Post
project function is modeled to approach 96% of reference capacity. [Average 25.5 FCUs Gained]
0

7

TABLE 12-11
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
NCGTP Site Interstream Divide Mitigation Areas
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration

L

?I
0

Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #108
(288 acres) Assessment Type #109
(123 acres) Assessment Type #110
(153 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.75 1.00 30.8 1.00 1.00 0.0
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.70 1.00 36.9 1.00 1.00 0.0
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.81 1.00 54.7 0.81 1.00 23.4 0.94 1.00 9.2
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.55 0.75 57.6 0.30 0.7 55.4 0.55 0.75 30.6
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions ;
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.39 1.00 175.7 0.80 24.6 0.90 1.00 15.3
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.43 1.00 164.2 0.94 1.00 7.4 1.00 1.00 0.0
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.53 1.00 135.4 0.83 1.00 20.9 0.83 1.00 26.0
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.28 1.00 207.4 0.63 1.00 45.5 0.94 1.00 9.2
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.53 0.83 86.4 0.53 0.83 36.9 0.53 0.83 45.9
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.67 1.00 95.0 0.83 1.00 20.9 1.00 1.00 0.0
AVERAGE FC1/FCU° 1.0 0.62 0.96 97.6 0.71 0.96 30.3 0.87 0.96 13.6
I

TABLE 12-11 Continued

Reference Standard Functional Assessment
NCGTP Site Interstream Divide Mitigation Areas
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration
Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #111
(20 acres) Assessment Type #112
(59 acres) Assessment Type #113
(232 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
. FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 0.30 1.00 14.0 0.55 1.00 26.6 1.00 1.00 0.0
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.10 1.00 18.0 0.10 1.00 53.1 1.00 1.00 0.0
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.10 1.00 18.0 0.10 1.00 53.1 0.94 1.00 13.9
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.10 0.75 13.0 0.10 0.75 38.4 0.55 0.75 46.4
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.10 1.00 18.0 0.75 1.00 14.8 0.90 1.00 23.2
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.10 1.00 18.0 0.94 1.00 3.5 1.00 1.00 0.0
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.10 1.00 18.0 0.75 1.00 14.8 0.83 1.00 39.4
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.10 1.00 18.0 0.59 1.00 24.2 0.75 1.00 58.0
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.10 0.83 14.6 0.53 0.83 17.7 0.53 0.83 69.6
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.23 1.00 15.4 0.83 1.00 10.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
AVERAGE FCI/FCU4 1.0 0.13 0.96 16.5 0.52 0.96 25.6 0.85 0.96 25.1

1

r.
r
0
n

G

7

J
t

0

TABLE 12-11 Continued
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
NCGTP Site Interstream Divide Mitigation Areas
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration
Wetland Function Reference
Standard TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
(875 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions 0.77 0.94 148.8
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 0.92 1.00 70.0
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.88 1.00 105.0
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.80 1.00 175.0
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.47 0.75 245.0
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions 0.69 0.97 247.9
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.69 1.00 271.3
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.78 1.00 192.5
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.71 1.00 253.8
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.59 1.00 358.8
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.52 0.83 271.3
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.84 1.00 140.0
AVERAGE FCI/FCU4 1.0 0.72 0.96 208.3
u

TABLE 12-12

Description of Mitigation Wetland Assessment Types '
Dover Bay Interstream Mitigation Area (OSD Pine Forest)'
Assessment Type 116 (Figure 13-2): This type includes approximately 128 ac of relatively undisturbed pond
pine-bay forest communities. Pre-project functional performance represents the reference standard for
comparison. As such, this type is modeled as performing at 100% of capacity.
Mitigation activities include protection from disturbance activities such as logging and restoration of the adjacent
wetland complex. Based on the model, post mitigation performance is expected to remain at 100% of reference
capacity. [Average 0.0 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 117: The approximately 58-ac area encompasses steady-state pond pine forests nearby to
roadway canals in the area (<600 ft) (Vdi,,h, uhyd,n, Vo„d,, = 0.5). Characteristic forest structure appears to remain
relatively undisturbed within most of the area (`.mp = 1.0). Based on the model, this type is performing at an
average 89% of reference capacity.
Targeted mitigation activities include backfilling of nearby canals and protection from disturbance. Post-
mitigation function is projected to approach 100% of reference capacity. [Average 6.4 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 118: Type 118 includes approximately 54 ac of steady-state forest and roadway fill
immediately adjacent to a canal (< 300 ft.). Elimination of wetland hydrology and is suspected. This type
exhibits a pre-project average functional performance at 65% of reference capacity.
Targeted mitigation activities include backfilling of adjacent canals and protection from disturbance. Post-
mitigation function is projected to approach 100% of reference capacity. [Average 41.3 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 119: The approximately 214-ac area consists of clear-cut areas nearby to roadside canals
(V.,np, Vb.,., Vd,.. = 0- 1, Vdi.h, Vhydcon, V.,. V.ntis = 0.5). The assessment generates an average functional
performance at 56% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling and plugging of canals, planting with diagnostic tree species, prescribed
fire management, and establishment of connectivity with the adjacent wetland complex. The model indicates
that the type will approach 100% of reference capacity due to restoration. [Average 94.2 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 120: This type includes approximately 310 acres immediately adjacent to ditches which have
been clear-cut or buried under roadway fill. Due to expected removal of wetland hydrology and loss of forest
structure, The type is modeled as performing at 35% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling and plugging of canals, planting with diagnostic tree species, prescribed
fire management, and establishment of connectivity with the adjacent wetland complex. The model indicates
that the type will approach 100% of reference capacity due to restoration. [Average 201.5 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 121: This approximately 393-ac area comprises clear-cut areas situated away from road
canals. Loss of wetland vegetation and habitat continuity has induced model performance at 66% of reference
capacity.
Mitigation activities include reforestation, prescribed burn management, and re-establishment of system
connectivity. Post project function is modeled to approach 100% of reference capacity.
[Average 25.5 FCUs Gained]
l: Referenced variable scores are depicted in Appendix L.

TABLE 12-12 Continued
Description of Mitigation Wetland Assessment Types
Dover Bay Interstream Mitigation Area (OSD Pine Forest)'

it
1

Assessment Type 122: This approximately 1341-ac area comprises early successional to transitional
communities affected by a catastrophic fire event. Loss of vegetation structure, detrital biomass, and reductions
in the organic soil layer are noted. The model indicates an average performance at 88% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include a prescribed fire management program and supplemental plantings to re-establish
reference standard forest composition. Post project function is modeled to approach 100% of reference
capacity. [Average 160.9 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 123: This approximately 212-ac area comprises zones nearby to roadside canals and farm
field ditches. Vegetation and detrital biomass structure have been affected by a catastrophic fire event. The
model indicates an average performance at 77%% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling of the nearby canal, prescribed fire management, supplemental plantings,
and protection from disturbance. Post project function is modeled to approach 100% of reference capacity.
[Average 48.8 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 124: This approximately 187-ac area comprises a zone of degradation immediately adjacent
to roadside canals and underneath roadway fill. Vegetation structure has been affected by a catastrophic fire
event. The model indicates an average performance at 53% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling of the on-site canal, prescribed fire management, supplemental plantings,
and protection from disturbance. Post project function is modeled to approach 100% of reference capacity.
[Average 87.9 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 125: This approximately 219-ac area comprises agricultural fields constructed in the bay.
Ditches have been placed at approximately 300 ft intervals with natural vegetation and woody debris windrowed
and cleared from the site. The model indicates an average performance at 20% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include backfilling and plugging of ditches, scarification to re-introduce microtopographic
variation, reforestation, and protection from disturbance. Post project function is modeled to approach 100% of
reference capacity. [Average 175.2 FCUs Gained]
Assessment Type 126: This approximately 75-ac area comprises a mining pit constructed along the southern
bay sand rim. The area supports open water which exhibits altered wetland functions relative to the standard. In
addition, forest vegetation has been cleared along the lake periphery, segregating the unit from surrounding
habitat areas. The model indicates an average performance at 22% of reference capacity.
Mitigation activities include planting of swamp forest elements along the lake fringe and adjacent cleared areas,
and re-establishment of connectivity with interior portions of the bay. Post project function is modeled to
approach 27% of reference capacity. [Average 3.75 FCUs Gained]

TABLE 12-13

Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Dover Bay Interstream Divide Mitigation Area '
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration

Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #116
(128 acres) Assessment Type #117
(58 acres) Assessment Type #118
(54 acres) ,
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI LFC FCU
Gain '
Hydrodynamic Functions
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.75 1.00 14.5 0.55 1.00 24.3
Store Surface Water Over Long Term
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0
1.0 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.0
0.0 0.90
0.88 1.00
1.00 5.8
7.0 0.10
0.10 1.00
1.00 48.6
48.6
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.50 1.00 29.0 0.10 1.00 48.6
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions mid
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.93 1.00 3.8
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.83 1.00 9.9 0.70 1.00 16.2
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
AVERAGE FCI/FCU4 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.89 1.00 6.6 0.65 1.00 19.0

TABLE 12-13 Continued
' Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Dover Bay Interstream Divide Mitigation Area
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration

e
k

Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #119
(214 acres) Assessment Type #120
(310 acres) Assessment Type #121
(393 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 0.75 1.00 53.5 0.55 1.00 139.5 1.00 1.00 0.0
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.90 1.00 21.4 0.10 1.00 279.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.65 1.00 74.9 0.10 1.00 279.0 0.78 1.00 86.5
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.50 1.00 107.0 0.10 1.00 279.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.50 1.00 107.0 0.50 1.00 155.0 0.50 1.00 196.5
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.33 1.00 143.4 0.33 1.00 207.7 0.33 1.00 263.3
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.53 1.00 100.6 0.53 1.00 145.7 0.53 1.00 184.7
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.29 1.00 151.9 0.29 1.00 220.1 0.29 1.00 279.0
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.50 1.00 107.0 0.37 1.00 195.3 0.50 1.00 196.5
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.67 1.00 70.6 0.67 1.00 102.3 0.67 1.00 129.7
AVERAGE FCUFCU4 1.0 0.56 1.00 93.7 0.35 1.00 200.3 0.66 1.00 133.6

TABLE 12-13 Continued
C
Reference Standard Functional Assessment '
Dover Bay Interstream Divide Mitigation Area
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration
Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #122
(1341 acres) Assessment Type #123
(212 acres) Assessment Type #124
(187 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions 0.97
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.75 1.00 53.0 0.55 1.00 84.2
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.90 1.00 21.2 0.10 1.00 168.3
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.88 1.00 160.9 0.75 1.00 53.0 0.10 1.00 168.3
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.50 1.00 106.0 0.10 1.00 168.3
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions ME 0.83
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.73 1.00 362.1 0.73 1.00 57.2 0.67 1.00 61.7
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.75 1.00 335.3 0.75 1.00 53.0 0.75 1.00 46.8
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.83 1.00 228.0 0.83 1.00 36.0 0.75 1.00 46.8
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.64 1.00 482.8 0.64 1.00 76.3 0.61 1.00 72.9
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.83 1.00 36.0 0.70 1.00 56.1
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0
AVERAGE FCUFCU4 1.0 0.88 1.00 156.9 0.77 1.00 49.2 0.53 1.00 87.3
1

1
1

s

TABLE 12-13 Continued
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
' Dover Bay Interstream Divide Mitigation Area
Mitigation Assessment: Modeled Functional Capacity Potentially Gained Due to Wetland Restoration

f

Wetland Function RS Assessment Type #125
(219 acres) Assessment Type #126
75 acres) TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
(3191 acres)
FCI Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain Pre-
FCI Post-
FCI FCU
Gain
Hydrodynamic Functions 0.73 0.98 805.73
Store Surface Water Over Short Term 1.0 rO.5 1.00 r 0.10 0.0 0.83 0.98 478.7
Store Surface Water Over Long Term 1.0 1.00 1 0. 0.10 0.0 0.75 0.98 733.9
Store Subsurface Water Over Long Term 1.0 0.10 1.00 197.1 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.64 0.98 1084.9
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater and
Surface Water Discharges 1.0 0.10 1.00 197.1 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.69 0.98 925.4
Biological and Biogeochemical Functions 0.67 0.99 999.8
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 1.0 0.20 1.00 175.2 0.10 0.21 8.3 0.63 0.98 1116.9
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 1.0 0.10 1.00 197.1 0.10 0.50 30.0 0.59 0.99 1276.4
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 1.0 0.10 1.00 197.1 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.68 0.98 957.3
Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 1.0 0.16 1.00 184.0 0.10 0.12 1.5 0.52 0.98 1467.9
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 1.0 0.10 1.00 197.1 0.70 0.70 0.0 0.74 0.99 797.8
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 1.0 0.53 1.00 102.9 0.70 0.70 0.0 0.87 0.99 382.9
AVERAGE FCI/FCU4 1.0 0.20 1.00 174.3 0.22 0.27 4.0 0.69 0.98 922.2

12.5.3.1 Pre-Project I
Pre-project conditions throughout the Dover Bay area received a performance rating of 73% (0.73)
for hydrodynamic functions and 67% (0.67) for biological/biogeochemical functions relative to the '
reference standard. Functional performance ranged from a low of 20% within farm land in the
southeastern bay (Assessment Type #125) to a high of 100% within the relatively undisturbed
reference standard area described above (Assessment Type # 116).
A majority of the Dover Bay acreage, represented as Assessment Type #122 (1341 acres), rated 97%
for hydrodynamic functions and 83% for biological/biogeochemical functions under existing
conditions. This area dominates eastern portions of the bay away from road corridors. Relative to
reference, functional performance was reduced in this assessment type due to catastrophic fire in the
late 1980s. Although periodic fire represents an essential component of these ecosystems, the
catastrophic fire eliminated forest vegetation and appears to have burned through up to 30 inches of
the organic soil layer. Based on the model, these catastrophic fire impacts resulted in a net biological
function loss of 17% (1.0-0.83) relative to the reference standard. This net functional loss is similar
to a selective logging operation evaluated during model calibration in the reference data set. Long
term prescribed fire management and a planting program represents an essential component of
mitigation plans designed to restore biological wetland capacity in this assessment type.
12.5.3.2 Post-Project
Mitigation plans include backfilling and plugging of all ditches/road-side canals in Dover Bay. In
addition, planting plans and soil modifications are proposed in farm and logging areas. The altered
wetland outlet in eastern portions of the bay will also be modified to promote reestablishment of
historic groundwater flow dynamics. Prescribed fire programs will be implemented and maintained
within the protected wetland complex.
Based on the model, a 29% gain in average functional performance may be realized from restoration
plans. Because Dover Bay will be restored, protected, and managed as a primarily self contained
hydrogeomorphic functional unit, the site is expected to approach reference standard functional
capacity over time (post-project FCI = 0.98). Therefore, an average of 922 FCUs will be generated
over the 3191 acre area (Table 12-13).
12.6 MITIGATION CREDIT ASSESSMENT
Wetland functional replacement represents the primary purpose for development of this wetland
restoration plan. Projected wetland functional losses from proposed development have been
quantified using current assessment technology and available research. Subsequently, projected
wetland functional gains due to restoration or enhancement have been estimated through the
established model. Replacement calculations have been subdivided into the riverine and interstream
divide wetland classes.

12.6.1 Riverine Credit
The riverine model indicates that a total average of 50.2 FCUs are lost due to proposed development
within the 106.4 acre impact area; translating to 0.47 FCUs/acre of wetland impacted (Table 12-14).
12-10 '

t

TABLE 12-14
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Functional Capacity Unit Summary
Riverine Wetlands
Wetland Function FCU Loss
Impacted
Riverine
Wetlands
(106.4 acres) FCU Gain
NCGTP
Riverine
Mitigation Area
(294 acres) FCU Balance
Post-Project
Hydrodynamic Function Category' 58.5
0.55 FCU/ac 83.4
0.28 FCU/ac 24.8
Dynamic Surface Water Storage 62.8 93.9 31.1
Long Term Surface Water Storage 74.5 54.6 -19.9
Energy Dissipation 50.0 96.9 46.9
Subsurface Storage of Water 57.5 76.7 19.2
Moderation of Groundwater Flow or Discharge 47.9 46.9
Biogeochemical Function Category' 49.7
0.47 FCU/ac E(O319FCU/ac) 43.0
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 41.5 124.9 83.4
Removal of Elements and Compounds 48.9 100.8 51.9
Retention of Particulates 52.1 84.4 32.3
Organic Carbon Export 56.4 60.9 4.5
Biological Function Category' 43.4
EO(AQFCU/ac) 107.4
0.36 FCU/ac 64.0
Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 36.2 162.5 126.3
Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass 45.8 98.2 52.4
Maintain Spatial Habitat Structure 35.1 132.8 97.7
Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 42.6 79.8 37.2
Maintain Distribution and Abundance of
Vertebrates 57.5 63.9 6.4
TOTAL FUNCTION AVERAGE4 50.2
0.47 FCU/ac 94.7
0.32 FCU/ac 44.0
1: Unit summaries translate to a 1.97 ac : 1 ac ratio for hydrodynamic function replacement (0.55/0.28).
2: Unit summaries translate to a 1.52 ac : 1 ac ratio for biogeochemical function replacement (0.47/0.31).
3: Unit summaries translate to a 1.11 ac : 1 ac ratio for biological function replacement (0.40/0.36).
4: Total average is a 1.47 ac : 1 ac ratio for functional replacement (0.47/0.32).

The riverine model indicates that functional restoration within the approximately 294 acre riverine
mitigation area generates an average of 94.7 FCUs, translating to 0.32 FCUs/acre of mitigation land.
A majority of functional lift is generated through restoration of forest communities in the floodplain ,
and establishment of buffers. Based on the model, a mitigation credit ratio of 1.47 mitigation acres
: 1 impact acre would provide "averaged" functional replacement for riverine components of this
project (0.47/0.32; Table 12-14).
12.6.2 Interstream Divide Credit
The interstream divide model indicates a total average of 505.3 FCUs potentially lost within the
764.5 acre impact area (0.66 FCUs/acre; Table 12-15).
The interstream model indicates that functional restoration may generate 208 FCUs in NCGTP
mitigation lands (0.24 FCUs/ac) and 922 FCUs in Dover Bay (0.29 FCUs/ac). By comparing FCU
ratios, The resulting average replacement credit for this interstream mitigation project includes a
2.75:1 ratio for NCGTP mitigation lands (0.66/0.24) and a 2.28:1 ratio for Dover Bay (0.66/0.29).
12 6.3 Proposed Mitigation Credit Ratios
Although the 1.47:1 ratio for riverine wetlands and 2.38:1 ratio for interstream divide wetlands
would provide "averaged" functional replacement, the viability of a particular wetland ecosystem
is defined by hydrodynamic, biogeochemical, and biological functional components. The
maintenance or complete replacement of any one particular function or group of functions should
be the primary objective of any compensatory mitigation scheme.
Therefore, in order to facilitate complete functional replacement of a particular community or
ecosystem, the most highly impacted functional category should determine the overall basis for
compensation. In the riverine model, mitigation ratios ranged from 1.1:1 for biological functions
to 1.96:1 for hydrodynamic functions. The interstream model expressed replacement ratios ranging
from 2.02:1 for biological/biogeochemical functions to 3.05:1 for hydrodynamic functions.
Assuming the need to adopt the most highly impacted functional category to represent complete
compensation for all lost functions, a ratio of 2:1 is recommended for complete riverine functional
replacement and 3:1 for interstream divide replacement. Table 12-16 provides current credit
calculations under this proposal. The credits may only be applied within riverine or interstream
divide wetlands as designated.
As an alternative method, functional assessment technology may continue to be applied by ?1
functional category in projected impact areas. In this method, the FCUs in each functional category
are debited according to modeled functional loss. Tables 12-14 (riverine wetlands) and Table 12-15 I
(interstream divide wetlands) depict the credit remaining by category after debiting for this Section
404 permit (Post-Project FCU Balance). '
12-11 1

t

TABLE 12-15
Reference Standard Functional Assessment
Functional Capacity Unit Summary
Interstream Divide Wetlands
Wetland Function FCU Loss FCU Gain FCU Gain FCU
Impacted NCGTP Site Dover Bay Balance
Interstream Interstream Interstream Post-
Wetlands Mitigation Area' Mitigation Area'' Project
(764.5 acres) (875 acres) (3191 acres)
Hydrodynamic Functional 44.7 148.8 805.7 409.8
Category FCU/ac
P 0.17 FCU/ac 0.25 FCU/ac

Store Surface Water over Short Term 573.4 70.0 478.7 7 144.9
Store Surface Water over Long Term 642.2 105.0 733.9 212.8
Store Subsurface Water over Long 573.4 175.0 1084.9 740.4
Term
Maintain Characteristic Groundwater 389.9 245.0 925.4 1038.1
and Surface Water Discharges
Biological/Biogeochemical 479.1 247.9 999.8 768.6
Functional Category' 0.63 FCU/ac 0.28 FCU/ac 0.32 FCU/ac
Recycle Nutrients and Elements 458.7 271.3 1116.9 1435.9
Maintain Characteristic Plant 504.6 192.5 1276.4 1275.3
Communities
Maintain Characteristic Detrital 542.8 253.8 957.3 1122.3
Biomass
Maintain Spatial Habitat Structure 351.7 358.8 1467.9 1676.2
Maintain Interspersion and 428.1 271.3 797.8 1106.6
Connectivity
Maintain Distribution and 588.7 140.0 382.9 69.9
Abundance of Vertebrates
TOTAL FUNCTION AVERAGE4 505.3 208.3 922.2 625.2
0.66 FCU/ac 0.24 FCU/ac 0.29 FCU/ac
1: FCUs generated by Dover Bay (Organic Soil Depression wetland class) are not directly comparable to
potentially impacted wetlands at NCGTP (Mineral Soil Flat wetland class). However, relative differences
by functional category can be interpreted within the interstream divide wetland group.
Unit summaries translate to
2: NCGTP Site Mitigation Area:
4.18 ac : 1 ac ratio for hydrodynamic function replacement (0.71/0.17).
2.25 ac : 1 ac ratio for biological/biogeochemical function replacement (0.63/0.28).
2.75 ac : 1 ac ratio for total average function replacement (0.66/0.24).
3: Dover Bay Mitigation Area:
1 2.84 ac : 1 ac ratio for hydrodynamic function replacement (0.71/0.25).
1.97 ac : 1 ac ratio for biological/biogeochemical function replacement (0.63/0.32).
2.28 ac : i ac ratio for total average function replacement (0.66/0.29).

t
TABLE 12-16
Proposed Mitigation Credit
Assessment Type Riverine, Low Order Interstream Divide, Mineral Soil
Blackwater Streams Flats or Organic Soil Depressions
Mitigation Area 294 4066
(acres)
Mitigation Ratio Applied 2:1 3:1
(mitigation acre / impact acre)
Mitigation Credits Generated 147 1355
(acre credits)
Projected Wetland Impact Area 106 765
(acre debits)
Acre Credits Exceeding the Federal Action Request and Remaining after Permitted Impacts
Preserved Credits 41 590
(acre credits)
12.6.4 Supplemental Justification For Proposed Ratios
Approximately 521 acres of upland buffers and corridors have been incorporated into the
approximately 4881 acre mitigation area. These upland areas have been accounted for in the
functional assessment (replacement capacity) but not depicted in the acre credit calculations.
Reforested uplands were oriented to promote benefits within interconnecting wetland systems and
riparian zones. Restoration of uplands buffers/corridors is assumed to fortify biological function
variables which increase spatial habitat structure, interspersion and connectivity, and vertebrate
species abundance and distribution (Brinson et al. 1981; Brown et al. 1990; Harris 1984; Keller et
al. 1993; Whitcomb et al. 1976; Allen 1986). In addition, proposed upland buffers are assumed to
enhance hydraulic and biogeochemical functions affected by riparian groundwater, groundwater
recharge/discharge, and sediment input variables (Adamus et al. 1991; Karr and Schlosser 1978;
Cooper et al. 1986; Jurik et al. 1994; Wang et al. 1994; DEM 1991; Richardson 1985; Jordan et al.
1986; Ehrenfeld 1987; Young and Klawitter 1968; Chamberlain 1982; Schwan 1985).
The proposed Environmental Education and Public Interest Program has been designed to influence,
and is accounted for, in this functional assessment. The roadside pull-overs, on-location signs,
education center, sensitively placed trails, and displays are interpreted as promoting long-term
protection from man-made disturbance within the wetland mitigation areas. The potential for
undisturbed functions to approach steady-state (reference standard) wetland condition is expected
to be enhanced by the program. The value of these mitigation areas for education and public interest
use is maximized in relatively undisturbed or old growth condition.
12-12

i

J

elevation gradients, check dam plans, sediment/erosion control, and woody debris components
(Section 7.2.4, Figure 7-10 and 7-11).
Winter prescribed burns will be implemented in Dover Bay (Section 10.3.4.1).
13.3 PHASE 3
As permitted wetland impacts exceed 350 acres, Phase 3 will be initiated. As proposed, the
cumulative credit allotment by implementation of Phase 3 would total 35% (525 credits) of the 1502
credit total.
Stream reconstruction, diversionary block installation, grade stabilization, and site ameliorations will
be performed within the Stonyton Creek corridor. Grade stabilization structures and constructed
levee openings will be placed within the linear stream segment, primarily within the pastured
streamside area. The stream channel in the braided floodplain segment downstream of SR 1729 will
be reconstructed to reference character (Section 7.1.1.4, Figures 7-1 to 7-3).
Roadway fill and culverts will be removed at the SR 1729 crossing of Stonyton Creek. Road
removal should be coordinated with stream reconstruction plans in the downstream segment. The
coordination between roadway fill removal and restoration will allow stream reconstruction to begin
immediately upstream of the removed culvert structure and dredged channel. The re-exposed
wetland surface will be graded/excavated to the approximate elevation of adjacent floodplains. The
area will be planted with appropriate vegetation after earth work is performed (Section 7.1.1.4,
Figure 7-1).
1 Stream restoration and recontouring will be completed in former stream channels in the Briery Run
and Wheat Swamp wildlife corridors. The channels will be recontoured and appropriate grade
stabilization structures will be established as conceptually described in this plan (Section 7.2.4,
Figure 7-10 and 7-11).
Earth work in NCGTP interstream mitigation areas and wildlife corridors will be performed. Ditches
and constructed outlets will be backfilled to density specifications with on-site materials. Low
density plugs will be installed at design locations along the backfilled ditches including the outfall
to downslope areas. The back fill material will be graded to elevations of adjacent wetland surfaces
(Section 7.2.4, Figure 7-8 and 7-9).
Upland buffers adjacent to Stonyton Creek, Wildlife Corridors, tributaries, and other farm-fields in
t the NCGTP site mitigation areas will be ameliorated through limited scarification, removal of waste
debris, and relocation of farm-field perimeter roads. Siltation fences may be placed in severe field
erosion areas (gullies) as an interim measure before active planting ensues (Section 7.1.2.1, Figure
7-3). This task should be performed in close proximity to planting plan implementation (Phase 4).
Wildlife biologists will identify snag creation and early successional planting plots within the
interstream mitigation areas (Section 7.5.4.2). Plots will be established and prepared for planting.
1 13-4

Construction design plans will be developed for the Dover Bay mitigation area. Plans will include
ditch plug specifications/location and weir/grade stabilization structure design in the relic stream
channel (Section 10.3, Figure 10-14).
Summer prescribed burns will be implemented in Dover Bay (Section 10.3.4.1).
13.4 PHASE 4
As permitted wetland impacts exceed 500 acres, Phase 4 will be initiated. As proposed, the
cumulative credit allotment by implementation of Phase 4 would total 50%0 (750 credits) of the 1502
credit total.
Earthen fill in the Stonyton Creek floodplain (excluding road crossings) will be removed and stock-
piled for backfill purposes (Section 7.3.2, Figure 7-1). Exposed surfaces will be scarified/graded to
the elevation of adjacent wetlands (and immediately planted).
The planting plan for the NCGTP site will be implemented. Approximately 370,000 tree elements
will be planted in specified locations (Section 7.4.4).
Approximately 3600 shrubs will be planted along all exposed stream banks of Stonyton Creek,
tributary segments in the mitigation area, and pond margins. Systematic surveys will be performed
at the time of planting to identify landscape level segments requiring vegetation cover and
stabilization (Section 7.5.4.5; Section 7.5.4.6).
After planting, NCGTPA will restrict and monitor dumping access points through the StonYton
Creek upland buffer and remove new dumped debris upon identification. Access points will be
replanted upon identification.
The planting plan for clear-cut portions of Dover Bay away from road networks and ditches will be
implemented. A 410 ac section will be prepared and approximately 175,000 tree stems planted.
NCGTPA will install 300 blue bird nest boxes, 30 purple martin nest boxes, 100 wood duck nest
boxes, 80 prothonotary warbler nest boxes, and four barred owl nest boxes in vicinity of NCGTP
facilities and within, or immediately adjacent to, wetland mitigation areas. The nest boxes will be
cleaned out annually (Section 7.5.4.2 and Section 7.5.4.4).
The Monitoring Plan at NCGTP will be implemented. NCGTPA will install stream flow loggers
and rain gauges in Stonyton Creek at or near SR 1581 and SR 1004. The stream gauges will be
monitored for a five year period as specified for this mitigation plan. Approximately 62 wetland
hydrology and vegetation sample plots will be established within the wetland mitigation areas.
Wells/piezometers will be placed and planted stems tagged upon plot establishment. Sampling will
be performed as specified and monitoring reports submitted to COE on an annual basis (Section
11.0, Figure 11-1). Monitoring will continue for a minimum five year period or until success criteria
are fulfilled (excluding long term water quality monitoring).
13-5 1

13.5 PHASE 5
As permitted wetland impacts exceed 700 acres, Phase 5 will be initiated. As proposed, the
cumulative credit allotment by implementation of Phase 5 would total 60% (900 credits) of the 1502
credit total. Phase 5 would represent the credit allotment needed to compensate for wetland impacts
(871 ac) associated with this Section 404 Permit Application.
Earth work at Dover Bay will be performed. Ditches and roadside canals will be back filled, low
density plugs installed, and stream weirs/grade stabilization structures placed within the stream
restoration area. Excavated road fill and backfilled ditches will be graded to the approximate
elevation of adjacent wetland surfaces (Section 10.3.1, Figure 10-14).
Additional prescribed bum applications will be performed in Dover Bay as needed.
NCGTPA will initiate cooperative arrangements with appropriate educational organizations to
develop environmental education programs associated with mitigation areas and the Education
Center.
NCGTPA will establish 2- or 3-dimensional exhibits at appropriate locations to focus on how
NCGTP plans to accommodate the natural environment and restore/protect mitigation wetlands.
NCGTPA will erect on-location signs to broaden public awareness of restoration and protection
measures by NCGTP.
13.6 PHASE 6
Phase 6 will be implemented over a two winter (year) cycle following completion of Dover Bay
earth work components. As proposed, the cumulative credit allotment by implementation of Phase
6 would total 70% (1050 credits) of the 1502 credit total. Credits generated by Phase 6, although
not associated with this Section 404 Permit Application, would be preserved for potential future
wetland impacts associated with NCGTP development.
The planting plan for the remaining approximately 2,500 ac of Dover Bay will be implemented over
a two-winter (year) cycle. Prescribed burns will be coordinated with planting of approximately
500,000 trees within reforestation areas, along road corridors, lake margins, and agricultural fields
(Section 10.3.4).
NCGTP will initiate the reintroduction of two mussel species, paper pondshell and eastern floater,
into the Stonyton Creek corridor after stream restoration is completed. Host fish surveys and
alterations will be undertaken as needed to maintain the population. Mussel populations will be
monitored for a five year period to ensure maintenance and propagation. Other unionids, such as
elliptio complexes, may be considered for reintroduction after initial populations are established.
Mussel populations will serve as a food source for resident wildlife, such as river otter, and provide
a biological monitoring parameter for water quality (Section 7.5.4.5).
1 13-6

After planting is completed, the Monitoring Plan at Dover Bay will be implemented. A stream flow
logger and rain gauges will be installed in the eastern stream origin. The gauge will be monitored
for a five year period as specified in this mitigation plan. Approximately 39 wetland hydrology and
vegetation sample plots will be established within the wetland mitigation areas. Wells/piezometers
will be placed and planted stems tagged upon plot establishment. Sampling will be performed as
specified and monitoring reports submitted to USACE on an annual basis (Section 11.0, Figure 11-
2). Monitoring will continue for a minimum five year period or until success criteria are fulfilled
(excluding prescribed fire management). I
13.7 PHASE 7 (Long Term)
Phase 7 represents long term components of the mitigation plan and implementation of remaining
components of NCGTPA's Education Program. Phase 7 would be implemented during the
monitoring period for Dover Bay initiated in Phase 6. As proposed, the cumulative credit allotment
by implementation of Phase 7 and fulfillment of Success Criteria (see Phase 4 and Phase 6) would
total 100% (1502 credits) of the 1502 credit total. Credits generated by Phase 7, would be preserved
for potential future wetland impacts associated with NCGTP development.
NCGTPA will install vehicular pull-overs at appropriate trail-head locations or the Education Center
as roadway improvements and NCGTP develop. A system of permanent nature trails will be
established. The Education Center will include exhibits and teaching space as an environmental
education center for local school groups. The center will also serve as the main trail-head and
parking area.
NCGTPA will continue to implement a system-wide stormwater management plan which includes
stormwater wetland creation and management. This unified approach to stormwater control is
expected to reduce sedimentation into area streams and provide significant ecological wetland
benefit relative to existing conditions (Section 7.1.2.1).
If feasible, roadway fill and culvert crossings at NC 58 will be removed as the corridor is upgraded
from a 2-lane to 4-lane structure. The improved roadway would be bridged through a portion of the
Stonyton Creek wetland floodplain to provide for surface flow and wildlife passage outside of the
stream channel.
If the loop service road is constructed as approximated in the industrial layout plan, a bridge r
structure will be utilized to span a portion of the Stonyton Creek floodplain, if feasible. Up to 10
ac of riverine wetland surfaces may be avoided through a bridging effort.
NCGTPA will establish 50 ft buffers adjacent to drainageways (25 ft each side of channel) at
NCGTP where feasible. The buffers will be planted with appropriate vegetation or natural
vegetation will be allowed to establish within the drainage buffer.
Water quality in the Stonyton Creek mitigation area will continue to be monitored at established
stations throughout the 20-year time frame for this project.
13-7

L__9
After success criteria are fulfilled, NCGTPA will continue to manage the approximately 4881 ac of
natural area dedicated for mitigation in perpetuity, or entrust the properties to an appropriate
management entity. Perpetual management programs will include (but not limited to) the following
activities:
1) Wildlife harvesting activities in mitigation areas will be allowed to continue under
local tradition, dependent upon site constraints, and based on recommendations from
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (Section 7.5.4.7).
2) Food plots will be considered in wildlife corridors as agricultural areas are replaced
by industrial development.
3) A long-term fire management program will be implemented in Dover Bay, including
a 3-7 year prescribed fire regime designed to facilitate community development and
promote endangered species habitat.
4) Garbage dumping, forest clearing, or other disturbances in mitigation areas will be
regulated, monitored, and alleviated.
5) The proposed Environmental Education and Public Interest Program and Education
Center will target wetland mitigation areas for educational use. Educational land use
will represent the primary directive for design and implementation of long term
wetland management and protection measures. The "value" of these mitigation areas
for education and public interest use will be maximized as the areas approach steady-
state (relatively pristine) conditions at NCGTP.
13.8 MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY
Projected wetland impacts from NCGTP development in the Section 404 Permit Area include
approximately 765 ac of nonriverine wetlands and 106 ac of riverine wetlands and surface water
channels (ditches). These impacts will occur at varying rates, dependent upon the rate of
development at NCGTP. Impacts are expected to extend over the 10-year planning period for this
project.
The current mitigation proposal includes the restoration, enhancement, and management of
approximately 294 ac of riverine wetlands, 4066 ac of nonriverine wetlands, and 521 ac of wetland
buffer (uplands). Restoration activities have been subdivided into seven implementation phases with
mitigation credit allotments generated by phase.
The functional assessment indicates that a 2:1 mitigation ratio for riverine wetlands and a 3:1 ratio
for nonriverine wetlands will provide functional replacement for this project. These mitigation ratios
are considered valid if restoration plans are fully implemented, sites are monitored/managed, and
the mitigation complexes are protected in perpetuity and allowed to succeed to steady state (old
1 13-8

growth) condition. Accordingly, 1355 acre-credits would be generated for nonriverine wetlands and
147 acre-credits generated for riverine wetlands.
Based on impacted resource analyses, the mitigation plan, and the functional assessment, this project
is expected to provide full wetland functional replacement for projected impacts including a margin
of safety. After debiting acre credits needed to off-set permitted wetland impacts, an additional 41
acre-credits for riverine wetlands and 590 acre-credits for nonriverine wetlands would remain for
future use at NCGTP.
NCGTPA will assume responsibility for implementation of the mitigation plan, which is intended
to serve as a catalyst for regional conservation planning in the Neuse River Basin. The Authority
will participate in this regional effort through proposed educational programs, development of on-
site system-wide stormwater management, and promotion of riparian buffer restoration within the
region. The NCGTP mitigation plan has been developed to serve as an exemplary natural resource
conservation effort for eastern North Carolina.
t

13-9 1

u
s
I

14.0 FUTURE MITIGATION CONSIDERATIONS
NCGTP represents a long term investment in the future economic development of eastern North
Carolina. As growth of the NCGTP complex continues, mitigation may be needed for wetland
impacts at NCGTP but outside of the present permit zone. Excess credits available through
components of the current mitigation plan (primarily Dover Bay) can be made available for
exclusive use by NCGTP clients. However, other mitigation alternatives must be considered once
current mitigation credits are expended.
Mitigation will be considered within a regional context, attempting to identify natural resource
features, aquatic systems, or important communities which warrant protection, restoration, or
enhancement. An ecosystem approach will continue to be utilized emphasizing hydrological
linkages and habitat continuity in an effort to realize functional gains for specific resources and,
consequently, improvements for regional ecosystems.
Three areas of consideration will receive priority attention by NCGTP: 1) up-front development and
continuous implementation of a unified stormwater management strategy integrated with on-site
wetland mitigation; 2) acquisition, protection, and enhancement of the Wheat Swamp and/or Briery
Run corridors at NCGTP; and 3) mitigation within riparian corridors including the above-headwater
wetlands north of Dover Bay.
14.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
NCGTP is committed to development of a system-wide stormwater management plan.
Nonstructural stormwater control will be unified across the NCGTP site to implement advanced
technology for controls against pollution within the Neuse River Basin. In addition, structural
stormwater management will be implemented system-wide as a mechanism to develop stormwater
wetlands. Stormwater wetlands will be designed as sub-basin collectors positioned to maximize
water quality functions before discharging runoff into natural wetland areas. These created wetlands
will also provide aesthetic value and additional habitat for wetland dependent wildlife at NCGTP.
14.2 WHEAT SWAMP AND BRIERY RUN CORRIDORS
As NCGTP development extends into areas proximal to Briery Run or Wheat Swamp, mechanisms
to acquire, protect, and enhance these riverine corridors will be implemented. Wheat Swamp
represents the northern NCGTP site boundary while Briery Run is located immediately south of the
site. Although these stream corridors are situated away from the Section 404 Permit Area, future
outgrowth and land use practices on private property segments may eventually threaten these
wetland corridors. Therefore, NCGTPA is committed to protecting subject stream corridors during
future mitigation phases of this project.
14.3 RIPARIAN CORRIDORS
Future mitigation will include consideration of riparian corridors with emphasis upon an above
headwater storage areas and stream origins in the region. Consideration will include a riparian area
immediately north of Dover Bay. This riparian area represents a groundwater discharge zone for the
14-1 .
1

bay and provides the potential for enhanced connectivity of the bioreserve to the Neuse River
corridor. Due to imminent degradation, the Dover Bay interior was selected as the foundation for
bioreserve establishment. However, the riparian area north of Dover Bay provides future mitigation
potential designed to enlarge and enhance the established refuge.
Other mitigation options will be evaluated as resources are identified in the region. Mitigation
alternatives will be selected as part of regional environmental planning currently being considered
by State and local authorities in North Carolina. I

F

L'
14-2 ?'

15.0 REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, R.D. Smith. 1991.
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET): Volume I: Literature Review and Evaluation
Rationale. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2. US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET): Volume II: Methodology Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87-_. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Adamus P.R., L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment, Volume I.
Critical Review and Evaluation Concepts. Federal Highway Administration Report No.
FHWA-IP-82-23. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Allen, A.W., R.D. Hoffman. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Muskrat. Fish and
Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 27 pp.
Allen, A.W. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink, Revised. Fish and Wildlife Service,
US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 23 pp.
Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Beaver. US Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/10.30, September 1982.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands.
WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1.
Bailey, R.G., C.T. Cushwa. 1982. Ecoregions and Land-Surface Forms of the United States
(Map). US Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services (FWS/OBS-82/09).
Barnes, B.V., K.S. Pregitzer,. T.A. Spies, and V.H. Spooner. 1982. Ecological Forest Site
Classification. Journal of Forestry 80:493-498.
Baumer, O., J. Rice. 1988. Methods to Predict Soil Input Data for DRAINMOD American
Society for Agricultural Engineering, Paper No. 88-2564. ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml 49085.
Belcher, H.W., G.E. Merva. 1987. Results of DRAINMOD Verification Study for Zeigenfuss
Soil and Michigan Climate. ASAE Paper No. 87-2554. ASAE, St. Joseph, M149085.
Bellrose, F.C. 1978. Ducks, Geese & Swans of North America, 2nd ed. rev. Published by the
Wildlife Management Institute. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 540 pp.
15-1
1
L
Bennett, S.H., J.B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and Status of Carolina Bays in South Carolina.
Nongame & Heritage Trust Section. South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Dept.
88 pp. I
Berggren, W. A. 1972. A Cenozoic Time Scale - Some Implications for Regional Geology and
Paleo-Biogeography: Lethaia, vol. 5, p. 195-215.
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their Ecology and
Status. US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81/17.
Brinson M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Smith, D. Whigham. 1995. Guidebook for
Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brown, M.T., J.M. Schaefer, K.H. Brandt. 1990. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife
in East Central Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. T-
00061. CFW publ. 89-07.
Brown, P. M. 1958. Well Logs from the Coastal Plain of North Carolina: North Carolina Dept.
Conserv. and Devel., Bull. 72, 68 p.
Brown, P. M., J.A. Miller, F.M. Swain. 1972 (1976). Structural and Stratigraphic Framework,
and Spatial Distribution of Permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina to New
York: US Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 796, 79 p.
Brown, Philip M., et al. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1-500,000 scale.
Chamberlain T.W. 1982. Timber Harvest. Part 3 of W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influence of Forest
and Rangeland Management on Anadromous Fish Habitat in Western North America. GTR-
PNW-136. USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.
Clark, W. B., B.L. Miller, L.W. Stephenson, B.L. Johnson, H.N. Parker. 1912. The Coastal
Plain of North Carolina: North Carolina Geol. and Econ. Survey, vol. 3, 552 p.
Cole, B. 1995 (unpublished). Landscape Ecosystem Classification of Forested Wetlands in the
Upper Edisto Basin of South Carolina. Masters Degree Thesis: Clemson University
Department of Forest Resources. Clemson, SC.
15-2 1

Convey, L.P., J.M. Hansen, W.A. MacKay. 1989. Size-Selective Predation of Unionid Clams by
Muskrats. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(3): 654-657.
Cooper H.H. Jr. J.D. BredehoftI.S. Papadopoulos. 1967. Response of a Finite-Diameter
Piezometer to an Instantaneous Charge of Water. Water Resources Research, 3, pp 263-269.
Cooper J.R., J.W. Gilliam, T.C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian Areas as a Control of Nonpoint Pollutants.
pg. 166-192 in D.L. Correll (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution
Press. Washington, DC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
US Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 131 pp.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, J.A. Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems of North
Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University:
Raleigh, NC.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, USACE, Vicksburg, MS.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995b. Stormwater Best Management Practices.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 86 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995a. Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth Version. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. 57 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
on North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinverebrate Database and Long Term Changes
in Water Quality, 1983-1990. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1988. Water Quality Progress in North Carolina.
Rep. 88-02. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Wetland Rating System: Third Version.
North Carolina Department, of Health, Environment, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
1 15-3

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC.
Doutt, J.K., C.A. Heppenstall, J.E. Guilday. 1967. Mammals of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Game Commission. 281 pp.
Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1987. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pine Barrens: The Role of Species Composition
in Community Function. Am. Midl. Nat. 115:301-313.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classifcation (MiST).
A Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance Standards
for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop, August 13-15,
1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1993 (unpublished). Northeast Florida Wetland Mitigation
Bank. Technical Report for St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994 (unpublished). Conceptual Design and Mitigation
Banking Instrument Support Document: Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank, Craven County,
NC.
Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1981. -Flood Surface Profiles and Modeling
of Stoneyton Creek
Fouss, J.L., R.L. Bengtson, C.E. Carter. 1987. Simulating Subsurface Drainage in the Lower
Mississippi Valley with DRAINMOD. Transactions of the ASAE 30 (6), pp 1679-1688.
Gayle, G., R.W. Skaggs, C.E. Carter. 1985. Evaluation of a Water Management Model for a
Louisiana Sugar Cane Field. Jour. of Am. Soc. of Sugar Cane Technologists, 4, pp 18 -28.
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States,
The University of Georgia Press, 712p.
Gray, D., A. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co. 225 p.
Gysel, L.W., L.J. Lyon. 1980. Habitat Analysis and Evaluation. Pp 305-327 in S.D. Schemnitz
(Editor). Wildlife Management Techniques Manual, 4th ed., rev. The Wildlife Society,
Washington, DC. 686 pp.
15-4

rA-11

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Chapel Hill, NC. 366 pp.
Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of
Biotic Diversity, lst Ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Healy. 1989. Uneven-Age Silviculture and Wildlife Habitat. in Proceedings from the Penn State
Forest Resources Issues Conference: Timber Management and Its Effects on Wildlife. Penn
State Cooperative Extension Service.
Henderson, C.L. 1984. Woodworking for Wildlife: Homes for Birds and Mammals. Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN. 48 pp.
Huish, M., G. Pardue. 1978. Ecological Studies of One Channelized and Two Unchannelized
Wooded Coastal Swamp Streams in North Carolina. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 72 p.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time lag and Soil Permeability in Ground water Observations. US Army
t Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Bulletin 36, Vicksburg, MS.
ISCO, Inc. 1994. Model 4150 Flow Logger, Instruction Manual, Isco, Inc., 531 Westgate
Boulevard, Lincoln, Nebraska, 72p.
ISCO, Inc. 1994. FLOWLINK 3 Tutorial, Isco, Inc., 531 Westgate Boulevard, Lincoln, NE.
169p.
Johnson, L.S., L. H. Kermott. 1993. Nesting Success of Cavity-Nesting Birds Using Natural Tree
Cavities. Journal of Field Ornithology 65(1): 36-51.
Jones S.M., L.A. Churchill. 1987. The Use of Vegetation in Assessing Site Potential Within the
Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Castanea 52(1): 1-8. March 1987.
Jones S.M., F.T. Lloyd. 1993. Landscape Ecosystem Classification: The First Step Toward
Ecosystem Management in the Southeastern United States. pg. 181-201 (in) G.H. Aplet, N.
Johnson, J.T. Olson, V.A. Sample (ed.). Defining Sustainable Forestry. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Jones S.M., D.H. Van Lear, S.K. Cox. 1984. A Vegetation-Landform Classification of Forest Sites
Within the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 111:349-360.
Jordan T.E., D.L. Correll, W.T. Peter ohn, D.E. Weller. 1986. Nutrient Flux in a Landscape: The
Rhode River Watershed and receiving waters. pg. 57-76 (in) D.L. Correll (ed.). Watershed
Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
15-5

'
Jurik, T.W., S. Wang, A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of Sediment Loading on Seedling
Emergence from Wetland Seed Banks. Wetlands 14(3): 159-173, September 1994. The
Society of Wetland Scientists. 1
Karr, J.R., I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water Resources at the Land-Water Interface. Science 201:229-
234
.
Keller, M.E., C.S. Chandler, J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian Communities in Riparian Forests of
Different Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2):137-144, Special Issue, June
1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
Manly. R., W.O. George. 1977. The Occurrence of Some Heavy Metals in Populations of the
Freshwater Mussel Anodonta anatina (L.) from the River Thames. Environmental Pollution
14:139-154.
McDonald, C.B., A.N. Ash, E.S. Kane. 1983. Pocosins: A Changing Wetland Resource. Dept.
of Biology and Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, East Carolina University,
Greenville, NC. 22 pp.
McDonald, C. B., A. N. Ash, J. O. Fussell. 1981. Natural Areas Inventory of Craven County,
North Carolina. Office of Coastal Management, North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact
Program, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development„
15
CEIP Report No
.
.
Moody, J. D., Hill, M. J. 1956. Wrench-Fault Tectonics: Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 67,
p.1207-1246.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1993a (unpublished). Inventory of Unique Natural
Features: NC Global TransPark. NCGTP Authority, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1994a (unpublished). Draft Conservation Plan: NC
Global TransPark. NCGTP Authority. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1994b (unpublished). Conceptual Mitigation Outline
for the NC Global TransPark. NCGTP Authority. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1995 (unpublished). NCGTP Wetland Delineation
Information: Section 404 Permit Area. NCGTP Authority. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1996a (unpublished). Hydrogeological Evaluation and
Restoration Design: NCGTP Mitigation Areas. NCGTP Authority, Raleigh, NC.
15-6 1

?7

North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1996b (unpublished). Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
and Management Plan-Environmental Education and Public Interest Program: NCGTP
Authority, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1996c (unpublished). Stream Hydrology Model and
Restoration/Enhancement Design: NCGTP Authority, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1996d (unpublished). Landscape Ecosystem
Classification and Community Restoration Design. NCGTP Authority. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Global TransPark (NCGTP). 1994e (unpublished). Reference Standard Wetland
Functional Assessment. NCGTP Authority, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Partners in Flight (NCPF). 1995. A Management Plan for Neotropical Migrant
Birds: 1995-2000. North Carolina State Steering Committee. 17 pp.
Page, R.W., L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of
Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Washington, DC. 6
Pp-
Payne, N.F. 1992. Techniques for Wildlife Management of Wetlands. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY. 549 pp.
Payne, N.F., F.C. Bryant. 1994. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Uplands.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 840 pp.
Pehl, C.E., and R.L. Brim. 1985. Forest Habitat Regions of Georgia, Landsat 4 Imagery. Georgia
Agricultural Experiment Station Special Publication 31. December. Map Supplement, Scale
1:1,000,000.
Petitgout, S.P. 1995 (unpublished). Landscape Ecosystem Classification of the Lower Terraces
within the Coastal Flatwoods Region, South Carolina. Masters Research Thesis: Clemson
University Department of Forest Resources. Clemson, SC.
Potter, E.F. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas,
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reinhart, R.D., M.M Brinson, P.M Farley, J.J Russell. 1996 (unpublished). Development of an
Intitial Reference Data Set for Functional Assessment of Forested Wetland Flats in North
Carolina. Biology Department: East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
1 15-7

Richardson, C.J., R.K. Evans, D. Carr. 1982. Status of Pocosin Wetlands (Freshwater Evergreen ,
Shrub Bogs) in Coastal North Carolina as of 1980. Map. Integrated Case Studies Program in
Natural Resources Analysis, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University, '
Durham, NC.
Richardson, C.J. 1985. Mechanisms Controlling Phosphorous Retention Capacity in Freshwater
Wetlands. Science 228: 1424-1427.
Robbins, C.S., D.K. Dawson, B.A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat Area Requirements of Breeding Forest
Birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs 103: 1-34.
Rogers, J.S. 1985. Water Management Model Evaluation for Shallow Sandy Soils. Transactions i
of the ASAE 28 (3), pp 785-790.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Elsevier Science B.V. Catena 11: p 169-
199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Salanki, J., I. Varanka. 1978. Effect of Some Insecticides on the Periodic Activity of the Fresh-
Water Mussel (Anadonta cygnea L.). Acta Biologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae
29(2): 173-180.
Schafale, M. P., A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC DEM, Raleigh NC.
Schroeder, R.L. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pileated Woodpecker. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.39, April 1983.
Schwan M.W. 1985. A Study of Land Use Activities and Their Relationship to the Sport Fish
Resources in Alaska. Volume 26, Study D-I, Job D-I-B. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game,
Juneau, AK.
Schwartz, C.W., E.R. Schwartz. 1959. The Wild Mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri
Press. 341 pp.
Sharitz, R.R., J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and
Carolina Bays: A Community Profile. US Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/04,
November 1982.
E
15-8 1

Shelley, R.M. 1987. Unionid Mollusks from the Upper Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina,
with a Comparison of the Faunas of the Neuse, Tar, and Cape Fear Drainages (Bivalvia:
Unionacea). Brimleyana 13:67-89.
Short, H.L. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: White-Tailed Deer in the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic Coastal Plain. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82 (10.123),
September 1986.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. A Water Management Model for Artificially-Drained Soils. Tech. Bull. No.
267, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC. 54 pp.
Skaggs, R.W. 1982. Field Evaluation of a Water Management Simulation Model. Transactions
of the ASAE 25 (3), pp 666-674.
Skaggs, R.W., N.R. Fausey, B.H. Nolte. 1981. Water Management Evaluation for North
Central Ohio. Transactions of the ASAE 24 (4), pp 922-928.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, R.O. Evans. 1991. A Computer Simulation Study of Pocosin
Hydrology. Wetlands (11), pp 399-416.
Skaggs, R.W., et al. 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE Meeting
Presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
Smith, I. K., H. E. J. LeGrand. 1993. Regional Inventory for Critical Natural Areas, Wetland
Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Region:
Phase 3. NC DEM, Raleigh NC.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, M.M. Brinson. 1995 (unpublished). An Approach for
Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands,
and Functional Indices. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP DE- US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
Sousa, P.J., A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43, July 1983.
Stern, E.M., D.L. Felder. 1978. Identification of Host Fishes for Four Species of Freshwater
Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). The American Midland Naturalist 100(1): 233-236.
Stich, R.F. 1994 (unpublished). Integration of Soils and Landform in the Refinement of a
Landscape Ecosystem Classification Model: Upper Loam Hills Region, Hilly Coastal Plain
Province, South Carolina. Thesis Project. Department of Forest Resources, Clemson
University, Clemson, SC. 99 p.
1 15-9

Susanto, R.H., J. Feyen, W. Dierickx, G. Wyseure. 1987. The Use of Simulation Models to ,
Evaluate the Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems. Proc. of the Third International
Drainage Workshop, Ohio State University, OH. pp. A67 - A76.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1977. Soil Survey of Lenoir County, North Carolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service. I
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Craven
County, North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1983. Streambank Protection Guidelines for Landowners
and Local Governments. Washington, DC. 62p.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1491.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST).
A Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance Standards
for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop, August 13-15,
1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
US Fish and Wildlife Sevice (USFWS). 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wild Turkey.
FWS/OBS-82/10.106, August 1985.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. National Water Summary 1990-91, Hydrologic
Events and Stream Water Quality, 589p.
Webster D.W., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Welch, David. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA Forest Service, Forest Resources ¦
Management, 20p.
Whitcomb R.F., J.F. Lynch, P.A. Opler, and C.S. Robbins. 1976. Island Biogeography and
Conservation: Strategy and Limitations. Science 193:1030-32.
Workshop. 1995. (unpublished). Workshop on Depressional Wetlands on Floodplain Alluvium
in the Puget Sound Area Near Seattle Washington: A Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assess
Functions Inherant to Depressional Wetlands. July 1995.

15-10

I
Yoakum J. W.P. Dasmann, H.R. Sanderson, C.M. Nixon, and H.S. Crawford. 1980. Habitat
Improvement Techniques. Pp 329-403 in S.D. Schemnitz (Editor). Wildlife Management
Techniques Manual, 4th ed., rev. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC 686 pp.
Young C.E., R.A. Klawitter. 1968. Hydrology of wetland forest watersheds. Pg. 29-38 in
Proceedings:,Hydrology in Water Resources Management. Report no. 4. Water Resources
Institute, Clemson University, Clemson S.C.
Ziehmer, R.L. 1993. Effects of Uneven-aged Timber Management on Forest Bird Communities.
M.S. Thesis, University of Missouri - Columbia. 77 pp.

15-11

0

E
i

1

u

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
NCGTP SITE
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
Figure A-1 Stonyton Creek Mitigation Area (Map 1)
Stonyton Creek Mitigation Area (Map 2)
Figure A-2 Stonyton Creek North Wildlife Corridor
Figure A-3 Stonyton Creek South Wildlife Corridor
Figure A-4 Southern Interstream Mitigation Area
Figure A-5 Northern Interstream Mitigation Area
Figure A-6 Wheat Swamp Wildlife Corridor
Figure A-7 Briery Run Wildlife Corridor
m ' m -m m
N
n LI) (n En (A ??n?nn?
4- V r?
_-^
f

m rt t ?,' „ ' ? ? s ?.1
i
O O V
i
s
'
A r
, {
f
01

O
•
+ f r

0
GNo?ai Transpark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STONYTON CREEK MITIGATION AREA (MAP 1)
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
m
v) .
zy
-j
zo
q z
FIGURE:
A-1
DATE: JAN 96

1. ?

'
..
1r t fF
\
{
•/ ;1
fs ? V
\I
i I
l ! I

m

C)
?N >
a

n O

o
O V! G
Y

r
a

D \
1-
'r lra .? IJ O
.1 r r J y .p a, IJ A .- Ol 1.1 4.
Y
m
N
?rt?,arolbna
Gfo a rans ark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
nI
?fn N
'o T
N -+
I
x
N
v
STONYTON CREEK MITIGATION AREA (MAP 2)
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
FIGURE:
A-1
ma 2
DATE: JAN 96

MITIGATION
DESIGN UNIT DESCRIPTION AREA (ACRES)
NWC 1 BOTTOMLAND SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING 15
NWC 3 STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE REFORESTATION 16
NWC 4 UPLAND CORRIDOR REFORESTATION 43
TOTAL ACRES 74
NWC 2 CLEARING (0.5 AC PLANTING PLOTS) I
NWC 5 WILDLIFE CROSSING PROVISION -
NWC 6 OCCUPIED HOUSE PROVISION -
is ..
?rt? parolLna
Gro a ans ark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STONYTON CREEK NORTH WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
FIGURE:
A-2
DATE: JAN 96

N P -1 D
_ %.1: aaY %in?! Yis£ii•s ' 2"aaa_
__ __ •°a3T:t_. •BiFtn,+„•vu ':L°4:iifi °aa'.fL•?,
?£T' r w,liur'i? y_•_: _NEW '?i.. icis'E1g:L• ^
•;W... :•_i.':££r,.,,fa,..,£.',°s .a} £:%`sLYru:a_ y'i_! 4'•-?e Y..
:bt`. •Ff?iFF>? F}£=F2 i:.. Q ei.•dz:t ti:::
• •FzI _ _ f. i'
'.T•. t 1:' •• E i t
2 - 'i?3db .u
2.,. S,r•. Z!
• .tifr. z. •: r
'.(>.,Y?Y?:Y=Z:° .xh,3.,r - - _ - yZ..Y..'i"-.( v%2' Z?yr•e.
}t `5€ Y!!t: .?£°€, £t_ i. ???i• t i .. "(.,rrz,a.. ::%.• i i .y - Y%:>£?£u? r_ .,rTy
• i:£°?S•T}?iy?YS : ?x _! ! i :r: rr •.Avv7FF+ia7°va
aiit?Z1 _ _ _ :E:£gLY ygtE
mg a,LY r'_ rx,•,%L£iLiidi%"rY:i+ a "v •"ifi
•3:Sa_ {!_" .s,xa£%.£%£%a %.::z x :.,f..•.,.a3,..2,? .z,..
• :}v x= _ 3?!i•.S!••`1'•! £:i0nLc_ +iF•:t •. ` a&::i::::i_EiF:358..' , F£%Se:=si?
vS••a
_ at,cYia_ ? ii a'tan
`-ii%°i%s£::gt•'%ii:.?E>ii,}€ia:4_:z_i:;avLi;::a, is £:zat 'T:: _? t_ t sT .' .ae:f? ._.-i3,.,;aY.z•..T
Z < {Y5 f i'}?¢}iei"ji_, ,Y}Fbi. •_. W?'•-? •• { alaIi I i
;All. la; .zr.:;E:
Sax bE III a1 c?i
3£OR S 7i' s,: Iii r?F ,Y £ si sz?? RE tii a£$ {p£, .z•aE
' i3 . ?.:yi g i•_• •ii w'i, uN, 'y3Si p Nii
`y}{p+yi}i _.gigpi.?ia,_ a?iy ! aR ?a• YSt::ilY •, {•Iih.Eai: a•S x s 1. "•
z{a_{f,.(cs.{r a: _i e
-- -- ':_3;n=,"/liYbr_ ?E:£f%i::Fiza$i,L..,..Y%•i _ ? . ! •zZtz.....
i.Tari Y:3£Y:,.i I • iya:u a',:'i;t£:ii:i ?iia ,ar rvi:::?
_ =3i' ::3t.a.' zlba. di , : -.a..., .lxm£ti•?•• ••+ %f; s!1lr1;:?c%,::
- ;£i={zizY:.s,.,y.Z..a• =..,..iYggz:[{i;::}iiy is Yd'?as{!s(?nu,.}:ie;.x iz. ,.1..__ _
- -i'iisrYY»?ZLtY?Yt,YZ•.x;£I•ItYt- }s',s{}rz `-,.?:,.:,_ri»Yt_ •zzisi:£:;:%..}=s:::::{:;£ga;'{£:i
s:u?.aaa+.a,}s _:_ . fr?.!s._• . ,;e?_= yzi`I?Z°!' -° a I°i;,
= ' % %:a t W;f"i:. : 1•AY . a... a•££'iS:iaja£s: ! f.; ip•;t,'ES: ssE::'::
NIR ;
ssii; Y?S
3tELF = FI'..••lY . j%wa i!2 R °dYl9I:- _ ?: %`_!`?i ?vti'i'S.fu•}. t:
iZ.FF{i"r. 'iiF i.Y:i'T....yTi :•'.Y..?: ,i.?., z!Yis ?% '•fa;,r stL'i>-s. sus ztf{F:{:s{I?
.. „•£ j _ e,a'-dlinraaiyy3t?3i/tF:F '=+EKF= i?°F.iiir"?%$i "'r=•.i•?`rl`rsi£:£{zst-
s }?... x.::arrr,? • ts`•"'ri;_. +• r ??•?{?' ,?%-?:-•- -;•. -':4z-'; a..-?
COM
's
A .A ^a
dabr. ?(
. f •SY.{`!P!?fYt.diaJa •!£a'%£i r Sr•?'?'i!S•SY.-
}Lr_eR£ %BNgf .:i:"5""£::;t11
/may
SWCf
r ( 3 1
1
1
..g
t
`P
'i
1 ?' p
I&
FEET 0 200 400
METERS 0 40 80 120
GRAPHIC SCALE

7?L.`{tiZ
'I a P -2D
(i i , 1:m:/•_:esa:-s..__.._ 'ii?'sT V-.r,ras .-,yT.? - r y.
:r3r Sr •ffi
.3 .?. tZtz3 • ..s. 2
::i;':.I:Z'?:"i'!a:i;"i£%tdi?z2a _%L?'.?'.uF?)g£d•gizti%si ??IS'(•_?ti!tiixST'•?a 3 , .;..,id• .?&i?; % a ?F!" :#t •?f '1 - ,? ra i% ;a?a ..
4Sa.i._ _ __ _a a•La.. •n
...ir r.:,a. .i°3 wE i ,.t:rsgs%Z•, i:iS;i .I4£.¢%W y ?:. __? .?a?£'.?' T ?, =a ` si {i`f 3 5, ;
a•n•??ripytayI:.i._ Z.. _ #:' , I ? ••• ., ?.iHiisi•E » ?tsrll+s 3? . a...,
::YSa?r{... _ a3 rt :{$:ia Kg t1 iy • n !b. ? .'
r:i.''b i•:? ' : ' -fF:i% ._ +pp.??,,1 Rwxs(^S!. .i • if' i i, ' > '.??I:
rnd .:H_i _ t7?S_k _KY jai h T ,IIw r ,• >.'?£YI ' ?=•' ? ? i • b{ni
; {s . n?s+.}s,.iZ?:<.ay?s• ( ? # i.is LP-$t?a? yf'}? :I?: i . a_I - ? ?:.T .§i F: ? • ._it ? 3?. ?,T
£ ,a zs?Y - ' r::t£! `?£r5?? :;fa tZ_.2tai3 ::;3%i::?ii i a 3I ,' :. 7 ;T . s i •
N a ,' lei ??
cr iTII ? °({ i{3?•/ 1??s+ #??u s: _? ' i f • ;-?I 3,; .,,? ! , `^ ,7 ,
lZ?}F •`rT • - ?_-i':£T'i?Y":, ? ?, y$? a E I -`` '
•,, • FY . .
t
,
4t3? LyS I•: ? ! 1 ? ? ..
ii .. .._
IBM
swCl
. u. '"
Rom

(
`
€
,
\
}
i
•lLi:?:,
?,

rz s
mil
`yzYS
fff
Y

St t
OEM
C

? ." 7
? (t itf i 4 i iG} •• }.i
? 3

?
3
_ Y.
?. r+
}
t }
f t
.
i37
?
•
`. 5:
r swc1
1
It
• 1
:7 !1
SWC2
MITIGATION
DESIGN UNIT DESCRIPTION AREA (ACRES)
SWC I UPLAND CORRIDOR REFORESTATION 16
SWC 2 UPLAND CORRIDOR SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING 13
SWC 3 WILDLIFE CROSSING PROVISION -
SWC 4 STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING 4
SWC 5 BOTTOMLAND REFORESTATION/HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATION 3
SWC 6 STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE REFORESTATION 3
SWC 7 DIVERSIONARY BLOCK/GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURES
TOTAL AREA 39
grolLna
irx?o'VV nlork
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
STONYTON CREEK SOUTH WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
FIGURE:
A-3
DATE: JAN 96

4 of r, IJ -
cNxvvvv
-OC-G-1-1-1-1
>t'-?s=iz
v p m m n m
?zn??33
m?>oooo
?'tD-3=zsz
?zaoovo
m z n 0 0 0 0
zN>
0000
??zaaaa
,? r? r r r r
r-Cm3?a?
>(non 0017,1?
=lnm75 00
zmv,nnaa
C) >y> >
zozozz
azinzacn
r C ? m C
wE
m ? O m
> 3?m„N3
2!>>
-i-j d?
?zz?
r
_1 ?
n n
N W C N O, tr ONO
4
r
tl o " o ..1-

za ,t ?

O
All,

t

v
tioo 00
t } o
:
Q

.. ?,..
?,
Q
CJ p
t 0
°
Q0?
i
? f

? , b
1
?
0..
00
;
t
0 ?
.
•.
;0 0r Q, ?

'
F
n
y

`
o

r V?

a ?r y C

C7

v?

zz
a
cwm
> -0
r> O ovd
?<x
m
a
°mc 0w0
c>? 0n.;n
znnn
a
>a >
?z?
n zrr
.?
- v
m O > a z a
>
Z X50=,
?n
m
>
n a >
C)
In > d d
>
z zZ
-?
c

m v

m
m
CIO
n
? 3 a

CA M 1
-4 a z

> a
z
v
?

O 0
v
O O
a

m
>
h

m
>

- o IJ v a w
- N
>
n

m
N

i 1

v

¦

i ? Op

.. o

•
I
C3 a
p? O
W
oa ...._
b po ., 4p
o
Od +r'Q pp0.?.?
M A OD 41
co
x
x Z-.
N W
• N •
•
• W
• N
'E Q
w • • q
3
40 ?j
v1 ••
N ; A
i? •
t? I .• ?

i a
c
Z
I •

co

M+

• l

In 0,9 •

ip
i
co IT!
c0 ? • Z
t'
'4{ i f•„',
\ Y :

cn •
Gc? •
%
"Oil
00
C) C)
Co Co

a` ' - fA J? w

a ,

•;
" ` ocJ
,
S i o 0

?
r

O

• 7.• f n o

?rt?,arol?na
Go a tans ark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHERN INTERSTREAM MITIGATION AREA
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
FIGURE:
A-4
DATE: JAN 96
?w w? w w w w w ww w _ww w I? w w ww ww ?w ww
:R95007.4/FIN-NIMA.DWG/5-4-96/CHS

v?
zzzzzz z
C) a
?1 QlA y W N .... ? '?
O
:4z
aN?xxx?v
>?or?7ovzn
v °rxxaax
::Emmoooom
"<zz°O°,A0
v>"aa-ziy
rrrrr r
O ..o p
>aao0t
rzzvv,4
?z F)N' Or
?C)iyCi,a.Ia,3a O
o>zzzz a
C? > in; C r 0
n'?nbp?b N
r C ?n CA
a 0
mn-i-om ro
NI CA 0z pz a
ONz?a+ o
?zarMr z z
ro
ora?oa o
za > aa m
m
a ?0C ro
CAN o
a
z m
a
C) "j
z
m
-zi z
v
a
a
m
a
N !D W A 000 N A D
n
m
CA
m
zzz zzzz ?''?
3 za
^-3 z
N
C) a oaa>
?-?z rzzv
Vfv mvv <
> n a r) c c a,
4 -m om-?a
M "Ti '71
C4 ;c
OCtn
a m X cn
r a r ov l
rr ? Y O
> N N z d 0
o-?zo
zr
cq ro En v
r --1 m
O n
m ^%1
ti o
O
z
a
z
v
z
a
n
m
m
O -z1
--I
a
r
a
m
a
a
W N -- N
W O '- N 00 a
n
Cl

FIGURE: NORTHERN NTERSTREAM MMQATION AREA 0@0% @ no lmm LEGEND
A-5 MrIMATION DESIGN FITS @0@)L?d° 0 VMDD@U'U& SEE THIS PAGE
DATE:05-04-96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FEET 0 200 400
DETERS 0 40 80 120
f.
WWC
WWC5
``'_ - WWC6
o,
GRAPHIC SCALE
t WO5
• O
,; ?J T r 11
C 1
` WWC7
v T
/
Wwcl
G3
1NVII05 a
D)

II
??fl
/
/
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
i
1
I
1
1
Ile
I 1
`i
::......
- ..? , ,,; rr>z,., w..,<,t ,ns ,;.;:, .,, >; „,,.ya?rtu;.,,, ,tS;l;;.S • , .{S . 2{tans>?•nii,'/,tSS ;i ,;sS :?x+:•tfi>a".n'•{,":y{;a`?i;?I?f3s:'
:r..tiE:%=??; 'i t ! {. E .?ixttl } I fa z 't I i { Ei£ 3• tffy,<t;`?1iStifks.,i.tr„li:t,rt;rix:,t ,? •itu•:;::.: ? •::,a<: f? - .r?fS'i+.
,•#-,:,:_.n.,,s.r ..:.:...:....:r:,::.,....<: ?.: ?,::?s•::,:x?S:a;,xea;L;.F..L+ x•.k :c:?.tr.,.tttr„-,:,.ts,,,,.,,,$aia. __ ? ?s{
INTERSTREAM MITIGATION
MITIGATION
DESIGN UNIT DESCRIPTION AREA (ACRES)
WWC 1 BOTTOMLAND FOREST SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS/HYDROLOGICAL
MODIFICATION 20
WWC 2 BOTTOMLAND REFORESTATION/HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATION 5
WWC 3 STREAM RESTORATION 2
WWC 4 STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE REFORESTATION 3
WWC 5 UPLAND CORRIDOR REFORESTATION 40
WWC 6 UPLAND CORRIDOR FOREST SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS 5
WWC 7 WILDLIFE CROSSING PROVISION (0.2ac)
WWC 8 DIVISIONARY BLOCK/GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURES
WWC 9 DIVISIONARY BLOCK/GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURES
TOTAL AREA 75
TransA
Ao'rV rk
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEAT SWAMP WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
/
/
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
i
<?,// 41
FIGURE:
A-6
DATE: JAN 96
TO 1,Vf -t[=AT
3W?'?MP

FEET 0 300 600
TERS 0 60 120 180
....... ....... -GRAPHIC SCALE
Y
ASV
MITIGATION
DESIGN UNIT DESCRIPTION AREA (ACRES)
BCW I STREAM RESTORATION/DITCH REMOVAL IN BCW 4 SEGMENT 4
BCW 2 STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE REFORESTATION 3
BCW 3 BOTTOMLAND FOREST SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS 4
BCW 4 DITCH REMOVAL/HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION/REFORESTATION 18
BCW 5 UPLAND CORRIDOR REFORESTATION 19
BCW 6 ABBANDONED HOUSE REMOVAL -
BCW 7 SEWAGE EASEMENT -
BCW 9 WILDLIFE CROSSING PROVISION
BCW 10 DIVERSIONARY BLOCK/GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURES -
TOTAL AREA 48
e?rt?-Carol ?na
Guo a rans ark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
BRIERY RUN WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
MITIGATION DESIGN UNITS
FIGURE:
A-7
DATE: JAN 96

APPENDIX B
NCGTP SITE
' WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR 1981 (FEMA), EXISTING, AND
PROPOSED CONDITION THROUGH ROCK CHECK DAM
AND LEVY PLACEMENT
t

I

[7

v c CD
? n w O
O
m
a co co
rn O
O
z
0
•
0

CD O
Z
Cl)
CA A N N Co co
OD -4
w -Ch,
Lim C)
N O
N O O O O C
h O O :3
C
h ((A O
W
W 01
CA
t0
(A
(O
O
(A
Cn
(A
W
L"
O
v
O
j
W ' W W A A W W -i CO

O

? O

00 Ch A W (AO v 9) O
C1
A O W A W Cn to 0 ?

vm-v 0m vmv vmv vm-u vrn -v v rnv
0 vrn -o 0 m-0 0m-0
CD
-0 CX
-0 CL -a CL CL ?o 6. -a 06 ?o CL ?o CL -a CL ?o
o
CD a N .
m ao
(D N (Q o
CD W (0 o
(D fQ N (o o
CD (fl (A (Q o
CD
O
N co o
(D (Q U
l 40 o
(D (a (A (Q • o
(D m W O
(D (a ?
CL 40 o a°Q n c CL o- a fl ma Cl.
(
C
a i
a. n a n a a a
v
Ch Ch 0
(Ot0(0 0 Cn Cn
:14 (0 (0 cn (n (n
W?1(O CA Ch (n
WPOO (n CA CA
NCnCn (n (n (n
NAA (n (n (?•
?'•LW A A A
PP CO A A A
N0 M A A A
?(ACn (D
y
IV Of co
- ACnCb
0) (0 0) W HIV
K) -&v"
(0-4 W CnO0)
A co O OK)IV
-- -I A ?CO?
co 0) 40 0) -.L ?
A co -+ CoO -L
W co ? :-1 W 01
CA Co 0 a
4
N 0)

A W W W -?? ZnNO 6t4 W ?0 W LI.- NCO L 4. 6 to-?.a co
?
O W ?
OAW to ?
A- A
CO?C
co co A
tnb
-+W-1
Co obo
0" O
co
mW0
P Wtn
SAO
W
0) co
IV Cm
-4 CD
OIVtV
(!(4040
0

O
A ??A N66 (n Cn -`O WOO NOO NCO 000 A-?--L Q
:11W?
co ACA (n ?P-
A-& A W CoN
cow N01.
-? W -I 1+.G :P.
0) - CO io
(OW 0) ?C))Cn
-+A40 b, L,
0) co ;m i4
-4 co 00 a0
C" 00

000
?
?? (r0)0)
GDOO (rwch
0WW (n(J((n
Ch GO OD (nfm Ch
!M cnC"CA
(A 91 (nCA CA
pp P, Acn(A
(4000 AAA
:q -4 AAA
W -4-4 -
-.
O CO) C
0) W
? Cn W OD
(n0)A• -? W to
ON co tO ifl ifl
W co O IV 4J
N--?W W ? W
co CA W CA -?
V 0)A C7D -? -1 0 M
(0-?W OD O O
0)AA
-

N-+N NOO W 040 W 00 --?00 X00 Opp 000 NpO
- NOO
IV IV N
?
IV CO IV A-?-+
O) IV aiO
ON W W W W
-4NCO W -- O
00 CD -4 00C
(n K)C,0
W 0)A ???
co (O co 1
W -1 CO
A R A N
A-It0 (nA
T
O
14 r4 !V 0 0 N O O 0 40 0 p 0 0 6 . - - O p 0 40 O O O N O O IV O O L
CO CA CO A0obo
A (O W m
NOO ?, Cnit
CO -? (O"W
W pOt0
(n jV bin
0A w min
-?-+N vW W
.ate CO 4h. P.
AAA
?
A-Ic0 (n 0 O -4 C,, CA

0 0 0)
0O 0)0)0)
W AA 0)0)0)
-W W 0) 0 0
"W 0 (n (r (n
W W W (r (n u(
W WM cn CA (h
-,lrl-i (n (n (r
W W W w (n cn
O- " A (n (n
(000 O
0
OD OD
CA W CA -? .A :P, co it in
0-1
C 6 W W
us : -- bo m
co 00 v bo m
000 10 in in
0000 b :A, in
N V O 6 C
co co N A IV I j
CO-4-4
?
A W Cn co Cnco n
W
tn(n(n NWW NAA N?A WWW WWW ;.WW NWW $4 P:% NWW w
CO W4J
A Co (n -+:P.1+.
(O(n0D K) K)
(n 0-1 W 00
(n?N C7.Ain
0000 W -PCn
(n 00 CO CO CO
0) co ` ""
N?I40 CnCO O
(O(ON OAA
()o V-4 ?

O
AAA WAA N A A WA A. CO CO W A•1+?A AW W CO WA W W W
' N W W G
in 0) b)
A. WCn :o, :P,
O(n0O bo in in
(n 40-1 io Co Co
CAIN :P, i* CO
OOO W S+ it
CA 0) 40 W CO CO
0) co in CO O
-4 C> -? Cn
0)
co co N co 0) 0)
C7 -4-q
?

cn
S0
G
..1
0
n
CD
mi
C
N
1
I

10

Elevation (ft)
N W J 00
? ? ? p p O O

O

H

?3
cN
O
O ('? fJG O
CD
, -ON
CD QM ?C?n

,
d
CD Imw 00 + +

,

CD ,
O ,
O
O
O

N
O

,
, 0
Q
I
I
, i 1
1 I
I I i
I ,
I
I I i I i
1
1
i 1 . ?ryI I
I «3 , ,
1 i
, 1 , 1 1
I 0 1
--1 I

I 1
,rte
, W I I
I 1
I
I

1 , 1

I I
1 I
1
,
I 1

I
1 0
M

00
W
I , I
i 1 I
I 1
1
v
1
I i 1
, I ,
I 1
,
1
I 1 I
, i I
I I
I

0 -4
I

1
I I I
1 I
, 1
I I ,
,
I
I 1
,
1
,
Q

t4

.,may
V
I I , I
I I I1
V ? ?

I
I
1 I
1 ,
,
1
1
I ?

e

O O

4
r
1
1 , 1
I 1
I 1
, ?
v
, 1 I r-,
Q ?I L

, 1 I
, I
7 i I

I I
I
I O "?
W
, 1 I , I
I
I 1
I , I
i I
1 W
I
1
I
I
I I I
I 1
I I
I
I 1
I
1
I
, ,
,
I
I
I .

I
I
i
I
1
1
I 1 I
I ,
1 1
1 1
1 1
I 1 I
I
I
I
I
I I
1
I
I
,
1

O

^'
I I i
I I I
1 !
I I I
I ? I
I I 1
I
I
1
I
,
I
i

_
I ' 1
I ? I
I
v7 O ? O ? O ?
O O O? O? W W 00
[?
(1j) UOIIBnaja
e
0
I
, , 1 1 p
00
I I + i
, , 1 1
1 I ' '
c j
, i
Q 'U
o U ?: 0
, I
i I
1 rl
I ,
, I I I
, , 1 I
I I ? '
I 1 + '
I I I + O
N
I I
I I
I I
i
1 I I '
O O
M N
kt? O
kn kn N tn t tn
(1j) UOIIBAatF[
M
U
C)
00

Cc

o
o
j
w

tai
Q p

N

O O O O O O O
tip kn
tn kn ?t M N
t O
t
(1j) U01113AOIH
i
C)
00
I i 1 , I
i I I 1 I
, 1 1 I
I , i 1 1
I ? 1 i I 1
I 1 1
^ , 1 1
I O I ' ' '
1 I 1
I 1 I
1 I ,
i I 1 1
I I I ? '
, 1 I 1 W
i I 1 I
I 1 1 'Wn
1 I I ?
1
1 1 I I -? M
, , 1 I
1 o? G U o
i I 1 1 ?,,) F+y
I I I
cn
I I I '
I I I
, 1 1 I ?
, 1 I 1 '
1 i I I
, i I 1 Y
I I I I ' rT?,
, 1 1 1 W
1 I I 1 1
, 1 I I '
, I 1 I ' O
N
, , 1 I I
1 1
1 I I 1 1
I 1 I I
I I 1 1 I
1
. I
I
I -
O O O O O O O
l--
kn kn kn kn k kn
(1j) uoiI'enalg
U
C)
00

Cd ,
-o

'

? 00 A
' to
Vol
t
' U Z Q
'

d'
bA .?.d
?
bA o

O

+ Q A
to

X

I i

p
C;
\O O O O
06 116 4
in tn to O
Cr O
O
(1j) UOTTEnata

0
,
Cd ,
o ,
,
o
,
,
,
v? to
o `4 N
Ed P* to ? C U o
P.
M H V1
:
i ;
O N
00
kn kn Vn
(1j) UOIJUA31a
ti
U
0

•Cd ,

o
w ? ? o
, bn

, M Q G? c?

, b4

O O O O O O
r + O 01 00
(1j) UOITUAalg

e

APPENDIX C
I NCGTP SITE
I LOCATION AND GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SOIL SAMPLES

1

JO IN
NEWBOURNE
ROAD
(SR 1581) A

IV, "-' .1%,
1000 2000 Feet
North Carolina
Global TransPark
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1

7-7 W77,?
'
(0
N
5
N
m

H
L L9

D"

E

E.N. DICKERSON
ROAD (SIR 1729)
HUGO

ROAD

--Ale (SR 1004)
Ac -IWY 58

A\

Ar
if

Soil Boring Transects In Study Area FIGURE:
Global TransPark Site C-1
Lenoir County, North Carolina
I , DATE: JAN 96
e

u
1

O 0 00 C OO d0' O O
T-
a
I
1
1

t
O co (D dam' N
T--

?I

N O LO O

N N N I-
>+ O
O O O
Rf CL
C N
Q
to
O
LO
?
Q
Co p? r N CO
N ?
C
N I-' -
O O
am
C
.-0
t

0 l I
C) C:) C)
im CD CD

O CC)
Cfl
V
-
r
O/?

i
? e
00 (D C\l
i
i
1
i
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1

•C/O\j
C) C)
o
?
a
ca
U
05

d' N
c
c
ii. "O
c
cu
CO
E
LO 0 0

'- N v to
T N
to 11 c) O O O
C y
C Q O Lo to
Q
cB p? N M to
N
N i-

(nOO f

Cam i

cts

0
O
O
T-
O
00

3
?IVJ
f2
CIS
V

1

1
U, 0 0
N L Lf) co
cadv 0 0
Q =? o
ca It to
IU L
N F- C
?ca0 1
Cam 1
- O
M? I
C) I I
1
I >`
I U
1
1
i
? c
? ca
c
\ LL.
E
\ 2
c
cu
t
(a
(Ln
V
CD C) C) C) O O
O co
CV

T- N

~A
o to o 0

A Co

( O O O O
d?
C N ?
Q O to a CA m
cc r cj CO
N
N

!A O O 1
=.0 m 1
- O

0 CD ? N
O co
r-
.O
VJ
??O

1
r
1

1
I

C) C) O 00 ( O O
r

a
s ?
t
0 0 0 0 0 0
O 00 CD d' N
1

w
Cn
O

1
O O O O O O
c
s
c
?i
(D
Ct
C/) `
Q \
rn
c
CL
c
c?
v

?f
t
?t
i
O O 0 0 0 0
1
U
co L t
C O
= 1U)
O
(o r
N F- c
_ `
(n 00
c -0
- O
cc -
!
c?
/ U
Cn
CO
v _
LL O
1
VJ
E
2
C
c(s
U)
N
oQf
V
(B
CD C) CD
O CD CD
O co CD
.
ti
r
O/0

t

i
rn O O LO

U) ?- N to CO
a Co
O O O
ca n. ch
C N
=
C to to O
Q .
Co
[O
CO
L
N 1-
C13 0

C
O '

0

.a

CD C) (D
0 (D
O CD
d-
r

1

11

?O
I?
w

O 0O0 N
N
0 0
N L- N M
_TO
RS d c O O
C N=
r
Q
tC r N
N i-
(AcCO t
Gym
_O 1
t0 - t
` 0 I
? I
1
1
: t
i
t
\
A
c6
U
05
c -
LE O

C
U)
C
C
(a
I
V
(II
'Ln
V
? d N
O co
T-
O?O
s
t

(D
0.
E
N
._ Y
N L Tca E
co LL fa
? N N
Q
m "
QI L U)
N I- O
(4 ca 0 to
O O
N O
to - C
L Cc LO
/n L
V L
1
O 1
L 1
O
M 1
W '
1
1

1 ?
U

1

05

c
cu
`
w
^'
W

U-

?
? '
Q

? Ct5

?

?
1

Q

W
V
C) C) C) N
O co d

.O
a
cB
U
0 C) LC) LO

N L N to tf)
a CD
maw 0 0 0
C N
C
Q U-) Un
' O
ca r IT LO
L
N F-
'? L
U) ca 0
r-0
m
'
0 t

v
05
c -
ML ?O

C
c?
E
2
3

(D
L
m
8
/L
V
? am
O co d
' N
r

1
i
1
A
1
A
1
rn L N to
A N
Co a- CD O O
C rn to LO
Q C
cc CM r ti
L
?ca0
Cam '
- O s
L
0
t !
s /
/
/ f
\ i
\
\ 1
c
c U
CO
• O
v /
i6
4
C
U)
N
ca
V
V
C) CD C) CD
O
O
O QO \L N

O/?
m
Q
E
ca
Cl)
m m
_ Y Co
N L
a to
ca CL
Q L
c
(D L CO
NI-` U-)
V r
co
_-0 m
N O
_ O +-
ca - C
?- o O O
!I1 L
V ? r
z
0
•L
O I
I
co
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
1
t
I
1
\
\
ca
U
r
ii ?O
v /
C
ca
co
C
3
//C:
VJ
N
05
8
V
co ? am N
O d
'

??O

1
1
1
1
1
Cn
O

O O O O O O

i
CD 0 0 0 0 0
O QO CO d' N
r

O
C/1
t

Oo co do' o O C\j
N O O O

L M U') Co
a to
cads o 0 0

Q Z to 0 LO

fC CD N It U')
Q+
N F-
U)OO
r -0 m
.- O
(0 -

CD {
to
U
? ±r
i
i
` U
c_
? LL.
Cc
` ? E
\ ? O
{U)
{ 12
ca
{ R
N
(l3
(Ln
V
co ? am N
O d
'
T-

A
A
APPENDIX D
NCGTP SITE
ANALYTICAL SURFACE WATER TEST RESULTS FOR PRE-STORM
AND POST-STORM EVENTS IN STONYTON CREEK
RAINFALL DATA FOR THE SAMPLE PERIOD (AUGUST 1995)

r
?9 kmog Tp TOW
H.O. BOX 7085, 114 OAKMONT
GREENVILLE, N.C. 27835-7085
STONYTON CREEK (SOUTHEASTERN ENV)
C/0 MR. MIKE RABITTN
1318 DALE STREET, SITTTE 220
RALEIGH NC 27605
PARAMETERS
OTAT, SUSPENDED RESIDUE, mg/1
')TAL KJELDAHT, NTTROGEN, mg/1.
ITRATE-NTTRTTE; mg/1.
OTAL PHOSPHORUS, mg/ 1.
OTAL ORGANIC CARBON; mg/1
'AI, DISSOLVED RESTDIJF;, Mg/1
SAMPLE
. #1.
17
1.24
0.09
0.45
14.57
98
I
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
ID#: 1.013
STONYTON CREEK (SOUTHEASTERN ENV
DATE COLLECTED: 08/23/95
L i r'• ?? 'y3?G..?'p'1
REVIEWED BY:
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
#2 #3 #4
14 560 30 13
0.79 18.82 1.30 1.87
<0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.75
0.36 3.41 0.42 0.52
19.42 61.52 18.78- 17.73
137 101 175 164
l
:
Laboratory Analyses - Environmental Consultants
orm 4 0028
O. BOX 7085, 114 OAKMONT URI
"aREENVILLE, N.C. 27835-M85
STONYTON CREEK (SOIITHEA.STERN ENV)
C/O MR. MIKE BARUIN
3.318 DALE STREET, SIIITE 220
RALEIGH NC 27605
PARAMETERS
TOTAL SUSPENDED RESIDUE, mg/1
TAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN, mg/1.
TRATE-NITRITE, mg/].
1nTAL PHOSPHORUS, mg/1
TAL ORGANIC CARBON, mg/].
TAL DISSOLVED RESIDUE, mg/1
r,,,n # 002?
ID# : 101:
)NE [phone]
FAX [phone]
STONYTON CREEK (SOUTHEASTERN ENV
DATE COLLECTED: 08/30/95
g r c ; ?
REVIEWED BY:
SAMPT,E SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE
#1. #2 #3 #4 #5
6.0 34 26 31 11
0.83 1.24 1.57 1.59 0.83
0.08 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
0.29 0.32 0.28 0.35 0.18
12.89 17.18 19.85 18.48 13.92
86 98 88 129 133
Laboratory Analyses - Environmental Consultants
3
r?dar?o????? ?9 ???oc?por?a?c?d

(saqaut) uoqul!diaa j
r
M
M
N
N
ti
N
N
N
N ,
M
N
N
N
0)
r
00
Cfl ?
LC)
M
r
N
r
r
r
O
r
M
M
N
O
Cfl N 00 d' O
r' r O O O

1?1
1

1
W=W
UOU
W1 >

¢
W
S <
0F
w
y
j
VN¢
LLZ=
OSF
?0<
=<W
WU;
M'y1< V• ?
a=z Z
'410 p
M
r a

?.
o
us F'
1 r o
02
-< y u
y+< > Z

N
=S W N

W
a
^
<
v p K
o Go
z J

Q
o
In
W
o V
c7
C ?{'
J
< O =
-a
o O 1
W

i zo

Q N
Q w
u A?N30N31

?
<
u i _1
v
W N wz

W <
7w<
Q K N01110NOO

o
ix ,..y...y +.«.i11

O 11 P.?,..,..y. p .1•.
t j ee -P"A
o
? It°M I1•N W H1
W
G
V ?_
a ,solo .:qg N
¢
0 s 7t4
•!•11•d •ai
Ip
¢
¢

co r 1
W O
w
< Yt
t
t r

3 C
a
$ 8
•d
°i
o ?

1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

N o

a W 3 - V

_
z C .C S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J
W
O
G! O 30
i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z W
¢ a i - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<
J N = _
Z w ` Z x _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O >
~ O $ _ - - - - - - - - - - - =
o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I n S C ?o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - it

. .? .?
O W ?? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <

< CL c O
7
<
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
-,
-
-
=
=
7
- o
Y
Y <
F
N V
W a
5
Q O
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- Y V
2
u
a z
o ova - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W
z o
o
O 3u _ _ _ _ ¢
(L W
w ,..t1,a .a. •.wu5

u
J
z?
d ¢
w
°

o

w o

zo i (.v.•••+ P--'--Ii

.0j1« .a. •.•?
g

S S
o¢ ;
HN
a < ? O
Q • e
=
W
> >W
JQ S
1 (?Y+P yPunV ?u.
.uU 1• • us
Q a
• 8 y
` Ilium
z
O
{?
W
> m Isq V v N O
v ¢ W 0 t o

to w
N V W

C

I <

w
o E 3
c = o i ? C
E ?. O D '0 O rl ao f Or (h -

V
r
w
a s
f \ z
:
E O z
w °
r
U
¢ r
1 < >
N ¢ .e
O a S
u O 1- <
4
4
4
1
_ W
F `-
w w v m
ry 0
S,,
its •?r
W
. !. a O• O
I - O O r
u~i v~i H
!Y-
3
1Y0
-
«
?
°
-
??
? ieuo
.,

1

wzw
u°C
rcFj
W<¢
w
:1Fu
i
?¢
V
O=Z
Oo1-

WU;
ZQJ =
t'W< N
a=z Z
Y
<ao p
I-
O ?
OXZ
~ N
O
>
N
<
0: a
<
u
'
Z N $
W a
° !
<
U_ co K

u V?
z J . 00 E
0
0 0
J =?

X
O O

?
W
2
< Z
_
O
J ?
F
Q N
Z
a
W
u A?N30N31

I

I

X
< Z f r
LU t
- w
<
w I
0w<
O NOWCH00
G

?
.wogo os+! +••+.yytP

O tI u.ttou..ge p .Wt j
CJ
W a •?^!M
eut6Y ^0 .pW.!M
°0
C II^N V."m w t?
O
{b V -ID 19 ! Iz,
ILL Of F xa =NIIad •at •.a ¢ w l
3 3 xr 6e3 6ej m j V,
O

y
W
a
W L N ?L

t- t o
0
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?? - - - - - - - - - = w
° ? - - - 5
Q Vl J 2 - - - - - - - - - - - '• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O
(?
tl W z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ O - -
o ¢ y z z
I - - -1 -1 - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
ii
Z k < p j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Z O
W
F'
a
tv
Q

f
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
F. U S^ _ _ _ m

a o a '"v; - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s o
U O

^

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
V
W
b w
¢ O
J 3 e
O $ - - - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .-

N C i .+.ttw ._. • eYT
> e
K F LL LL
O

Z w

0
u Z

H

O¢
(.ww1"u. vu!
o
a
i-N
<
W? <

S

(•+PI.,P..V P.-

`

?

q

^ ? u ? e
_
S g o

wu f
•? oa
•Y
a W (
.
?1
_ u o
¢ p.y.w iru=

_ z
o_

<
J

L

m

Sn
v ?44 ? In u

W
C
V ¢ W O v t a

^
w

G
43

l7 W

?•

Z

Z

Q

O

0

, e

<

W 1^
it
w 4 0
Z
g
,p
V
,?
rc ?-
a o
1 W w t- < u

11
Z
e ¢
LL
W
Q N
X
O
O
L/? i 2 0
; S
F- f .
.
w w H O Z

u~i ~ f F 31Y0 n n ?? u i
s Y 0
. .
Z-0-1 R
1
A
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
w
w
i

W=W
V p
KF> '
W
<C
Z
V NQ
11.==
OQF

=<W
s
"U
ZQJ
fy,< N
CIZ z
<gp O •
sN-

?FZ > is a

no
W
z
W
°

< m e
a
U O e /?

U u
p ?
C
J O z
O r
O

z < 0
= ?"1
z =E

J

M?,/?
2 o 02
u <

AON30N3
W
W
N

W p
Z

> vW<
w
LL
O
w
NOI ltONO3 J
C -wy Neal w--Nei 1
O
it rN-..•-r t- _U
I
u
W c ?
s•tsw
?:a I I I ?
?,-;
a
?
? ..
11-14
Y
-?-yl I r
a ` I P--y »
Olk?

m
V
- 10
Q

W
?.
W
N m < < N W
0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W e 3 - - - - { - - - - -' - C

p
' W
p
a
2
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
e
-
-
-
-
- t
- i -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
V

f
4 ' _ - J
<
! JO -G -t - -i -1- - - -1 - - - - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - -1 - - - - ?p
fJ o
?o
'
2
-1
-
-?
---
-
-'
-'
-I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-?
-I-
-
-
-i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
=
W
it V, a .
St pt^ 4 p - - - -'- - - - -t - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - -t - - - F O

"I

W
Z Q _ -i - - -1- - ? - - - ? - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
-
-
-

I >
<?
- -
? o 'eo - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - '

r• -$ - - - -t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a
z lz t
? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' - - - - - - - - - `
- W ~ ? i - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' - - ?
< u ?'t 3 <
x
?S1^' v d e? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
o a _ ?
- m oe$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - a

[ T
> I

a a
i
0
z
r...... n•• •w i
W 6
qa -?-„N ea• rwt
s
`
"
W <
>W Z (.WP_ ••v
--
• Z
-

WO p
00 I
_
Ix
z wo I- "!'V
Wt:uz
< ~ O \ 0
.? > < m
N

p
a p
$ i
Q N

p
<
p

~
p
O

Z

Q
N
- O

O

O

O

,

O `
S
W 'i •:
e _ { S ty? i
W`> 1
o a 0 ' 3 2
Z u LL W Q W X '
O I z
L
a F

< ?, W
O
W
a r s m
O <
s SY3

? Q V 0
-
,~i, f ? 31 0 - « - ?
0y= ?r?=

1

APPENDIX E
NCGTP SITE
STONYTON CREEK SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLE TEST RESULTS
FOR METALS, PESTICIDES, AND ORGANICS

1

HYDROLOGIC LABORATORIES, INC
DATE AND M EE SUMMARY
Company Name: Hydrologic-Morrisville
Project: 96-0303
HydroLogic Login Number: L2493
;.:at!?AZ`RIC :.:.:

SW846 1311/8150 01/31/96 12:35 02/06/96 02/06/96 20:41
SW846 1311/8080 01/31/96 12:35 02/06/96 02/08/96 20:27
SW1311 01/31/96 12:35 02/06/96 02/06/96 18:29
SW1311 01/31/9612:35 02/02/96 02/02/9617:11
SW1311 01/31/96 12:35 02108/96 02/06/96 14:48
SW1311 01/31/9612:35 02/06/96 02/07/9618:00

SAMPLE NUMBER !;2493: 2:
...... CIlIENT ID:.. .:: ;:
.......:;.:,.;;.;..::.. ::;:.;;::;:.>::;:::;;::::: >... ATRiX'A ueoi
..:>::.:;:.: ;;;:.;.<::.:..:... :::.: _... • 4
SW846, 7841 01/31/96 15:40 02/05/96 02/05/96 15:18
SW846, 7740 01/31/96 15:40 02/05/96 02/05/96 16:32
SW846, 7421 01/31/96 15:40 02/06196 02/06196 17:01
SW846, 7060 01/31/96 15:40 02/05/96 02/05/96 17:04
SW8260-MED 01/31/9615:40 02/08/96 02/05/9617:07
SW-846, 6010 01/31/96 15:40 02105/96 02/05196 16:31
u
1?

A

Page 1

Form 1 - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: Hydrologic Laboratories, Inc.
Client ID: 01'_ -
Project Number: 96-0303
Sample ID: L2493-1;
Site / Project ID: Not:Repc
Run ID: R3086:--L
Collection Date: 31'=JAN'-.5
Received Date: 01.4.FEB.5
Report Date: 07=FEB-5
Benzene 71-43-2 1
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 1
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1
Chloroform 67-66-3 1
1,4-Dichtorobenzene 106-46-7 1
1,2-Dichtoroethane 107-06-2 1
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 1
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 1
Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 1
Trichloroethene 79-01-6 1
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1
Dibromoftuoromethane SURROGATE 10
Toluene-d8 SURROGATE 10
4-Bromofluorobenzene SURROGATE 10
Review By: Ty Garber Report Approved By: Randy Greaves
"Dil" - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit
Y.

1
Form 1 - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: HydroLogic Laboratories,
Client ID:
Project Number:
Sample ID:
Site / Project ID:
Run ID:
Collection Date:
Received Date:
Report Date:
Hdrkg `aup umEier . ..........: ::
Cresol 106-44-5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1
Nitrobenzene 98-95-3
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5
Pyridine 110-86-1
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2
Nitrobenzene-d5 SURROGATE
2-Fluorobiphenyl SURROGATE
p-Terphenyl-d14 SURROGATE
Phenol-d6 SURROGATE
2-Fluorophenol SURROGATE
214,6-Tribromophenol SURROGATE

Inc.
............. .
96-0303
L2493-1.->
Not Reported
R3086
31..JAN-.9b
61!4437, 96
07 fEB 96
......................
....................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I Review By: Ty Garber Report Approved By: Randy Greaves
"Di l" - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit
1
Form 1 - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: Hydrologic Laboratories,
Client ID:
Project Number:
Sample ID:
Site / Project ID:
Run ID:
Collection Date:
Received Date:
Report Date:
Inc.
01
96-0303
L2493--t
Not.:Reported
83086
3.1.-:JAN 96
OT=:FEB 96
07 Ea 96
Lindane 58-89-9 1 :>sA4>>: »=><'.>`:>u

ChLordane

75-74-9

f ...
Endrin , - 72-20-8 1 ......ND>:::::::::: ;>: :` i91
tackfor

ep 76-44-8 1
>><-w
MethoxychLor 72-43-5

...:::.......
g/
Toxaphene 8001-35-2 1
Tetrachloro-m-xylene SURROGATE 1 92 .. 7<
Decachlorobiphenyl SURROGATE 1 4E
46 Methods
gear
_ ::.:..:.: .
: -:.-..:.:.
st s Da 0
..; .::..::...:. :
'up X
2,4-D 94-75-7 1 :xo ug/
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 93-72-1 1 ;ND ug/
DCAA SURROGATE 1 68
Review By: Ty Garber
Report Approved By: Randy Greaves
"Di L" - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit

Form 1 - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: Hydrologic Laboratories, Inc.

Client I0: OT
1.; Project Number: 96-0303
Sample ID: L2493-1
Site / Project ID Not Reported
Run ID R3086
collection Date 31-JAN-96
Received Date
Report Date 01.FEB 96
. 07 --- .. 96 :,........
5uS4GMett ods>11t!¢tlt.:::::::::::: :.:::: ::.::.:.:::;::::::
.
Pt`epaFattosti Elatg•`;:;tI2 E 9
,..89621= >s1<s<> ?< z =.`' »
: =z>?#=

<?
Rio,kgru...R »; > < >
==> : => <» .
.... :..........:::::
Arsenic 7440-38-2
Barium 7440-39-3
Cadmium
Chromium 7440-43-9
7440-47-3
Lead 7439-92-1
Selenium 7782-49-2
Silver 7440-22-4
. :.....:..
SW846 Method 13 1/7474 ;>:::::> ;` .
AnaEys t s Date 06 F.
- _9 .18 29
149,rX out Number. itG5585
:......... ...:.:
Mercury 7439-97-6

"Dill' - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form 1 - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: Hydrologic Laboratories, Inc.
Client ID:
Project Number:
Sample ID:
Site / Project ID:
Run ID:
Collection Date:
Received Date:
Report Date:
02
96-0303
L2493-2
Not..Reported
R3084:
31.--JAM-96
4t=fEB 96

Benzene 71-43-2
Bromobenzene
108-86-1
1
:::>:::•>:RD,;:::>:::>?=>:`
'>`>?:<:::;::»` L >:
r chl etha
B omo orom ne

74-97-5
Bromodi ch l oromethane 75-27-4 ::;: :>:>::::::::::>>:::.»•":;:">::>:.;» ::................
Bromofornt 75-25-2
Bromomethane 74-83-9
HD_
u91t
10
tert-Butylbenzene 98-06-6 1 1Vt) ug/L _ 10
sec-Butylbenzene 135-98-8 1 ND ug/L 10
n-Butylbenzene 104-51-8 1 ND ,.u9lL 10
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 1 ND ?
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1 ND
Chloroethane 75-00-3 1 ND Ug?l 10
Chloroform 67-66-3 1 ND ug/t „ 5
Chloromethane 74-87-3 1 ND ug/L 10
2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 1 ND ug/L 10
4-Chlorotoluene 106-43-4 1 ND ug/t 10
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 1 ND u L
s/
100 ::
Dibromochtoromethane 124-48-1 1 ND ug/L 5
1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 1 ND ug/L S
Dibromomethane 74-95-3 1 ND ug/C
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 1 ND ug/L 10
.:
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1 ND uq/l .
10
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 1 ND ug/L 10
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 1 ND ug/L 10
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 1 ND
t?9/L
5
1,2-Dichtoroethane 107-06-2 1 ND ug/I 5
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 1 ND
9/L
5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 1 NO
u4/C
2,2-Dichloropropane 590-20-7 1 ND ug/L 5
1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 1 ND ug%L 'S
1,3-Oichloropropane 142-28-9 1 ND ug/L 5
1,1-Dichtoropropene 563-58-6 1 ND ug/L 5
cis-1,3-Dichtoropropene 10061-01-5 1 ND ug/L 5
trans-1,3-Dichtoropropene 10061-02-6 1 ND ug/L 5
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 1 ND ug/L 5
Review By: T
Garber R
t A
d „, '
y epor
pprove
By: Randy Greaves
"Dili' - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit
. .11

C]
1
1
Form i - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: Hydrologic Laboratories, Inc.
Client ID:
Project Number:
Sample ID:
Site / Project ID:
Run ID:
Collection Date:
Received Date:
Report Date:
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 1
Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 1
p-Isopropyltoluene 99-87-6 1
Methylene chloride 75-09-2 1
Naphthalene 91-20-3 1
n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1 1
Styrene, 100-42-5 1
1,1,1,2-Tetrachtoroethane 630-20-6 1
1,1,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane 79-34-5 1
Tetrachtoroethene 127-18-4 1
Toluene 108-88-3 1
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 1
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 1
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1
Trichloroethene 79-01-6 1
Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4 1
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 1
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 1
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1
(m+p)-Xytene NA 1
o-Xylene 95-47-6 1
Dibromofluoromethane SURROGATE 1
Toluene-d8 SURROGATE 1
4-Bromofluorobenzene SURROGATE 1
I Review By: Ty Garber
...
::.>:.;.
.:
:: . L

ND u9/L 'i
ND ug/L
ND ug/L
ND ug/L
ND ug/L
ND ug/L
ND u9/L
ND ug/L
ND ug/L
ND ug/L
>RD ug/L
ND ug/L
ND ug/L 'i
88 %
98 %
> 78 %
Report Approved By: Randy Greaves
"Dit" - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit
I
f
Form 1 - Data Summary Report
Prepared By: HydroLogic Laboratories, Inc.
Client ID:
Project Number:
Sample ID:
Site / Project ID:
Run ID.
Collection Date:
Received Date:
Report Date:

02. ,
96-0303
L2493-Z
Not Reported
R3084
31.-JAN-96.'
01=FEB-96.
06-FEH 96::.:.. '
`'Cone: <Un is
Antimony 7440-36-0 1
Barium 7440-39-3 1
Beryllium 7440-41-7 1
Cadmium 7440-43-9 1
Chromium 7440-47-3 1
Cobalt 7440-48-4 1
Copper 7440-50-8 1
Nickel 7440-02-0 1
Silver 7440-22-4 1
Vanadium 7440-62-2 1
Zinc 7440-66-6 1
SW846 Metlio 7060 ..% ..................
.... ..............
:; .
Analysts Date Q5'_OE6 96
.;17 04
::...:
Workgroup Number _WG5564 .`
Arsenic 7440-38-2 1
SW846Method 7421
Analysis Date. 6-FES-96 17:01
Worfgroup Number ..;;WG5575
Lead 7439-92-1 5
SW846 Method T740
Analysis Date: 05-FEB-96 16:32
Workgroup Number. WG5565 '
Selenium 7782-49-2 1
SW846.Method. 7841 ... :. ........
.:.:,.
•..:::
::
:

Analysis Date DS,;FE6-96
15. 48 .
.
:::.. :.
Workgroup Number WG5567 .
Thallium 7440-26-0
1
Review By: Ty Garber Report Approved By: Randy Greaves
"Dil" - Sample Dilution Factor
"ND" - Sample Concentration Not Detected above RL
"RL" - Method Report Limit

ND inglL
00799 mg/L
0487 ng/L
ND mg/L
0105 mg/L
ND mg/L
ND mg/L
0684 mg/L
.17 mg/L
119 mg/L
5 mg/L
D m4/L

I
L
1

APPENDIX F
NCGTP SITE
DITCHING INFLUENCE ON GROUNDWATER

A
1
A
DRAINMOD SUMMARY TABLES AND MODEL OUTPUTS FOR
DITCHES WITHIN THE INTERSTREAM MITIGATION AREAS AND
UPPER REACHES OF WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
A

'
Model Assumptions and Default Values
The hydrology of various soil water conditions applicable to the site was simulated using DRAINMOD. The
simulation accounted for properties of the predominate hydric soil present on site. Soil input parameters for ,
DRAINMOD were calculated by the NRCS model, DMSOIL (Baumer and Rice, 1988) using soil texture
data from soil samples collected on site. Soil hydraulic conductivity values used in DRAINMOD
simulations were determined from the on-site slug test data. DRAINMOD simulations were conducted for '
the range of ditch/canal depths and distances of a midpoint to the ditch or canal. It was assumed that
subsequent to filling and grading activities, the ground surface of the former ditches would be at a similar
grade as the adjacent existing surface. Drain depth was taken as the depth from the ground surface to the
surface of the water in the existing ditches and canals. Simulations were then run to determine the distance
between ditches for the establishment of wetland hydrology at the midpoint for 5 % as well as 12.5% of the
growing season for drain depths of 2 ft, 3 ft, 4 ft, 5 ft, and 6 ft. For simulations to determine the maximum
radii of influence of the ditches and canals, depths of 2 ft, 3 ft, 4 ft 5 ft, and 5 ft were again used. The goal
of these last simulations was to determine at what distance the drainage system would reduce the frequency
of achieving wetland hydrology to 18 out of 31 years from a theoretical maximum of 19 of 31 years. While '
not encountered during drilling efforts, an impermeable layer was assumed to be present at a conservative
depth of 10 ft for the purposes of model simulations.
The depth of depressional storage used in the initial DRAINMOD simulations was 4 inches, based upon the r
amount of relief present on site. The rooting depth function used in the simulation was a constant depth of
1 ft, which represents a value typically used for forested conditions.
A second set of simulations was conducted to allow a water budget analysis using an average ditch
depth of 4 feet, and various ditch spacing to evaluate the effect on wetland hydrology. For these
simulations a wetland hydrology criteria of 5 % of the growing season was used and spacing was
varied until the theoretical maximum of 26 of 31 years was achieved.

1

1

t0
W
a?
x
Z0
0-0
d?
z:g
rO
V
as
?TI W
F??f H
C
F
AU
?z
U
M1
A

y w
C O
? N
y U
"
d N •
U N O T
? W y U j
p M
w M
w M
w M
W
?
•pw
w o ? TN
? 0n •- 0 0 0 0
p G ° a'ni ° v rn a\ 00 00
u
0 °
0 0 .? ?
o? •v

LNL?
.
Y N
"3 w
C b 's. U T
O U •+

n
N bA p o ?•

10 •GT 45
£' w
w w
00
00
00 ;

i

R
O a 00 b 00
A N '
w biD L?
i
O
?
i
E `
W
' Y O
j? a
..-. y ¢ A C

y C op w "a U °J M M M M M
U 3 '? OTq = o o 0 o 0

o? z
x
??y/ U v? bA 3
y V1 e..
0.?. oA
O T C N y
ue 0 3
a ' o
s
. c
°

a>

O

° r-

O. r-

00 00

N
•C o y N Y C N N N M
^= o O > Q ?.
y ?/1 U Q'
3?0
M
w
o y
? o
.L G •? u2 °r O
. N
.? V1 ..U
3 y C ? C •L 'C
W 'fl U O
M
M
M
M

U p N 0
N p
N p N >
T
?"
• ^? W
° W
O W
O W
O
p c
C
CQ U N L
b
A
L G° U O ?D ? O i
'?. co r
C ¢ N .
. N
d ?o '
•
z3x
o
bh

o °
L O ? d0 ? •"'
N O
bCD •p W C + ct, 'r.
c-
rn a,

s, ON
°

N

Y •N 'fC

y O T
o U •o N M 'ct' 'n ?O
,,
?
7. to
v?

41 ? Q

L. oN
c
on O E
C+??
U ?
o a?
rV+ •? O
C ?
O y ..,
_C •? U
bD
v
O O N
0 3
Ow
o ?
L.
V ? O
.cn
C O
0 3
00
? r"O-+ • U
5: 4 40
a o y
0
? \ C
N
o
006>
U «t
++
4 r0 J
G 4? V
N ti O
O ? "d
O ? O

1

1

DRAINMOD OUTPUTS

1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:125m D/SPACING,60cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS
*******************************************************************************
---RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/13/1995 @ 17: 9
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD06.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 12500. cm drain depth = 61.0 cm
Z------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION -
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
' 78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm

1950 ----------.-------
0. - --------------------
2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 24.
1953 0. 24.
1954 0. 16.
1955 0. 18.
1956 2. 52.
' 1957 0. 29.
` 1958 2. 45. :.?
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 38.
1961 1. 63.
1962 1. - 39.
1963
1964 0.
2. 13.
65.
1965 1. 40.
1966 1. 39.
1967 1. 70.
1968 0. 19.
-- 1969 0. 23.
1970 1. 37.
1971 1. 32.
1972 2. 36.
1973 0. 0.
1974
1975 0.
1. 0.
39.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 25.
1978 1. 30.
1979 1. 36.
> 1980 1. 35.
J
Number of Years with at least one period =

1
,, out of 31 years.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:140m D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS
******************************************************************************
s.---------- RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/13/1995 @ 16:12
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGDI5.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 14000. cm drain depth = 91.0 cm
t drain
R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******

1

t?
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
---------- -------- --------------------
1950 0. 2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 24.
1953 0. 24.
1954 0. 15.
1955 0. 18.
1956 1. 31.
1957 0. 28.
1958 2. 45.
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 37-
1961 1. 38.
1962 1. 39.
1963 0. 12.
1964 2. 64.
1965 1. 40.
1966 1. 38.
1967 1. 65.
1968 0. 17.
1969 0. 23.
1970 1. 37.
1971 1. 32.
1972 1. 35.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 38.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 24.
1978 1. 30.
1979 1. 36.
1980 0. 25.

Number of Years with at least one period = 16. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:120m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
******************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/14/1996 @ 16:37
nput file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGDII.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
L: drain spacing 12000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
A

Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm

5
0
1
9 -------o=---------
1
1
9
5 0.
1952 0.
1953 0.
1954 0.
1955 0.
1
956 2. ``

'
1957
, .
1.
1958 1-
1959 3.
1960 2.
1961 1.
1962 1.
1963 0.
1964 2.
1965 1.
1966 1.
1967 1.
1968 0.
1969 1.
1970 1.
1971
1972 1.
0.
1973 0.
1974 0.
1975 1.
1976 0-
1977 0.
1978 1.
1979 2.
1980 1.
Number of Years with at least one
w
-------------------
0.
0.
27.
26.
14.
24.
73.
30.
63.
.
46.
39.
64.
49.
15.
76.
42.
32.
68. `
15.
43.
50.
48.
28.
0.
0.
41.
0.
26.
39.
45.
37.
period = 18. out of
31 years.
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copyright 1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University
- - -*
WALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:175m D/SPACING,150cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS
*******************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/13/1995 Q 19: 8
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGDI9.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 17500. cm drain depth = 150.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year '
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days '
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
---------- ------ --------------------
1950 0. 1. ¦
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 22.

1953
0.
24. '
1954 0. 15.
1955 0. 18.
1956 1. 31. -
1957 0. 29.
1958 1. 37.
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 38. '
1961 1. 62.
1962 1. 40.
1963
1964 0.
2. 12.
64. '
1965 1. 40.
1966 1. 34.
1967 1. 65.

1968
0.
17. '
1969 0. 23.
1970 1. 37.
1971 1. 32.

1972
1.
35. '
1973 0. 0.
1974
1975 0.
1. 0.
39.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 25.
1978 1. 30.
1979 1. 36.
1980 0. 25.

Number of Years with at least one period =
F
16. out of 31 years.

----------------------------------------------------- i
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
kNALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
Eor GRASS:200m D/SPACING,180cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS, CD

----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- -time: 12/13/1995 @ 16:19
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\STONY003.LIS
parameters: controlled drainage and yields not calculat
--------------- drain -spacing -=---20000_-cm---drain -depth -_--180_0-cm----
'
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year '
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days

more with WTD '
< 30.00 cm

1950 ---------- -------- --------------------
0.: 1.
1951 0. 0.
1952
1953 0. 22.
0. 24. '
1954 0. 15.
1955 0. 19.
1956 2. 52. _._.

1957
0. 29. '
1958 1. 37. -?
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 38.
1961 1. 77.
1962 1. 39.
1963 0. 13.
1964 2. 65. '
1965 1. 40.
1966 1. 34.
1967 1. 66.

1968
0. 17. '
1969 0. 23.
1970 1. 43.
1971 1. 52.

1972
2. 36. '
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 39.

1976
0. 0. '
1977 0. 25.
1978
1979 1. 30.
2. 36. '
1980 1. 35.

1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
i
1
Number of Years with at least one period =

17. out of
I
31 years.
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:125m D/SPACING,60cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 12/13/1995 @ 17: 9
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD06.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

------- drain spacing
--------------------- = 12
------- 500. cm
---------- drain depth =
---------------- 61.0 cm
---------
--
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP
1950 101.80 101.80 104.28 .32 .00 10.83 .37 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 84.07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1952 118.26 110.63 90.50 12.04 4.26 531.84 16.35 .00
1953 113.16 115.32 101.78 13.73 1.20 928.32 15.00 .00
1954 88.21 84.10 76.46 10.94 4.11 57.33 15.11 .00
1955 103.00 100.26 89.74 10.38 2.73 1013.41 13.15 .00
1956 116.89 116.78 90.86 23.35 .11 3599.-25 23.50 .00
1957 114.17 111.55 90.79 20.00 .00 68.58 20.01 .00
1958 125.81 125.05 91.11 33.94 .89 2098.63 34.86 .00
1959 155.30 147.33 97.28 50.04 8.67 2976.03 58.77 .00
1960 124.41 121.42 90.43 30.99 4.37 1869.96 35.44 .00
1961 105.44 105.13 90.06. 17.11 .71 1543.42
' 17.85 .00
1962 113.26 110.44 90.30 18.12 .00 577.46 18.15 .00
1963 109.68 . 109.38 88.51' 20.87 .00 620.13 20.95 .00
1964 146.13 131.07 85.20 45.88 15.78 2003.81 61.68 .00
1965 95.45 95.73 90.47 18.45 2.10 1245.21 20.60 .00
1966 118.54 116.56 93.14 16.48 1.98 1336.40 18.54 .00
1967 131.11 119.30 86.35 26.70 8.77 1696.73 35.52 .00
1968 109.83 109.70 91.33 18.37 .15 1066.03 18.59 .00
1969 104.83 105.66 85.22 20.44 .57 450.97 21.05 _.00
1970 88.16 89.79 79.87 14.70 .00 485.84 14.72 .00
1971 117.88 116.53 96.45 19.29 1.35 863.88 20.72._ .00
1972 121.74 115.91 96.03 15.90 1.39 1067.22 17.37 .00
1973• 88.14 92.58 93.06 14.46 .00 .00 14.47 .00
1974 103.63 102.50 86.92 .65 .00 .00 .66 .00
1975 130.81 126.87 98.47 28.40 3.66 987.06 32.12 .00
1976 81.28 77.22 64.61 12.60 2.72 .00 15.34 .00
1977 120.65 115.65 89.15 26.50 .4.86 350.19 31.39 .00
1978 120.65 121.40 91.52 29.89 1.23 871.39 31.16 .00
1979 133.35 126.91 96.58 30.33 5.76 1994.21 36.15 .00
1980 96.77 95.30 73.57 21.74 .39 213.65 22.16 .00

VOL'

AVG 112.28 109.69 89.49 20.08 2.51 984.77 22.64 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
} ------------------------------------------
?NALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
?or GRASS:140m D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS
?- ----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/13/1995 @ 16:22
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD15.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 14000. cm drain depth - --91.0-cm
°---------------------------------------------------------------
A

YEAR
RAINFALL
INFILTRATION
ET
DRAINAGE
RUNOFF
SEW
TWLOSS PUMP VOL
P
1950 101.80 101.80 103.53 1.13 .00 7.60 1.24 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 84.01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00
1952 118.26 110.76 90.31 12.45 4.31 517.36 16.83 .00
1953 113.16 115.27 101.22 14.32 1.07 863.27 15.47 .00
1954 88.21 84.17 75.94 11.56 4.04 27.34 15.65 .00
1955 103.00 100.45 89.11 11.66 2.55 991.75 14.26 .00
1956 116.89 116.84 90.78 23.21 .05 3547.99 23.29 .00
1957 114.17 111.50 90.50 19.83 .00 48.70 19.87 .00
1958 125.81 125.22 90.92
19 34.29
50
33 .84
50
8 2036.68
10
2942 35.19
58
89 .00
00
1959 155.30 147.52 97. . . . . .
1960 124.41 122.13 90.06 32.32 3.98 1807.20 36.38 .00
1961 105.44 104.69 89.48 17.20 .74 ;1402.38 18.00 .00
1962 113.26 110.36 89.94 18.19 .0C 556.19 18.25 .00
1963 109.68 109.52 88.28' 21.24 .00 531.80 21.31 .00
1964 146.13 131.55 85.04 46.51 15.27 1964.57 61.81 .00
1965 95.45 95.74 90.01 18.94 2.08 1225.83 21.08 .00
1966 118.54 116.57 92.96 16.69 1.98 1100.38 18.76 .00
-` 1967' 131.11 119.71 86.16 27.27 8.38 1654.91 35.71 .00
1968 109.83 109.80 90.97 18.82 .10 1000.46 19.02 .00
1969 104.83 106.13 84.79 21.34 .62 406.88 22.03 <;_00
1970 88.16 89.19 79.64 14.35 .00 476.54 14.38 .00
1971 117.88 116.65 95.89 20.33 1.23 822.65 21.64 .00
1972 121.74 116.02 96.03 15.62 1.27 830.70 17.00 .00
1973 88.14 92.58 92.78 14.74 .00
0 .00
00 14.78
1
09 .00
00
- 1974 103.63 102.88 86.90 1.04 .0 . . .
1975 130.81 126.82 98.31 28.51 3.66 929.34 32.27 .00
1976 81.28 76.98 64.39 12.59 2.66 .00 15.28 .00
1977 120.65 115.86 88.95 26.91 .4.56 347.06 31.54 .00
1978 120.65 121.65 91.16 30.50 1.26 844.90 31.83 .00
1979 133.35 126.97 96.42 30.55 5.65 1792.47 36.25 .00
1980 96.77 95.27 73.21 22.06 .34 190.01 22.44 .00
AVG 112.28 109.77 89.19 20.47 2.42 931.20 22.95 .00
L

* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:120m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS

----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- -time: 5/14/1 996 @ 16:37
input file: D :\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGDII.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

------ drain spacing
---------------------- = 12
------- 000. cm
--------- drain depth =
---------------- 120.0 cm
----------
--

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 101.55 3.76 .00 .03 3.92 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 83.18 .53 .00 .00 .59 .00
1952 118.26 116.57 90.98 17.14 .00 522.91 17.22 .00
1953 113.16 114.85 101.58 14.14 .00 1119.80 14.23 .00
1954 88.21 87.58 75.25 15.74 .63 16.17 16.44 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 87.43 15.35 .00 1352.46 15.41 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 90.68 23.91 .00 4138;33 23.94 .00
1957 114.17 109.64 90.64 17.24 .00 135.80 17.32 .00
1958 125.81 128.43 91.24 37.19 .00 2113.47 37.26 .00 ,
1959 155.30 153.89 98.24 55.65 .00 3289.75 55.70 .00
1960 124.41 127.73 89.98 38.67 .00 2273.26 38.69 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 88.52:. 18.80 .00 :1597.87 18.87 .00
1962 113.26 111.72 90.22 18.70 .00 713.26 18.80 .00 '
1963 109.68 108.93 88.68` 20.24 .00 320.03 20.33 .00
1964 146.13 137.65 86.00 ,.51.65 6.58 2342.84 58.28 .00
1965 95.45 99.64 91.44 21.64 .00 1384.85 21.71 .00

1966
118.54
118.54
93.07
17.99
.00
1036.22
18.05
.00 '
1967 131.11 126.12 86.07 34.09 .00 1918.42 34.16 .00
1968 109.83 114.06 90.62 23.44 .00 802.76 23.52 .00
1969 104.83 105.59 84.59 21.56 .00 481.46 21.65 x.-00
1970 88.16 88.16 80.09 12.91 .00 678.01 13.00 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 95.73 22.61 .00 949.33 22.70 .00
1972
1973 121.74
88.14 115.46
94.42 95.02
93.38 14.60
16.08 .00
.00 212.09
.00 14.69
16.16 .00
.00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.66 2.60 .00 .00 2.72 .00
1975 130.81 130.81 99.45 30.76 .00 1177.09 30.83 .00
1976 81.28 77.64 65.11 12.46 .00 .00 12.52 .00

1977
120.65
119.48
89.40
30.08
.00
410.71
30.20
.00 '
1978 120.65 125.47 91.19 34.63 .00 992.14 34.74 .00
1979 133.35 131.73 95.91 35.47 .00 2314.83 35.51 .00
1980 96.77 97.01 73.55 23.46 .00 407.57 23.52 .00
AVG 112.28 112.00 89.21 22.68 .23 1054.89 22.99 .00
1
L
F

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:175m D/SPACING,150cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS
*******************************************************************************

d ----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- -time: 12/13/1 995 @ 19: 8
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGDI9.LIS
arameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat
p
-
------ drain spacing
--------------------- = 17500. cm
---------------- drain d
---- --- epth =
-------- 150.0 cm
----------
--

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 101.95 3.63 .00 .47 3.73 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 82.73 1.31 .00 .00 1.38 .00
1952 118.26 111.87 89.98 12.86 3.51 476.46 16.43 .00
1953 113.16 115.08 100.78 15.31 .95 845.53 16.33 .00
1954 88.21 84.14 75.34 12.22 4.07 22.40 16.35 .00
1955 103.00 100.56 88.02 12.67 2.44 977.39 15.17 .00
1956 116.89 116.82 90.50 22.93 .07 3549.60 23.02 .00
1957 114.17 111.53 90.12 20.25 .00 56.99 20.32 .00
1958 125.81 125.04 90.65
97
96 34.39
52
50 .93
8
48 1989.74
54
2911 35.38
04
59 .00
00
1959 155.30 147.49 . . . . . .
1960 124.41 122.36 89.78 33.21 3.85 1814.24 37.10 .00
1961 105.44 104.70 88.98'. 17.93 .73 ,1378.87 18.70 .00
1962 113.26 110.84 90.05. 17.95 .00 633.17 18.01 .00
1963 109.68 109.11 87.92 21.19 .00 357.79 21.26 .00
1964 146.13 131.53 84.73 46.80 15.22 1967.54 62.06 .00
1965 95.45 96.67 89.56 20.88 1.16 1203.42 22.09 .00
' 1966 118.54 116.51 92.60 17.00 2.03 937.89 19.10 .00
`- 1967 131.11 120.05 85.84 27.35 8.04 1659.00 35.44 .00
1968 109.83 110.09 90.52 19.57 .00 875.95 19.64 .00
1969' 104.83 106.53 84.17 22.35 .64 360.88 23.06- <4_00
1970 88.16 88.58 79.14 15.20 .00 478.80 15.26 .00
1971 117.88 116.86 95.28 20.52 1.02 737.28 21.61
= .00
1972 121.74 116.31 96.03 15.58 .99 813.61 16.63
-.. .00
' 1973 88.14 92.58 91.85 16.09 .00 .00
00 16.16
2
65 .00
00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.26 2.57 .00 . . .
1975 130.81 127.15 98.20 28.39 3.56 920.70 32.03 .00
1976 81.28 75.97 63.89 12.09 2.62 .00 14.76 .00
i 1977 120.65 116.86 88.43 28.43 3.71 344.16 32.21 .00
- 1978 120.65 122.13 90.54 31.59 1.26 843.91 32.92 .00
1979 133.35 126.52 96.36 30.16 5.47 1732.65 35.67 .00
1980 96.77 95.62 72.80 22.82 .31 199.13 23.18 .00
AVG
109.91
112.28
88.71
21.09
2.29
906.10
23.44
.00

A
7
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:200m D/SPACING,180cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/28dayS, CD

----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 12/13/1 995 @ 16:19
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\STONY003.LIS
parameters: controlled drainage and yi elds not calculat

-------
drain spacing
---------------------
= 20
-------
000. cm
----------
drain depth =
---------------
180.0 cm
----------

-- '
,
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS
R VOL
PUM
1950 101.80 101.80 101.87 3.89 .00 .25 3.97 .00
1951" 82.37 82.37 82.38 1.92 .00 .00 1.98 .00
1952 118.26 111.96 90.02 12.51 3.11 469.07 15.67 .00
1953 113.16 115.37 100.94 15.52 .98 881.56 16.55 .00
1954 88.21 84.18 75.49 12.22 4.03 36.89 16.29 .00

1955
103.00
100.38
87.91
12.24
2.61
1009.71
14.90
.00 '
1956 116.89 116.77 90.59 22.57 .12 3623:22 22.71 .00
1957 114.17 111.51 90.19 20.49 .00 71.14 20.55 .00
1958 125.81 125.04 90.72 34.32 1.02 2035.63 35.38 .00
1959 155.30 147.12 97.05 50.07 8.72 2961.22 58.82 .00
1960 124.41 122.04 89.90 32.57 4.24 1868.94 36.85 .00
1961 105.44 104.66 89.90- 17.18 .77 2150.43 17.99 .00
1962 113.26 110.76 89.48 18.44 .00 '559.24 18.49 .00
1963 109.68 109.06 87.99 21.08 .00 366.64 21.13 .00
1964 146.13 131.44 84.83 46.60 15.41 2012.87 62.04 .00
1965 95.45 96.56 89.75 20.74 1.29 1225.72 22.08 .00

1966
118.54
116.52
92.62
16.94
2.03
991.52
19.02
.00 '
1967 131.11 119.98 85.93 27.08 8.13 1694.97 35.25 .00
1968 109.83 109.84 90.75 19.09 .00 894.42 19.14 .00
1969 104.83 106.68 84.26 22.41 .60 379.77 23.07 .00
1970 88.16 88.71 79.18 15.54 .00 491.30 15.59 .00
1971 117.88 111.41 97.00 12.89 6.47 1368.29 19.41, .00
1972 121.74 116.19 96.03 15.66 1.11 1007.00 16.83`- .00
1973 88:14 92.58 91.65 16.57 .00 .00 16.63 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 85.95 2.88 .00 .00 2.95 .00
1975 130.81 127.17 98.27 28.06 3.59 950.32 31.71 .00
1976' 81.28 75.91 63.89 12.01 2.62 .00 14.68 .00

1977
120.65
116.88
88.45
28.43
3.63
346.55
32.12
.00 ,
1978 120.65 122.23 90.58 31.65 1.21 861.83 32.92 .00
1979 133.35 126.34 96.42 29.92 5.53 1892.39 35.48 .00
1980 96.77 95.62 72.84 22.79 .40 208.45 23.24 .00
AVG 112.28 109.70 88.80 20.78 2.50 979.33 23.34 .00
?J

I
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
s' * Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
z.
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,30cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
{
x. ----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:32
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT600X30.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 60000. cm drain depth = 30.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------- ----.------ - ----;----------------
1950 0. 2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 25.
1953 0. 25.
1954 0. 23.
1955 0. 25.
1956 3. 73.
1957 1. 32.
1958 2. 45.
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 41.
1961 1. 64.
1962 1. 40.
1963
1964 0.
2. 18.
76.
1965 1. 41.
1966 1. 41.
1967 1. 80.
1968 0. 21.
1969 1. 46.
1970 1. 45.
1971 1. 38.
1972 1. 88.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 40.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 26.
1978 1. 38.
1979 3. 60.
1980 1. 37.
1'.
Number of Years with at least one period = 19. out of 31 years.

- ----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,60cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
-----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- -time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:32
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT600X60.LIS
parameters: free drainage and-yields-not-calculat---
drain spacing 60000. cm drain depth = 60.0 cm
------------------------------ ----
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
1
1
1
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30..00 cm
------------------ ---- ---- -----------
1950 0. 2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 25.
1953 0. 26.
1954 0. 23.
1955 0. 24.
1956 3. 73.
1957 1. 32.
1958 2. 45.
1959 3. 45.
1960 2. 41.
1961 1. 64.
1962 1. 40.
1963 0. 18.
1964 2. 76•
1965 1. 41.
1966 1. 41.
1967 1. 79.
1968 0. 21.
1969 1. 50.
1970 1. 45.
1971 1. 38.
1972 1. 87.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 40.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 26.
1978 1. 38.
1979 3. 60.
1980 1. 37.

Number of Years with at least one period =

19. out of 31 years. ,
1
e
11

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
_ -----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
i. .
I ----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/14/1996 Q 8:33
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT600X90.LIS
F arameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing =---60000_-cm-- drain depth-=---90_0-cm
1
1

D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
1950 0. 2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 25.
1953 0. 26.
1954 0. 23.
1955 0. 24.
1956 3. 73.
1957 1. 32.
1958 2. 45.
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 40.
1961 1. 64.
1962 1. 40.
1963 0. 18.
1964 2. 76.
1965 2. 41.
1966 1. 40.
1967 1. 80.
1968 0. 21.
1969 1. 46.
1970 1. 44.
1971 1. 38.
1972 1. 87.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 40.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 26.
1978 1. 38.
1979 3. 60.
1980 1. 37.
U
Number of Years with at least one period = 19. out of 31 years.
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
?r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- . time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:30
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT60OX12.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
---------- -----drain-spacing-_---60000_-cm---drain -depth -=--120_0 -cm----
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods
of 30 days or
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------
I

1

Longest Consecutive
Period in Days
1950 0.. 2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 25.
1953 0. 25.
1954 0. 23.
1955 0. 24.
1956 3. 73.
1957 1. 32.
1958 2. 45.
1959 3. 45.
1960 2. 41.
1961 1. 64.
1962 1. 40.
1963 0. 18.
1964 2. 76.
1965 1. 41.
1966 1. 40.
1967 1. 79.
1968 0. 20.
1969 0. 27.
1970 .1. 44.
1971 1. 38.
1972 1. 87.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 41.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 26.
1978 1. 38.
1979 3. 60.
1980 1. 37.

Number of Years with at least one period =

?
18out of 31 years.
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,150cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
*******************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- -time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:31
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT600X15.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing =---60000_-cm drain depth = 150.0 cm
------------------------------ ------------------------------

D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30:00 cm
----------------- - ----.,----------------
1950 0. 2.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 25.
1953 0. 25.
1954 0. 23.
1955 0. 24.
1956 3. 73.
1957 1. 32.
1958 2. 45.
1959 3. 44.
1960 2. 41.
1961 1. 64.
1962 1. 40.
1963 0. 14.
1964 2. 76.
1965 1. 41.
1966 1. 41.
1967 1. 79.
t 1968 0. 20.
1969 0. 26.
1970 1. 45.
1971 1. 38.
1972 1. 87.
1973 0. 0.
1974
1975 0.
1. 0.
40.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 26.
1978 1. 38.
1979 3. 60.
1980 1. 37.
11
Number of Years with at least one period = 18. out of 31 years.
F
---------------------- I ------------
------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
"ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,30cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
v
8
32
----------RUN STATISTICS - -------- - -time: :
5/14/1996 @
nput file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT600X30.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

----
drain spacing
---------------------
= 60000-cm
----------------
drain d
--------
epth =--
--- -
-30.0 cm --
---
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
950 101.80 101.80 104.47 .00 .00 10.68 .00 .00
?L951 82.37 82.37 84.07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1952 118.26 113.09 90.66 14.46 .00 603.77 14.47 .00
1953 113.16 118.17 102.96 15.21 .00 1169.98 15.21 .00
X954 88.21 88.37 77.82 13.72 .00 184.95 13.72 .00
?L955 103.00 103.00 91.03 10.69 .00 1220.75 10.69 .00
1956 116.89 115.29 91.00 22.41 .00 3938.68 22.41 .00
1957 114.17 113.05 91.79 21.27 .00 240.06 21.27 .00
L958 125.81 125.83 90.98 34.85 .00 2248.31 34.86 .00
11959 155.30 155.72 97.18 58.54 .00 3215.20 58.54 .00
1960 124.41 124.62 91.12 33.50 .00 2312.01 33.50 .00
1961 44
105 107.49 90.65 18.37 .00' ;1934.97 18.37 .00
1962 .
113.26 110.30 90.72 18.05 .00 663.29 18.05 .00
1963 109.68 109.40 88.85 20.55 .00 830.70 20.56 .00
1964- 146.13 141.99 85.26 56.74 4.70 2435.95 61.43 .00
.
1965 95.45 98.12 91.51 19.71 .00 1335.00 19.71 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 92.69 18.32 .00 1973.05 18.33 .00
1967 131.11 128.12 86.67 35.87 .00 2036.43 35.87 .00
1968 109.83 109.81 91.95 17.86 .00 1147.67 17.86 .00
..
1969 104.83 105.60 86.31 19.29 .00 656.26 19.29 .00
1970 88.16 90.40 80.24 14.79 .00 571.29 14.79 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 97.07 18.66 .00 1175.11 18.66 .00
1972 121.74 116.03 95.48 18.08 .00 1959.61 18.08 .00
1973 88.14 93.85 93.53 15.25 .00 .00 15.25 .00
1-1974 103.63 101.68 86.74 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00
1975 130.81 130.93 98.73 32.20 .00 1260.73 32.20 .00
1976 81.28 80.22 65.06 15.16 .00 .00 15.16 .00
11977 120.65 120.58 89.72 30.86 .00 394.66 30.86 .00
1978 120.65 121.53 91.50 30.02 .00 989.55 30.02 .00
1979 133.35 132.68 96.53 36.15 .62 3099.59 36.77 .00
1980 96.77 96.21 74.10 22.11 .00 322.45 22.11 .00
AVG 112.2 8 112.02 89.88 22.02 .17 1223.57 22.20 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:600m D/SPACING,60cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS

----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- -time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:32
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT60 OX60.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

------ drain spacing
---------------------- = 60
------- 000. cm
---------- drain depth =
--------------- 60.0 cm
---------
---

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 104.46 .01 .00 10.59 .02 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 84.07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1952 118.26 113.06 90.62 14.47 .00 598.05 14.47 .00
1953 113.16 118.20 102.97 15.23 .00 1164.11 15.24 .00
1954 88.21 88.37 77.84 13.70 .00 186.17 13.71 .00

1955
103.00
103.00
90.98
10.80
.00
1213.89
10.80
.00 '
1956 116.89 115.33 90.94 22.43 .00 3934.74 22.43 .00
1957 114.17 112.94 91.77 21.18 .00 239.14 21.18 .00
1958 125.81 125.88 90.95 34.93 .00 2243.69 34.93 .00
1959 155.30 155.76 97.22 58.54 .00 3204.59 58.54 .00
1960 124.41 124.61 91.11 33.50 .00 2326.06 33.50 .00
1961 105.44 107.50 90.63 18.42 .00. 1923.26 18.42 .00
1962 113.26 110.35 90.71 18.09 .00 .
662.36 18.09 .00
1963 109.68 109.34 88.83 20.51 .00 821.76 20.51 .00
1964 146.13 142.10 85.30 56.81 4.67 2427.51 61.48 .00
1965 95.45 98.05 91.43 19.73 .00 1328.85 19.73 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 92.69 18.35 .00 1982.76 18.36 .00
1967 131.11 128.12 86.59 35.93 .00 2016.63 35.93 .00
1968 109.83 108.18 91.84 16.36 .00 1142.83 16.36 .00
1969 104.83 94.12 87.36 6.75 13.13 927.41 19.88 -.00
1970 88.16 90.39 80.22 14.79 .00 569.83 14.79 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 96.97 18.72 .00 1159.54 18.73 .00
1972 121.74 116.09 95.48 18.18 .00 1905.16 18.19 .00
1973 88.14 93.79 93.42 15.30 .00 .00 15.30 .00
1974 103.63 101.69 86.74 .03 .00 .00 .03 .00
1975 130.81 130.92 98.69 32.23 .00 1255.83 32.23 .00
1976 81.28 80.12 65.11 15.01 .00 .00 15.01 .00
1977 120.65 120.72 89.73 30.99 .00 395.39 30.99 .00
1978. 120.65 121.51 91.56 29.95 .00 989.66 29.95 .00
1979 133.35 132.63 96.56 36.06 .64 3089.02 36.70 .00
1980 96.77 96.16 74.13 22.03 .00 331.37 22.03 .00 '
AVG 112.28 111.60 89.90 21.58 .59 1227.43 22.18 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
NALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
******************************************************************************

----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:33
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT60 OX90.LIS
arameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat
p
------ drain spacing
--------------------- = 60
------- 000. cm
---------- drain d
------- epth
--------- 90.0 cm
-----------

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW
VOL
TWLOSS PUMP
1950 101.80 101.80 104.41 .07 .00 10.34 .07 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 84.06 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1952 118.26 113.05 90.58 14.50 .00 591.01 14.51 .00
1953 113.16 118.22 102.96 15.27 .00 1175.08 15.27 .00
1954 88.21 88.36 77.75 13.79 .00 182.61 13.80 .00
,
1955 103.00 103.00 90.91 10.94 .00 1201.63 10.95 .00
1956 116.89 115.35 90.97 22.33 .00 3942:98 22.33 .00
1957 114.17 112.96 91.77 21.19 .00 239.85 21.19 .00
1958 125.81 125.93 90.92 35.01 .00 2238.28 35.01 .00
11959 155.30 155.69 97.15 58.53 .00 3208.28 58.53 .00
1960 124.41 124.70 91.10 33.60 .00 2307.71 33.60 .00
1961 105.44 107.40 90.67 18.27 .00 1940.44 18.28 .00
1
1962
1963 113.26
109.68 110.29
109.39 90.71
88.82 18.03
` 20.57 .00?
.00 664.66
811.90 18.03
20.58 .00
.00
1964 146.13 114.31 85.24 29.09 25.52 2529.43 54.61 .00
1965 95.45 102.10 92.18 23.00 2.92 1435.16 25.92 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 92.69 18.39 .00 1937.34 18.40 .00
1967 131.11 128.12 86.59 35.89 .00 2028.33 35.89 .00
1968, 109.83 109.82 91.82 17.99 .00 1139.29 18.00 .00
1969 104.83 105.60 86.22 19.39 .00 642.38 19.39 : .00
11970 88.16 90.40 80.15 14.88 .00 551.88 14.88 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 96.96 18.80 .00 1167.15 18.80 .00
1972 121.74 116.07 95.48 18.09 .00 1901.11 18.10 .00
1973
0 88.14 93.81 93.50 15.24 .00 .00 15.24 .00
.1974 103.63 101.73 86.74 .06 .00 .00 .07 .00
1975 130.81 130.91 98.63 32.28 .00 1246.83 32.29 .00
11976
1977 81.28
120.65 80.12
120.64 65.05
89.63 15.07
31.02 .00
.00 .00
390.58 15.07
31.02 .00
.00
1978 120.65 121.58 91.50 30.09 .00 986.94 30.09 .00
1979 133.35 132.59 96.52 36.07 .62 3067.24 36.70 .00
1980 96.77 96.23 74.06 22.17 .00 319.92 22.17 .00
AVG
111.26
112.28
89.86
21.28
.94
1221.24
22.22
.00

1?

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:600m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 5/14/1996 @ 8:30
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT 46\GT60 0X12.LIS
parameters: free drai nage and yi elds not calculat

------ drain spacing
---------------------- =---60
-- 000_-cm
--- drain d
-------- epth =
-------- 120.0 cm
---------
---
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP
1950 101.80 101.80 104.31 .20 .00 9.77 .21 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 84.01 .04 .00 .00 .04 .00
1952 118.26 113.03 90.59 14.45 .00 585.52 14.46 .00
1953 113.16 118.27 102.86 15.42 .00 1156.16 15.43 .00
1954 88.21 88.33 77.74 13.79 .00 183.10 13.80 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 90.83 10.99 .00 1200.82 11.00 .00
1956 116.89 115.47 90.91 22.53 .00 3909;56 22.53 .00
1957 114.17 112.79 91.67 21.12 .00 234.38 21.13 .00
1958 125.81 125.95 90.95 34.99 .00 2243.97 35.00 .00
1959 155.30 155.71 97.20 58.52 .00 3214.43 58.52 .00
1960- 124.41 124.79 91.00 33.79 .00 2280.48 33.80 .00
1961 105.44 107.29 90.64. 18.23 .00.
' ,1945.45 18.24 .00
1962 113.26 110.35 90.57 18.20 .00 648.37 18.21 .00
1963 109.68 109.31 88.78' 20.53 .00 790.88 20.55 .00
1964 146.13 142.09 85.26 156.83 4.71 2413.54 61.54 .00
1965 95.45 98.05 91.36 19.81 .00 1326.29 19.82 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 92.68 18.44 .00 1903.49 18.45 .00
1967 131.11 128.13 86.57 35.86 .00 2001.17 35.86 .00
1968 109.83 109.75 91.88 17.87 .00 1136.48 17.88 .00
1969 104.83 105.62 86.16 19.46 .00 630.20 19.47 .00
1970 88.16 90.43 80.09 15.01 .00 545.43 15.01 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 96.91 18.87 .00 1156.73 18.89 .00
1972 121.74 116.13 95.48 18.08 .00 1868.47 18.09 .00
1973 88.14 93.75 93.37 15.31 .00 .00 15.32 .00
1974 103.63 101.80 86.73 .15 .00 .00 .15 .00
1975 130.81 130.89 98.63 32.26 .00 1259.69 32.27 .00
1976 81.28 80.10 65.04 15.06 .00 .00 15.06 .00
1977 120.65 120.68 89.60 31.08 .00 390.49 31.09 .00
1978 120.65 121.54 91.49 30.05 .00 1002.23 30.06 .00
1979 133.35 132.64 96.47 36.17 .60 3019.10 36.78 .00
1980 96.77 96.11 74.01 22.10 .00 311.70 22.10 .00

t
VOL 1

AVG 112.28 112.02 89.80 22.10 .17 1205.42 22.28 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------------
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:600m D/SPACING,150cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
******************************************************************************

----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 5/14/1 996 @ 8:31
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT60 OX15.LIS
arameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat
p
------- drain spacing
--------------------- = 60
------- 000. cm
--------- drain d
-------- epth =
-------- 150.0 cm
---------
---

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
950' 101.80 101.80 104.21 .35 .00 9.18 .36 .00
951 82.37 82.37 83.92 .16 .00 .00 .17 .00
1952 118.26 113.13 90.56 14.50 .00 572.61 14.51 .00
1953 113.16 118.23 102.75 15.48 .00 1145.19 15.49 .00
954 88.21 88.28 77.71 13.84 .00 183.05 13.85 .00
1
955 103.00 103.00 90.72 11.14 .00 1208.09 11.15 .00
1956 116.89 115.46 90.93 22.39 .00 3913.29 22.40 .00
1957 114.17 112.87 91.69 21.18 .00 237.93 21.19 .00
958
F 125.81 125.86 90.91 34.95 .00 2228.93 34.96 .00
1959 155.30 155.71 97.13 58.58 .00 3193.96 58.59 .00
1960 124.41 124.78 91.02 33.75 .00 2300.10 33.77 .00
1961 105.44 107.31 90.56. 18.40 .00,., 1917.81 18.41 .00
1962
1 113.26 110.31 90.61. 18.06 .00 653.79 18.07 .00
,
1963 109.68 109.35 88.75 20.60 .00 774.11 20.61 .00
1964 146.13 142.09 85.20 56.89 4.66 2409.43 61.55 .00
1965 95.45 98.11 91.30 19.97 .00 1323.65 19.98 .00
11966 118.54 118.54 92.67 18.40 .00 1904.20 18.41 .00
1967 131.11 128.14 86.52 35.92 .00 2007.83 35.93 .00
1968 109.83 109.79 91.75 18.04 .00 1126.05 18.05 .00
1969 104.83 105.63 86.01 19.62 .00 607.68 19.63 <.00
1
1970 88.16 90.37 80.13 14.96 .00 566.21 14.97 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 96.86 18.94 .00 1134.82 18.95 .00
1972 121.74 116.05 95.48 17.94 .00 1878.98 17.96 .00
1973 88.14 93.82 93.35 15.44 .00 .00 15.45 .00
-1974 103.63 101.91 86.66 .28 .00 .00 .29 .00
1975 130.81 130.84 98.63 32.21 .00 1242.80 32.22 .00
1976 81.28 80.03 64.93 15.10 .00 .00 15.11 .00
11977 120.65 120.67 89.54 31.14 .00 388.24 31.15 .00
1978 120.65 121.62 91.41 30.21 .00 989.00 30.23 .00
1979 133.35 132.54 96.51 36.03 .60 3012.64 36.64 .00
1
1980 96.77 96.23 73.97 22.26 .00 312.68 22.27 .00
AVG 112.28 112.02 89.75 22.15 .17 1201.36 22.33 .00

w
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:55m D/SPACING,60cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/12days/5%
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/14/1995 @ 9: 3
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD56.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 5500. cm drain depth = 61.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30-00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1950 0. 1.
1951 0. 0.
1952 2. 16.
1953 1. 14.
1954 0. 5.
1955 1. 14.
1956 4. 23.
1957 0. 10.
1958 2. 32.
1959 3. 31.
1960 2. 12.
1961 1. 13.
1962 1. 12.
1963 0. 8.
1964 3. 25.
1965 3. 22.
1966 1. 25.
1967 2. 28.
1968 0. 10.
1969 1. 12.
1970 0. 10.
1971 1. 22.
1972 0. 2.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 12.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 13.
1978 1. 26.
1979 2. 13.
1980 1. 22.

H

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
4ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
GRASS:65m D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=12cm/28days/5%
*****************************************************************************
---------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/14/1995 @ 9: 4
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD58.LIS
rameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
------------drain-spacing-=----6500_-cm---drain-depth-=---91_0-cm----
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1950 0. 0.
1951 0. 0.
1952 1. 12.
1953 1. 14.
1954 0. 1.
1955 1. 12.
1956 2. 22.
1957 0. 6.
1958 1. 32.
1959 3. 30.
1960 0. 11.
1961 1. 12.
1962 0. 11.
1963 0. 7.
1964 3. 24.
1965 2. 22•
1966 1. 23.
1967 2. 27.
1968 0. 10.
1969 0. 11.
1970 0. 9.
' 1971 1. 22.
1972 0. 0.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 0. 11.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 13.
1978 1. 25.
' 1979 2. 13.
1980 1. 21.

Number of Years with at least one period = 20. out of 31 years.
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
f? *-Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------------
P ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
lr GRASS: 65m D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=12cm/28days/5%
******************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/14/1995 Q 9: 4
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD58.LIS
I arameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 6500. cm drain depth = 91.0 cm .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******

Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ ---------------
1950 0. 0.
1951 0. 0.
1952 1. 12.
1953 1. 14.
1954 0. 1.
1955 1. 12.
1956 2. 22.
1957 0. 6.
1958 1. 32.
1959 3. 30.
1960 0. 11.
1961 1. 12.
1962 0. 11.
1963 0. 7.
1964 3. 24.
1965 2. 22.
1966 1. 23.
1967 2. 27.
1968 0. 10.
1969 0. 11.
1970 0. 9..
1971 1. 22.
1972 0. 0.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 0. 11.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 13.
1978 1. 25.
1979 2. 13.
1980 1. 21.
1
Number of Years with at least one period = 16. out of 31 years.
i
1
1
. 1
1
1
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
--------------------------------------------- --------
,:.-ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:60m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/12day/50i
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- - time: 12/14/1995 @ 8:25
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD5I.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 6000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days.. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
----------------- - --------------------
1950 1. 31.
1951 0. 0.
1952 1. 12.
1953 0. 10.
1954 0. 1.
1955 1. 37.
1956 0. 4.
1957 0. 11.
1958 1. 20.
1959 1. 12.
1960 0. 10.
1961 1. 24.
1962 1. 12.
1963 0. 7.
1964 1. 29.
1965 1. 18.
1966 1. 13.
1967 2. 24.
1968 0. 9.
1969 0. 9.
1970 0. 0.
1971 2. 21.
' 1972 0. 6.
1973 1. 16.
1974
1975 0.
1. 6.
18.
1976 0. 2.
1977 1. 20.
1978 1. 17.
1979 2. 17.
1980 0. 10.

Number of Years with at least one period =

17. out of 31 years.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:85m D/SPACING,150cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/12days/501
*******************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- -time: 12/14/1995 Q 9: 5
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD59.LIS
Parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing-_----8500_-cm drain depth = 150.0 cm
---------------------------- ------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Cou nting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1950 0. 0.
1951 0. 0.
1952 1. 16.
1953 1. 14.
1954 0. 0.
1955 1. 14.
1956 2. 21.
1957 0. 0.
1958 1. 33.
1959 2. 31.
1960 2. 24.
1961 1. 12.
1962 1. 12.
1963
1964 0.
3. 8.
25.
1965 2. 22.
1966 1. 14.
1967 2. 28.
1968 0. 9.
° 1969 1. 12.
1970 0. 7.
1971 1. 22.
' 1972 0. 0.
1973 0. 0.
1974
1975 0.
1. 0.
12.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 14.
1978 1. 25.
' 1979 2. 13.
1980 1. 22.

Number of Years with at least one period = 20. out of 31 years.
i
----------------------------------------------------*
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:55m D/SPACING,60cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.0cm, thwtd=30cm/12days/5%

P----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 12/14/1995 @ 9: 3
`input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD56.LIS
arameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

---- drain spacing
---------------------- 5
------- 500. cm
--------- drain d
-------- epth
--------- 61.0 cm
---------
--

'YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 103.49 1.21 .00 3.85 1.26 .00
951 82.37 82.37 83.98 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1952 118.26 114.03 88.76 17.15 3.68 364.17 20.89 .00
1953 113.16 112.73 97.86 15.69 .98 378.98 16.74 .00
954 88.21 85.00 74.17 14.03 3.21 .00 17.31 .00
955
t 103.00 102.12 87.33 15.83 .88 623.19 16.75 .00
956 116.89 116.89 88.31 27.30 .00 1684.83 27.35 .00
1957 114.17 112.06 88.55 19.74 .00 A0 19.75 .00
958 125.81 127.38 90.28 37.10 .00 980.93 37.14 .00
_959 155.30 151.06 96.15 55.56 4.78 2117.81 60.38 .00
1960 124.41 122.85 87.77 36.07 1.56 684.72 37.69 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 87.28 19.17 .00 262.91
' 19.21 .00
962 113.26 112.60 87.16 22.79 .00 172.34 22.82 .00
_963- 109.68 109.65 86.23 23.42 .00 227.94 23.50 .00
1964 146.13 132.83 83.09 149.73 12.26 1201.16 62.04 .00
x_95 95.45 97.18 86.16 24.28 .00 842.90 24.33 .00
966 118.54 118.14 91.94 19.26 .41 628.34 19.74 .00
131.11 122.80 84.01 32.47 5.72 1078.94 38.23 .00
1968 109.83 112.42 87.93 25.81 .00 626.20 25.89 .00
69 104.83 104.83 82.99 21.51 .00 122.83 21.57 .00
70
U 88.16 88.16 77.31 14.74 .00 99.53 14.75 .00
71 117.88 117.88 94.77 24.27 .00 400.77 24.33 .00
1972 121.74 117.94 94.74 17.17 .00 14.63 17.24 .00
973 88.14 91.94 91.77 15.11 .00 .00 15.13 .00
1.974 103.63 103.63 86.91 2.48 .00 .00 2.50 .00
1975 130.81 128.46 96.94 30.81 1.73 420.02 32.60 .00
1976 81.28 79.72 62.65 17.06 .93 .00 18.00 .00
977 120.65 117.64 87.07 30.56 3.03 308.76 33.62 .00
1.978 120.65 121.59 90.12 32.97 .30 703.64 33.31 .00
1979 133.35 128.29 93.99 35.27 5.06 550.85 40.40 .00
1
980
- 77
96 96.77 71.73 22.94 .00 14.73 22.97 .00
. .
t'v
G 112.28 110.85 87.47 23.27 1.44 468.22 24.76 .00

1
---------------------------------------------- ------ i
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
NALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:65m.D/SPACING,90cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=l2cm/28days/5o
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- .time: 12/14/1995 @ 9: 4 '
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD58.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 6500. cm drain depth = 91.0 cm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP-VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 101.39 3.69 .00 .00 3.78 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 83.68 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
1952 118.26 115.32 88.14 19.46 2.95 334.79 22.49 .00
1953 113.16 112.33 96.19 17.03 .83 355.52 17.96 .00
1954' 88.21 85.02 72.94 15.49 3.19 .00 18.71 .00

1955
103.00
102.59
86.33
17.50
.41
593.46
17.98
.00 '
1956 116.89 116.89 87.38 28.69 .00 1402.83 28.75 .00
1957 114.17 112.06 87.73 19.14 .00 .00 19.20 .00
1958 125.81 127.92 89.72 38.93 .00 766.56 39.04 .00
1959 155.30 150.45 95.73 55.32 4.84 1827.19 60.25 .00
1960 124.41 123.23 87.00 37.87 1.18 572.97 39.16 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 85.80 19.90 .00 136.84
' 19.95 .00
1962 113.26 113.26 85.91 24.27 .00 90.18 24.34 .00 '
1963 109.68 109.68 85.56 24.19 .00 140.12 24.25 .00
1964 146.13 132.41 82.48 49.70 12.08 1144.03 61.80 .00
1965 95.45 97.09 84.95 25.48 .00 747.93 25.55 .00
1966 118.54 118.34 91.99 19.44 .21 494.63 19.76 .00
1967 131.11 123.77 83.12 34.22 5.02 1040.68 39.32 .00
1968 109.83 112.15 85.64 28.60 .00 461.94 28.69 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 81.82 22.96 .00 65.84 23.03 .00 .

1970
88.16
88.16
76.25
14.92
.00
60.81
14.94
.00 '
1971 117.88 117.88 93.21 27.21 .00 337.95 27.29 .00
1972 121.74 118.42 93.62 17.22 .00 .00 17.39 .00
1973 88.14 91.46 90.91 15.55 .00 .00 15.59 .00

1974
103.63
103.63
86.81
3.23
.00
.00
3.33
.00 '
1975 130.81 130.28 96.54 32.55 .53 379.00 33.22 .00
1976 28
81 79.81 62.16 17.44 .61 .00 18.08 .00
1977 .
120.65 118.85 86.31 32.54 1.84 304.25 34.51 .00 '
1978 120.65 121.13 89.09 34.12 .34 583.70 34.55 .00
1979 133.35 128.49 92.84 36.77 4.86 310.76 41.72 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 70.81 23.73 .00 2.86 23.76 .00
AVG 112.28 111.03 86.52 24.42 1.25 392.09 25.75 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
%NALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
r GRASS:50m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/12day/501
******************************************************************************
I----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 1/ 9/1996 @ 16:21
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTP5IA.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
_--------------drain spacing = 5000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
----------- ------------------------------
I
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP. VOL
950 137.31 137.31 94.93 45.00 .00 861.33 45.09 .00
951 101.60 101.60 94.33 8.69 .00 .00 8.87 .00
952 151.74 151.74 97.90 46.96 .00 477.64 47.06 .00
1953 134.32 134.32 99.51 35.17 .00 225.35 35.28 .00
954 104.42 104.42 85.72 24.93 .00 .00 25.07 .00
955 141.58 140.31 94.20 46.36 1.27 1067.17 47.75 .00
.956 125.83 125.83 95.40 33.65 .00 13.31 33.75 .00
1957 117.60 117.60 76.49 32.91 .00 .00 33.02 .00
958 132.66 132.66 84.58 48.62 .00 260.60 48.66 .00
959 118.90 118.90 90.47 30.49 .00 217.40 30.64 .00
1960 150.57 150.57 88.73 62.50 .00 289.08 62.60 .00
1961' 148.87 148.87 100.06 47.45 .00 379.02 47.48 .00
962
1 144.73 144.73 88.19 55.11 .00 '320.50 55.20 .00
963 123.22 123.22 79.78 43.35 .00 84.51 43.50 .00
1964 147.95 146.73 80.57 '164.51 1.22 904.88 65.81 .00
965 113.44 113.44 87.22 39.63 .00 679.36 39.75 .00
966
i 132.77 132.77 82.74 41.45 .00 424.33 41.53 .00
967 126.97 126.97 76.76 46.64 .00 871.12 46.70 .00
1968 107.16 107.16 81.49 28.40 .00 .00 28.45 .00
969 123.67 123.67 85.53 34.25 .00 .00 34.32 .00
970 90.73 90.73 80.07 17.17 .00 .00 17.29 .00
'971 159.72 159.72 100.08 61.78 .00 688.74 61.89 .00
1972 133.88 133.88 96.28 30.18 .00 .00 30.31 .00
973
1. 134.95 134.95 95.80 38.02 .00 20.44 38.09 .00
974 130.58 130.58 105.22 30.73 :00 39.26 30.85 .00
1975 130.53 130.53 89.68 35.78 .00 403.33 35.92 .00
'.976 117.60 117.60 93.50 25.57 .00 5.40 25.67 .00
977 152.86 152.37 94.55 54.48 .00 490.82 54.58 .00
..978 137.29 137.77 85.73 59.10 .00 536.24 59.16 .00
1979 156.64 156.64 92.87 62.31 .00 477.18 62.37 .00
980 110.74 110.74 78.25 32.59 .00 .00 32.70 .00
TVG 130.35 130.27 89.57 40.77 .08 314.10 40.95 .00
1
7
-------------------------------------------------- --
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
kNALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:85m D/SPACING,150cm D/DRAIN STMAX=5.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/12days/5%
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 12/14/1995 @ 9: 5 '
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GTPAGD59.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing ----8500_-cm drain depth = 150.0 cm
-----=------------------------ -------------------------------
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP.
1950 101.80 101.80 97.27 10.29 .00 .00 10.38 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 81.28 2.14 .00 .00 2.29 .00
1952 118.26 117.39 87.56 21.74 .87 194.85 22.66 .00
1953 113.16 112.79 94.36 19.26 .37 354.58 19.68 .00
1954 88.21 85.62 70.83 18.26 2.60 .00 20.95 .00
1955 103.00 102.78 84.04 20.63 .22 615.42 20.94 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 86.11 28.64 .00 1307.46 28.65 .00
1957 114.17 111.98 86.11 19.47 .00 .00 19.57 .00
1958 125.81 128.00 89.06 41.42 .00 535.90 41.47 .00
1959 155.30 150.39 95.41 53.94 4.91 1682.87 58.86 .00
1960 124.41 124.29 85.96 42.28 .12 596.19 42.42 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 84.01 21.10 .00 143.08 21.16 .00
1962 113.26 113.26 84.36 25.61 .00 '126.30 25.64 .00
1963 109.68 109.68 84.92 24.90 .00 53.42 24.97 .00
1964 146.13 132.21 81.79 48.50 12.14 1112.46 60.68 .00
1965 95.45 97.23 83.69 28.58 .00 591.54 28.61 .00
1966 118.54 117.97 90.30 20.92 .57 314.11 21.52 .00
1967 131.11 126.17 82.00 35.89 3.32 1099.65 39.23 .00
1968 109.83 111.45 82.92 31.10 .00 225.66 31.12 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 80.16 26.11 .00 3.21 26.15 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 74.75 17.18 .00 47.58 17.29 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 91.66 28.06 .00 216.95 28.10 .00
1972 121.74 118.43 92.48 16.34 .00 .00 16.39 .00
1973 88.14 91.45 88.51 18.98 .00 .00 19.12 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 85.38 6.32 .00 .00 6.49 .00
1975 130.81 130.70 95.20 33.77 .11 371.16 33.88 .00
1976 81.28 81.28 60.75 18.60 .00 .00 18.71 .00
1977 120.65 119.14 83.80 34.90 .57 299.29 35.52 .00
1978 120.65 121.22 87.54 36.91 .37 559.41 37.35 .00
1979 133.35 129.94 91.83 38.55 3.41 268.66 41.97 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 69.83 25.07 .00 13.06 25.16 .00
VOL

AVG 112.28 111.33 84.96 26.31 .95 346.22 27.32 .00

I

1
C?
O
i
i.r
O
as
x ?
b ?
d
a> C
:c
U
o A
o ?
CC
PTO O
O O ? O
M
C4 cl
O ? H a
v C
r.ti T ,1
V1 q
O ?
?i
A?
4-4
O
wl ?.
7?
P4
b
Sr
T?
y U
y O >

Q? U M M M M M M M M
0 M
0
L2¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 'II 'Cc N M n N N N N N

z z?
3
n
-
03

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O
> O O O O O O O O C (D
C
C

U
to N W) O t M O 00 47 N
y N O O O
> 4 .--. -

a> ?
v
d
l?
d
00
-•
M
?O
0\

> W kri
M N
M M
M M
M M
M d'
M ct'
M d'
M ?t
M

Cd ct: n N N N N N N N N N
` G G
¢?- * 7 tt
? 'I
I:T V
"T ?t
It 'I
'IT V

75
?nz)?

n> f? bb 'ri o0 00 -, N N

> Q

• 3 N N N N N N N N N
Q
a) 4 >
v
W

Q ?

N Q

00
C

N
p„
a v]
•--?
M
r!•
t--
O
N
N
W)
N
00
M
O
N
y N v v
¢ Q Y
_
?o

U Q
U •
? > O

C 'C3
U
0

? a o

U

4

3
3
i n o
O
U O
? ? •
O O OGL

U y
Cd
U O

°
w
O.
c? I.

O
?° i rx o

N ?•

i
C* !3.
CA

r
U A
y
O
N O
?-- od N
O ? y
E
;a ?.
0

U N y

Q cu C
U
U O ?U+ y O
U N U N ca
4 (1)
';4
(Z
C4
?
bo
c O O
O 00 +
O
t U p
> >
> CC O
xu?. >
w

1
f P=

f

I
I

I

i
I
F
I !
1
f
I I i ? C

' i

I

C ? U
.a
U) CU d.

o
F- N Z
i

0
0Q)
L C

Q
LL
I
I
t
_

8 8 8 8 8
O N ON ? O
8 8
L6 O
0
0
0
00
lq*
0
0
6
M
'IT
O
O
O
co
m
C
C7 U
m
Q
U)
O
O
O
00
N
O
O
0
co
N
0
0
O
00
T
O
O
O
e?
r
UOSMS OUIMO19 3u %S JOJ lu3s3Jd A2010JP(H PURIOM S=,&

i

1
1

j
I L
I I ?
I
i
L

I ?
I ?

I-
L

I ? I L
j L
F-

I
?
i I
r
i

I
i ?

Q? 0
V ? 0
I
N o i ! ?-
C
?
O
?
0
N
F- m Z I I-

?Q
i m ! `-
`o
} LL

r
I I I
I I I I i ! ! ! ? I
? !
'
R

8 8 8 8
L6 oN L6 o
uoscOS gu!mO-D3a %S IOJ Iuasard BOIO.TPXH pue'gam S=,k
8 S
o
O
O
O
N .
o cm
b .G
Q
U)
L
2
0
O
O
O
r
r
O
O
O

i
DRAINMOD OUTPUTS I
17

11

LJ
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
- ----- ------- ----- ---- -- ------ ---------- -----
ckALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:80m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 @ 12:32
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT80X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
--------------drain-spacing-=----8000_-cm---drain-depth- - -20_0-cm----
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR

i

u
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Number
Number of Periods
of 12 days or
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
1.
3.
0.
3.
3.
1.
1.
0.
3.
2.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
of Years with at least one
Longest Consecutive
Period in Days
--------------------
0.
0.
17.
14.
1.
15.
23.
10.
33.
31.
25.
13.
16.
9.
30.
22.
15.
28.
10.
13.
9.
22.
0.
0.
0.
14.
0.
14.
26.
14.
22.
period = 20. out of 31 years.
P

* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright -1990_91 -North -Carolina_ State -University-* ,
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:90m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
--------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 @ 12: 2
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT90X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
----- ------drain-spacing -=----9000_-cm---drain -depth-_--120_0-cm---- '
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year .
Number of Periods
of 12 days or
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Number
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
1.
4.
1.
1.
4.
3.
1.
1.
0.
3.
3.
1.
2.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
1.
1.
2.
1.
of Years with at least one
Longest Consecutive
Period in Days
--------------------
0.
0.
18.
14.
3.
16.
24.
12.
33.
32.
26.
23.
38.
10.
31.
23.
23.
29.
10.
14.
24.
23.
1.
0.
0.
15.
0.
15.
27.
15.
23.
period = 22. out of 31 years.
1

----------------------------7------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*
*-Copyright-1990_91-North-Carolina-State-University--
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:100m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 Q 12: 2
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT100X12.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
---------------drain -spacing _=---10000_-cm---drain -depth
- - -----
R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
1950 0. 0.
1951 0. 0.
1952 2. 18.
1953 1. 15.
1954 0. 5.
1955 1. 17.
1956 6. 29.
1957 1. 13.
1958 2. 36.
1959 3. 43.
1960 3. 27.
1961 1. 25.
' 1962 1. 36.
1963 0. 11.
1964 2. 60.
1965 2. 38.
' 1966 1. 24.
1967 1. 58.
1968 0. 11.
1969 1. 15.
1970 1. 36.
1971 1. 24.
1972 0. 3.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 2. 36.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 16.
1978 1. 28.
1979 2. 17.
1980 1. 24.
Number of Years with at least one period = 22.

out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copyright 1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University
- - -*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARR, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:125m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=lO.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/20/1996 @ 7:56
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT125X12.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat '
drain spacing = 12500. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION t
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm

1950 ------------------
0. --------------------
1.
1951 0. 0.
1952 2. 20.
1953 1. 15.
1954 0. 7.
1955 1. 18.
1956 7. 30.
1957 1. 16.
1958 3. 36.
1959 4. 43.
1960 3. 36.
1961 1. 36.
1962 1. 38.
1963 1. 12.
1964 2. 63.
1965 2. 38.
1966 1. 27.
1967 1. 60.
1968 2. 15.
1969 1. 22.
1970 1. 37.
1971 2. 32.
1972 2. 28.
1973 0. 0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 2. 38.
1976 0. 0.
1977 1. 24.
1978 1. 28.
1979 3. 24.
1980 1. 25.
Number of Years with at least one period = 25. out of 31 years.
1

F

* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
?. *-Copyright -1990_91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARR, LENIOR CO., NC
ior GRASS:60m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
--RUN STATISTICS - time: 5/17/1996 @ 12:33
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT60X12O.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
j drain spacing 6000. cm drain depth 120.0 cm
- -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION

'
s
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
--
--
1950 -----
------------------ -----------
0. 0.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 8.
1953 1. 13.
1954 0. 0.
1955 0. 10.
1956 1.
1957 0. 0.
1958 1. 23.
1959 2. 29.
1960 0. 10.
1961 0. 1.
1962 0. 2.
1963 0. 5.
1964 2. 21.
1965 0. 11.
1966 0. 7.
1967 1. 15.
1968
1969 0. 5.
0. 8.
1970 0. 0.
1971 0. 8.
1972 0. 0.
1973 0. '0.
1974 0. 0.
1975 0. 9.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 10.
1978 0. 7.
1979 1. 12.
1980 0. 8.
Number of Years with at least one period = 7. out of 31 years.
J
1
*---------------------------------------------------*
DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GR.ASS:70m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
---RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 @ 11:56
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT70X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
---------------drain -spacing------7000_ -cm---drain -depth----120_0 -cm----
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** TNTFRTM RYPRRTMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR. Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm

1950 ------------------
0.
1951 0.
1952 0.
1953 1.
1954 0.
1955 1.
1956 1.
1957 0.
1958 1.
1959 2.
1960 0.
1961 0.
1962 0.
1963 0.
1964 2.
1965 1.
1966 1.
1967 2.
1968 0.
1969 0.
1970 0.
1971 1.
1972 0.
1973 0.
1974 0.
1975 0.
1976 0.
1977 1.
1978 1.
1979 1.
1980 1.
Number of Years with at least one
--------------------
0.
0.
10.
14.
0.
12.
21.
0.
32.
30.
11.
7.
11.
6.
25.
12.
14.
27.
9.
11.
4.
18.
0.
0.
0.
11.
0.
12.
15.
13.
20.
period = 14. out of 31 years.

n

0

s

---- ------- --------- ------- -------- ---
- -----
*
*
C ---------
DRAINMOD version 4.60a
U
State
Carolina
91
North
1990
ht
ri
niversit
y
*
-
opy -
g
_ -
- - - -
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANS PARK, LENIOR CO., NC
2 or GRASS:70m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30 cm/30dayS

----------RUN STATISTICS -- ------- - time: 5/17/1 996 @ 11:56
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT4 6\GT50X120.LIS
parameters: free drain age and yi elds not calculat
drain spacing
--------------------- = 5000. cm
---------------- drain d
------- epth =
-------- 120.0 cm
------------
- ----- --
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 96.62 9.74 .00 .00 9.91 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 82.08 1.02 .00 .00 1.11 .00
1952 118.26 118.26 84.82 28.32 .00 106.40 28.42 .00
1953 113.1 6 113.16 91.58 21.03 .00 214.67 21.17 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 69.81 21.91 .00 .00
50
35 22.01
39
22 .00
00
1955 103.00 103.00 83.54 22.28 .00 1. . .
1956 116.89 116.89 84.39 31.50 .00 257.52 31.57 .00
1957 114.17 114.17 84.57 22.55 .00 .00 22.61 .00
1958 125.81 125.81 85.63 42.80 .00 31.82 42.89 .00
1959 155.30 155.30 93.01 62.65 .00 980.81 62.73 .00
1960 124.41 124.41 83.24 43.30 .00 206.26 43.38 .00
1961- 105.44 105.44 82.48 21.44 .00 .00 21.49 .00
1962 113.26 113.26 81.97 29.23 .00 .00 29.33 .00
1963 109.68 109.68 82.16 27.79 .00 43.72 27.86 .00
1964 146.13 142.05 79.03 60.65 4.08 676.38 64.81 .00
1965 95.45 95.45 80.36 28.18 .00
00 252.64
03
86 28.27
30
24 .00
00
1966 118.54 118.54 87.74 24.18 . . . .
1967 131.11 131.11 79.86 45.14 .00 740.35 45.22 .00
1968 109.83 109.83 78.02 35.44 .00 69.21 35.50 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 78.24 26.85 .00 1.17 26.92 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 72.82 16.88 .00 .00 16.97 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 90.05 32.02 .00 7.70 32.11 .00
1972 121.74 120.30 91.76 17.64 .00 .00 17.85 .00
1973 88.14 89.58 86.49 18.46 .00 .00 18.49 .00
` 1974 103.63 103.63 85.84 6.60 .00 .00 6.72 .00
1975 130.81 130.81 92.49 36.55 .00 155.45 36.67 .00
1976 81.28 81.28 59.16
48
81 22.31
60
38 .00
00 .00
172
66 22.41
38
69 .00
00
1977 120.65 120.65 . . . . . .
1978 120.65 120.65 84.68 38.40 .00 .42 38.53 .00
1979 133.35 133.35 90.33 44.70. .00 214.90 44.79 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 67.58 26.70 .00 .00 26.76 .00
AVG 112.28 112.15 82.96 29.19 .13 147.41 29.42 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State-University-* ,
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:60m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS -- ------ -- time: 5/17/1996 Q 12:33
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT6OX120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
------- --------drain-spacing- =----6 000_-cm--- drain -depth -=-- 120_0-cm----
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP
1950 101.80 101.80 97.54 8.57 .00 .00 8.76 .00
00
1951 82.37
26
118 82.37
26
118 82.27
85.96 .96
26.26 .00
.00 .00
191.13 1.05
26.35 .
.00
1952
1953 .
113.16 .
113.16 92.93 20.07 .00 288.27 20.21 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 70.48 21.19 .00 .00 21.29 .00
00
1955 103.00 103.00 84.16 21.59 .00 457.70 21.70 .
00
1956 116.89 116.89 85.07 30.60 .00 612.09 30.65 .
00
1957 114.17 113.71 85.44 20.72 .00 .00 20.78 .
00
1958 125.81 126.27 86.89 42.43 .00 229.54 42.51 .
00
1959 155.30 155.29 94.14 61.29 .00 1252.34 61.37 .
00
1960 124.41 124.41 84.78 42.22 .00 325.08 42.30 .
00
1961 105.44 105.44 83.37 20.80 .00 .60 20.87 .
00
1962 113.26 113 26 83.43 27.35 .00 .00 27.48 .
00
1963 109.68 109.68 83.03 26.90 .00 76.81 27.03 .
00
1964 146.13 141.17 80.25 58.63 4.44 870.92 63.14 .
00
1965 95.45 95.97 82.00 27.86 .00 448.88 27.95 .
00
1966 118.54 118.54 88.95 22.91 .00 175.37 23.08 .
00
1967 131.11 131.11 80.78 43.14 .00 881.70 43.22 .
00
1968 109.83 109.83 80.52 33.00 .00 158.05 33.09 .
00
1969 104.83 104.83 79.15 26.12 .00 6.68 26.25 .
00
1970 88.16 88.16 73.86 16.51 .00 .53 16.63 .
00
1971 117.88 117.88 90.66 30.84 .00 110.43 30.94 .
00
1972 121.74 119.11 91.95 17.16 .00 .00 17.34 .
00
1973 88.14 90.77 88.06 17.99 .00 .00 18.04 .
00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.01 5.72 .00 .00 5.85 •
00
1975 130.81 130.81 93.96 35.34 .00 220.46 35.45 .
00
1976 81.28 81.28 60.16 20.61 .00 .00 20.71 .
1977 120.65 120.65 82.85 37.25 .00 229.62 37.36 .00
1978 120.65 120.65 85.89 37.49 .00 119.37 37.62 .00
1979 133.35 133.35 90.69 44.04 .00 268.62 44.11 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 68.39 26.01 .00 .00 26.10 .00

7
LI
VO

t
R
AVG 112.28 112.14 83.99 28.12 .14 223.36 28.36 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright -1990_91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
jor GRASS:40m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
--RUN STATISTICS - time: 5/17/1996 Q 12:33
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT4OX120.LIS
--------------and-yields -not-calculat---
e?parameters: free drainage
---------------drain spacing -- 4000. cm drain depth 120.0 cm
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
rr ****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods
of 12 days or
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm

1950 ------------------
0.
1951 0.
1952 0.
1953 0.
1954 0.
1955 0.
1956 0.
1957 0.
1958 0.
1959 1.
1960 0.
1961 0.
1962 0.
1963 0.
1964 1.
1965 0.
1966 0.
1967 0.
1968 0.
1969 0.
1970 0.
1971 0•
1972 0.
1973 0.
1974 0.
1975 0.
1976 0.
1977 0.
1978 0.
1979 0.
1980 0.
Number of Years with at least one
Longest Consecutive
Period in Days
------------------
0.
0.
2.
4.
0.
6.
3.
0.
0.
12.
6.
0.
0.
2.
14.
3.
2.
10.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
0.
6.
0.
7.
0.
period = 2. out of
i
31 years.

i?
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copyright 1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University
- - -*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:70m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
---RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 Q 11:56
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT50X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
---------------drain -spacing -=----5000_-cm ---drain-depth-=--120_0-cm---- ,
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods
of 12 days or
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
-

1950 ---------
---------
0.
1951 0.
1952 0.
1953 0.
1954 0.
1955 0.
1956 0.
1957 0.
1958 0.
1959 1.
1960 0.
1961 0.
1962 0.
1963 0.
1964 1.
1965 0.
1966 0.
1967 1.
1968 0.
1969 0.
1970 0.
1971 0.
1972 0.
1973 0.
1974 0.
1975 0.
1976 0.
1977 0.
1978 0.
1979 0.
1980 0.
Number of Years with at least one
Longest Consecutive
Period in Days
-------------------
0.
0.
6.
5.
0.
9.
6.
0.
4.
27.
9.
0.
0.
4.
17.
9.
4.
13.
4.
3.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
9.
1.
10.
1.
period = 3. out of

31 years. I

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
FlANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:125m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS

U

i

s
----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 5/20/1996 C 7:56
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT125X12.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

------ drain spacing
---------------------- = 12500. cm
----------------- drain depth =
--------------- 120.0 cm
-
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
.
1950 101.80 101.80 101.62 3.56 .00 .17 3.71 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 83.17 .55 .00 .00 .61 .00
1952 118._26 116.40 89.32 18.76 .00 453.00 18.85 .00
1953 113.16 115:02 99.51 16.37 .00 701.17 16.45 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 74.38 17.10 .00 .42 17.15 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 87.50 16.29 .00 920.72 16.37 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 89.70 24.69 .00 3253.19 24.73 .00
1957 114.17 111.63 89.09 20.12 .00 12.69 20.20 .00
1958 125.81 126.20 90.04 36.16 .00 1750.27 36.25 .00
1959 155.30 156.04 96.27 59.78 .00 2746.57 59.83 .00
1960' 124.41 125.82 88.65 38.58 .00 1579.93 38.63 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 87.59 19.14 .00 1038.51 19.22 .00
1962 113.26 111.41 88.54 20.17 .00 493.37 20.27 .00
1963 109.68 108.84 87.13 21.70 .00 274.87 21.79 .00
1964 146.13 142.01 84.02 57.99 4.57 1868.19 62.62 .00
1965 95.45 97.70 88.44 22.66 .00 1124.00 22.73 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 92.05 19.70 .00 765.67 19.78 .00
1967 131.11 128.14 85.12 36.40 .00 1577.17 36.48 .00
1968 109.83 111.57 89.43 22.14 .00 773.12 22.23 .00
1969 1-04."83 106.07 83.34 22.98 .00 281.18 23.07 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 78.44 14.73 .00 432.56 14.82 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 94.30 23.81 .00 606.56 23.89 .00
1972 121.74 116.52 94.72 16.30 .00 284.02 16.40 .00
1973 88.14 93.36 91.79 16.60 .00 .00 16.68 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.48 2.50 .00 .00 2.61 .00
1975 130.81 130.69 97.48 32.82 .00 850.38 32.91 .00
1976 81.28 78.77 63.49 15.29 .00 .00 15.35 .00
1977 120.65 120.41 87.64 32.77 .00 329.31 32.89 .00
1978 120.65 123.52 90.04 33.74 .00 810.18 33.86 .00
1979 133.35 132.34 94.77 37.31 .00 1305.95 37.35 .00
1980 96.77 96.10 72.03 24.07 .00 142.13 24.13 .00
AVG 112.28 112.08 87.94 24.03 .15 786.30 24.25 .00
1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:150m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
---RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 5/20/1996 Q 7:52
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT 46\GT150X12.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat

------- drain spacing
--------------------- = 15
------- 000. cm
--------- drain depth =
------------ 120.0 cm
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950' 101.80 101.80 102.30 2.68 .00 2.18 2.82 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 83.38 .45 .00 .00 .49 .00
1952 118.26 115.47 89.65 17.58 .00 495.89 17.66 .00
1953 113.16 115.95 101.58 14.84 .00 1026.27 14.93 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 75.36 16.25 .00 32.89 16.30 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 88.35 14.83 .00 1035.61 14.90 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 90.00 24.18 .00 3524.14 24.21 .00
1957 114.17 111.52 89.80 20.39 .00 48.50 20.46 .00
1958 125.81 126.04 90.28 35.76 .00 2017.25 35.84 .00
1959 155.30 156.00 96.57 59.42 .00 2900.71 59.48 .00
1960 124.41 126.12 89.36 37.35 .00 1805.24 37.41 .00
1961 105.44 105.43 88.60 18.71 .00 1365.24 18.77 .00
1962 113.26 110.61 89.13 19.02 .00 543.53 19.11 .00
1963 109.68 109.24 87.65 21.59 .00 426.69 21.67 .00
1964 146.13 141.62 84.40 57.21 5.13 2051.89 62.39 .00
1965 95.45 97.91 89.28 21.95 .00 1212.60 22.02 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 92.39 19.33 .00 1018.03 19.41 .00
1967 131.11 128.09 85.51 36.09 .00 1716.10 36.16 .00
1968 109.83 110.22 90.29 19.93 .00 915.59 20.02 .00
1969 104.83 106.86 84.05 22.81 .00 392.91 22.90 .00
1970 88.16 88.76 78.92 14.93 .00 473.95 15.00 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 95.01 22.40 .00 781.95 22.49 .00
1972 121.74 116.12 95.48 16.03 .00 758.13 16.12 .00
1973 88.14 93.76 92.31 16.45 .00 .00 16.51 .00
1974 103.63 103.44 86.55 1.89 .00 .00 1.97 .00
1975 130.81 130.43 97.87 32.57 .00 955.93 32.66 .00
1976 81.28 79.06 63.91 15.15 .00 .00 15.20 .00
1977 120.65 120.52 88.22 32.31 .00 343.81 32.40 .00
1978 120.65 123.20 90.36 32.83 .00 841.55 32.93 .00
1979 133.35 132.14 95.75 36.39 .18 1968.38 36.62 .00
1980 96.77 95.66 72.60 23.06 .00 198.65 23.11 .00
AVG 112.28 112.03 88.55 23.37 .17 930.76 23.61 .00

u

11

11

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
-copyright-1990-91 North Carolina State University
SNALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT. GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:150m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/20/1996 @ 7:52
4input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT150X12.LIS
parameters: free drainage - and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 15000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
Number of Periods
of 12 days or
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm

1

1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Number
0.
0.
2.
1.
1.
3.
7.
1.
3.
4.
3.
2.
I.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
0.
0.
2.
0.
1.
I.
5.
1.
of Years with at least one
Longest Consecutive
Period in Days
--------------------
1.
0.
22.
27.
15.
20.
31.
28.
45.
44.
37.
62.
39.
12.
66.
40.
34.
66.
17.
23.
37.
32.
29.
0.
0.
39.
0.
24.
30.
36.
25.
period = 26. out of 31 years.

- ----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright -1990_91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:40m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS -- ------ -- time: 5/17/1996 @ 12:33
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT40 X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat

------- drain spacing
---------------------- = 4
------ 000. cm
--------- drain depth =
---------------- 120.0 cm
------------

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 95.74 10.92 .00 .00 11.03 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 81.88 1.05 .00 .00 1.15 .00
1952 118.26 118.26 83.57 30.39 .00 23.28 30.49 .00
1953 113.16 113.16 90.36 22.20 .00 130.36 22.32 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 69.25 22.49 .00 .00 22.56 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 82.98 22.84 .00 230.18 22.98 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 83.89 31.81 .00 83.86 31.87 .00
1957 114.17 114.17 83.92 24.15 .00 .00 24.25 .00
1958 125.81 125.81 84.52 43.18 .00 .24 43.31 .00
1959 155.30 155.30 91.18 64.89 .00 616.54 64.97 .00
1960 124.41 124.41 82.45 43.62 .00 153.77 43.69 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 81.92 21.94 .00 .00 21.99 .00
1962 113.26 113.26 81.08 30.42 .00 .00 30.51 .00
1963 109.68 109.68 81.43 28.55 .00 13.58 28.64 .00
1964 146.13 143.92 77.90 63.91 2.21 445.14 66.17 .00
1965• 95.45 95.45 78.21 29.10 .00 68.87 29.18 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 85.24 26.76 .00 18.91 26.90 .00
1967 131.11 131.11 79.20 46.94 .00 517.95 47.02 .00
1968 109.83 109.83 75.95 37.44 .00 19.54 37.51 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 77.53 27.28 .00 .00 27.35 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 71.99 17.09 .00 .00 17.14 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 88.88 33.61 .00 .00 33.68 .00
1972 121.74 121.74 91.20 18.84 .00 .00 19.02 .00
1973 88.14 88.14 84.78 18.83 .00 .00 18.86 .00 '
1974 103.63 103.63 85.62 7.71 .00 .00 7.83 .00
1975 130.81 130.81 90.65 38.09 .00 89.94 38.20 .00
1976 81.28 81.28 57.87 24.27 .00 .00 24.38 .00
1977 120.65 120.65 80.30 39.80 .00 123.18 39.92 .00
1978 120.65 120.65 83.78 39.18 .00 .00 39.30 .00
1979 133.35 133.35 89.60 45.51 .00 162.16 45.60 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 66.48 27.82 .00 .00 27.86 .00
AVG 112.28 112.21 81.91 30.34 .07 87.02 30.51 .00

u

- ----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
,A?NNALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
or GRASS:90m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 Q 12: 2
,input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT90X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 9000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 100.15 5.50 .00 .00 5.67 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 82.73 .72 .00 .00 .80 .00
1952 118.26 118.26 88.65 21.25 .00 350.66 21.33 .00
1953 113.16 113.16 96.43 17.99 .00 415.59 18.09 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 72.62 18.96 .00 .00 19.04 .00
.
1955 103.00 103.00 85.97 18.64 .00 731.39 18.71 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 87.55 27.64 .00 2048.73 27.68 .00
1957 114.17 111.77 87.70 19.38 .00 .00 19.47 .00
1958 125.81 128.21 89.68
64
5 38.92
66
58 .00
00 902.54
99
2213 38.99
58.72 .00
.00
1959 155.30 154.70 .
9 . . .

1960
124.41
125.01
86.83
41.36
.00 41.41 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 85.42 20.18 .00 382.71 20.27 .00
1962 113.26 113.04 87.41 22.28 .00 455.44 22.41 .00
1963 109.68 109.64 85.93 23.71 .00 154.05 23.82 .00
1964 146.13 139.79 83.12 56.67 4.64 1505.02 61.37 .00
1965 95.45 97.41 86.08 24.92 .00 845.03 24.99 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 91.26 20.55 .00 500.10 20.63 .00
1967 131.11 128.28 83.57 37.85 .00 1326.13 37.93 .00
1968 109.83 112.67 86.53 27.27 .00 478.45 27.35 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 81.66 23.97
19
5 .00
00 81.56
179
65 24.07
31
15 .00
.00
1970 88.16 88.16 76.74 1
. . . .
1971 117.88 117.88 92.74 26.88 .00 394.39 26.99 .00
1972 121.74 117.57 93.20 16.93 .00 .00 17.05 .00
1973 88.14 92.31 90.71 16.72 .00 .00 16.79 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.31 3.81 .00 .00 3.94 .00
1975 130.81 130.81 96.26 33.70 .00 538.44 33.79 .00
1976 81.28 79.20 62.25 16.20 .00 .00 16.29 .00
1977 120.65 120.26 86.28 33.98 .00 317.90 34.11 .00
1978 120.65 123.12 89.38 35.39 .00 773.72 35.52 .00
1979• 133.35 133.35 92.77 41.01 .00 540.27 41.05 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 70.80 24.09 .00 43.34 24.17 .00
AVG 112.28 112.13 86.53 25.49 .15 519.59 25.73 .00

----------------------------------- -----------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:100m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/17/1996 @ 12: 2
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT100X12.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 10000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 100.65 4.83 .00 .00 4.99 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 82.87 .68 .00 .00 .74 .00
1952 118.26 117.73 88.87 20.41 .00 399.46 20.50 .00
1953 113.16 113.69 97.68 17.19 .00 486.20 17.29 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 73.18 18.39 .00 .00 18.46 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 86.43 17.94 .00 792.89 18.01 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 88.42 26.51 .00 2525.06 26.55 .00
1957 114.17 111.74 88.15 19.64 .00 .00 19.73 .00
1958 125.81 127.82 89.81 38.01 .00 1176.27 38.09 .00
1959 155.30 154.85 95.87 58.98 .00 2426.99 59.04 .00
1960 124.41 125.27 87.37 40.47 .00 1134.05 40.51 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 86.30 19.73 .00 565.89 19.81 .00
1962 113.26 112.49 86.96 22.36 .00 365.34 22.48 .00
1963 109.68 109.42 86.39 23.03 .00 175.40 23.13 .00
1964 146.13 140.49 83.55 56.94 4.60 1638.83 61.60 .00
1965 95.45 97.52 87.14 23.90 .00 959.70 23.97 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 91.54 20.26 .00 585.79 20.33 .00
1967 131.11 128.17 84.18 37.21 .00 1410.88 37.29 .00
1968 109.83 112.78 87.65 25.57 .00 585.21 25.66 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 82.24 23.51 .00 138.91 23.61 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 77.61 14.71 .00 317.87 14.82 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 93.28 25.86 .00 447.01 25.95 .00
1972 121.74 116.84 93.77 16.29 .00 8.77 16.40 .00
1973 88.14 93.04 91.06 17.06 .00 .00 17.14 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.37 3.35 .00 .00 3.47 .00
1975 130.81 130.81 96.77 33.36 .00 632.43 33.45 .00
1976 81.28 78.87 62.70 15.67 .00 .00 15.75 .00
1977 120.65 120.19 86.76 33.43 .00 318.12 33.56 .00
1978 120.65 123.52 89.59 35.08 .00 786.35 35.21 .00
1979 133.35 133.35 93.47 39.88 .00 755.45 39.93 .00
1980 96.77 96.31 71.25 23.90 .00 79.94 23.98 .00
AVG 112.28 112.12 87.03 24.97 .15 603.64 25.21 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
ALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:70m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS -- ----- --- time: 5/17/1996 Q 11:56
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT7OX120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

------- drain spacing
---------------------- =
----- 7000. cm
---------- drain depth =
---------------- 120.0 cm
---------
--
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1950 101.80 101.80 98.43 7.46 .00 .00 7.65 .00
.
1951 82.37 82.37 82.46 .89 .00 .00 .99 .00
1952 118.26 118.26 86.98 24.32 .00 253.96 24.41 .00
1953 113.16 113.16 94.19 19.34 .00 339.47 19.47 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 71.26 20.36 .00 .00 20.45 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 84.82 20.53 .00 563.87 20.63 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 85.92 29.56 .00 1110.82 29.61 .00
1957 114.17 112.11 86.12 19.56 .00 .00 19.66 .00
1958 125.81 127.87 88.34 41.61 .00 550.95 41.67 .00
1959 155.30 155.30 94.77 60.47 .00 1549.55 60.54 .00
1960 124.41 124.41 85.53 41.65 .00 483.87 41.72 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 84.08 20.58 .00 61.76 20.69 .00
1962 113.26 113.26 84.22 26.18 .00 38.49 26.33 .00
1963 109.68 109.68 84.20 25.71 .00 105.08 25.83 .00
1964 146.13 140.04 81.36 57.30 4.50 1114.45 61.87 .00
1965 95.45 97.04 83.18 27.64 .00 602.52 27.72 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 90.11 21.73 .00 301.31 21.87 .00
1967 131.11 129.81 81.79 40.94 .00 1033.37 41.03 .00
1968 109.83 111.14 82.81 31.09 .00 280.89 31.18 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 80.15 25.25 .00 16.73 25.38 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 74.79 16.13 .00 24.54 16.26 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 91.44 29.39 .00 255.30 29.52 .00
1972 121.74 118.46 92.24 17.16 .00 .00 17.31 .00
1973 88.14 91.42 89.52 17.10 .00 .00 17.17 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.14 4.98 .00 .00 5.12 .00
1975• 130.81 130.81 94.91 34.61 .00 319.45 34.73 .00
1976 81.28 81.28 61.00 19.09 .00 .00 19.19 .00
1977 120.65 120.35 84.25 35.88 .00 281.34 35.99 .00
1978 120.65 120.95 87.11 36.64 .00 442.72 36.78 .00
1979 133.35 133.35 91.31 43.13 .00 316.76 43.19 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 69.56 24.98 .00 .00 25.07 .00
AVG 112.28 112.14 84.94 27.14 .14 324.10 27.39 .00
A
i

w

1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF DITCH IMPACTS RAINS SOIL AT GLOBAL TRANSPARK, LENIOR CO., NC
for GRASS:80m D/SPACING,120cm D/DRAIN STMAX=10.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30dayS
----------RUN STATISTICS -- ----- --- time: 5/17/1996 Q 12:32 ¦?'
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\GT80X120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat

------ drain spacing
----------------------- =
----- 8000. cm
---------- drain depth =
---------------- 120.0 cm
----------
--

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL-
1950 101.80 101.80 99.58 6.28 .00 .00 6.45 .00
1951 82.37 82.37 82.56 .76 .00 .00 .84 .00
1952 118.26 118.26 87.91 22.61 .00 311.51 22.70 .00
1953 113.16 113.16 95.23 18.79 .00 383.41 18.90 .00
1954 88.21 88.21 72.07 19.54 .00 .00 19.62 .00
1955 103.00 103.00 85.49 19.45 .00 649.96 19.53 .00
1956 116.89 116.89 86.71 28.64 .00 1571.20 28.69 .00
1957 114.17 111.91 87.02 19.39 .00 .00 19.48 .00
1958 125.81 128.07 89.15 40.10 .00 717.25 40.16 .00
1959 155.30 155.30 95.25 59.67 .00 1907.27 59.73 .00
1960 124.41 124.41 86.36 41.16 .00 700.56 41.22 .00
1961 105.44 105.44 84.70 20.45 .00 223.37 20.56 .00
1962 113.26 113.26 85.16 24.89 .00 192.47 25.04 .00
1963 109.68 109.68 85.28 24.49 .00 132.66 24.61 .00
1964 146.13 139.75 82.35 56.88 4.54 1318.00 61.49 .00
1965 95.45 97.30 84.46 26.51 .00 734.94 26.59 .00
1966 118.54 118.54 90.75 21.07 .00 393.72 21.17 .00
1967 131.11 128.50 82.75 38.80 .00 1192.10 38.89 .00
1968 109.83 112.44 84.78 29.59 .00 396.16 29.68 .00
1969 104.83 104.83 80.97 24.51 .00 38.51 24.63 .00
1970 88.16 88.16 75.65 15.81 .00 90.57 15.94 .00
1971 117.88 117.88 92.10 28.10 .00 331.31 28.21 .00
1972 121.74 118.44 92.65 17.59 .00 .00 17.72 .00
1973 88.14 91.44 90.21 16.39 .00 .00 16.46 .00
1974 103.63 103.63 86.23 4.35 .00 .00 4.49 .00
1975 130.81 130.81 95.67 34.08. .00 430.91 34.18 .00
1976 81.28 80.18 61.70 17.43 .00 .00 17.52 .00
1977 120.65 120.37 85.39 34.98 .00 313.04 35.09 .00
1978 120.65 122.04 88.50 35.70 .00 673.15 35.85 .00
1979 133.35 133.35 92.06 42.07 .00 398.87 42.12 .00
1980 96.77 96.77 70.34 24.35 .00 21.29 24.43 .00
AVG 112.28 112.13 85.77 26.27 .15 423.30 26.52 .00

r

APPENDIX G
NCGTP SITE
NATIVE PLANT SPECIES FOR
LANDSCAPE PLANTING GUIDELINES

A
1
I
1
i
Appendix G
Native Plant Species
for Landscape Planting Guidelines
. Physiographic Area: Interstream Flat
Overstory
ordonia lasianthus
Liouidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Pinus Qa lustris
Pinus serotina
Pinus taeda
uercus michauxii
ercus nigra
uercus p hellos
Midstory
Acer rubrum
Gordonia lasianthus
Liguidambar styraciflua
Magnolia virginiana
Nyssa alvatica
Persea borbonia
uercus nigra
Understory
Baccharis halimifolia
Clethra alnifolia
Cvrilla racemiflora
Gaylussacia frondosa
Gordonia lasianthus
Hex coriacea
Ilex glabra
Itea virginiana
a olia virginiana
Mvrica cerifera
Persea borbonia
uercus 0e11os
Sassafras albidum
Symplocus tinctorium
Vaccinium corymbosum
Ground Cover
Arundinaria gigantea
Lyonia lucida
Osmunda cinnamomea
Pteridium aguilinum
Smilax glauca
Smilax rotundifolia
Vaccinium stamineum
Woodwardia areolata
Leucothoe axillaris
Mitchella rpRens
Polygala lutea
Smilax bona-nox
Smilax laurifolia
Sphagnum spp.
Vitis rotundifolia
1

1

i
Physiographic Area: Broad Slope
Overstory
area spp.
Liquidambar s aciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Pinus Ralustris
Pinus taeda
uercus alba
uercus falcata
uercus incana
uercus mariiandica
uercus nigra
uercus rubra
uercus stellata
uercus velutina
Midstory
Acer rubrum
Diospvros virainiana
Juniperus viryiniana
Liquidambar stvraciflua
Liriodendron tuligifera
Nvssa svlvatica
Prunus serotina
Oxvdendrum arboreum
uercus alba
uercus falcata
uercus niM
uercus p hellos
uercus rubra
Understory
Acer rubrum
Carva spp•
Corpus florida
Ilex opaca
Myrica cerifera
Nvssa svlvatica
uercus rubra
Svmnlocus tinctorium
Vaccinium arboreum
Vaccinium stamineum
Viburnum spp.
Ground Cover
Andropoaon spp.
Campsis radicans

' Euonvmus americans
SolidaQo odora
Goodyera pubescens
Panicum vimatum
Paspalum spp.
Smilax spp.
Aristida stricta
Chimaphila maculata
Euphorbia corolatta
Gelsemium sempervirens
Hexas , lis spp.
Parthenocissus guinauefolia
Pteridium aquilinum
Vitis rotundifolia

Physiographic Area: Riparian Slope
Overstory
Acer rubrum
Carva spp.
Faeus grandifolia.
Juglans niara
Liguidambar s ciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
uercus falcata
uercus michauxii
ercus ni m
uercus p hellos
Midstory
Acer rubrum
Carpinus caroliniana
Liguidambar stvraciflua
Mores rubra
Persea borbonia
Understory
Acer rubrum
AM is s inosa
Carva spp.
Clethra alnifolia
Lieustrum sinense
Liriodendron tulinifera
Sassafras albidum
SM121ocus tinctorium
Ground Cover
Arundinaria gieantea
Boehmeria cyindrica
am sis radicans
Duchesnea indica
Impatiens ca_pensis
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Vitis rotundifolia

Physiographic Area: Bottomland
Overstory
Acer rubrum
Betula niSm
Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
Liquidambar stvraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Nvssa ayIvatica var. biflora
Pinus taeda
Platanus occidentalis
Prunus serotina
uercus Ivrata
Salix niggra
Imus americans
1- Midstory
Acer rubrum
Betula niera
Carpinus caroliniana
Liguidambar stvraciflua
Magnolia virainiana
Morus rubs
Nvssa svlvatica var. biflora
Prunus serotina
uercus laurifolia
uercus niera
uercus hp ellos
Salix nuts

Ulmus rubs
Understory
Alnus serrulata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Clethra alnifolia
Crataegus sp.
Ilex opaca
Lisustrum sinense
Myrica cerifera
Rubus trivialis
Ground Cover
Arundinaria,giaatea
_ Boehmeria cvlindrica
Cicuta maculata
Eulalia vimineum
impatiens ca ensis
Juncus effusus
Mikania sca ddens
' Osmunda cinnamomea
Saururus cemuus
Woodwardia areolata

f

APPENDIX H
DOVER BAY
DITCHING INFLUENCE ON GROUNDWATER
DRAINMOD SUMMARY TABLES AND MODEL OUTPUTS FOR
DITCHES AND CANALS IN THE MITIGATION AREA

11

I
Model Assumptions and Default Values
The hydrology of various soil water conditions applicable to the site was simulated using
DRAINMOD. The simulation accounted for properties of the predominate hydric soil present
on site. Soil input parameters for DRAINMOD were calculated by the NRCS model, DMSOIL
(Baumer and Rice, 1988) using soil texture data from soil samples collected on site. Soil
hydraulic conductivity values used in DRAINMOD simulations were determined from the on-site
slug test data. DRAINMOD simulations were conducted for the range of ditch/canal depths
and distances of a midpoint to the ditch or canal. For the purposes of this study the larger
drainage features which parallel the main road and transports the majority of drainage off the
site are referred to as canals. Due to the very low relief of the site, approximately 6 ft over
the approximately 10,000 ft length of the tract east to west, it was assumed that subsequent
to filling and grading activities, the ground surface of the former ditches would be at a similar
grade as the adjacent existing surface. Drain depth was taken as the depth from the ground
surface to the surface of the water in the existing ditches and canals. Simulations were then
run to determine the distance between ditches for the establishment of wetland hydrology at
the midpoint for 12.5% of the growing season for drain depths of 4 ft, 6 ft, 8 ft, 9.3 ft, and
10 ft. For.-simulations to determine the maximum radii of influence of the ditches and canals,
depths of 4 ft, 6 ft, 8 ft 9.3 ft, and 10 ft were again used. The goal of these last simulations
was to determine at what distance the drainage system would reduce the frequency of
achieving wetland hydrology to 27 out of 31 years from a theoretical maximum of 29 of 31
years. While not encountered during drilling efforts, an impermeable layer was. assumed to be
present at a conservative depth of 10 ft for the purposes of model simulations.
The depth of depressional storage used in the initial DRAINMOD simulations was 6 inches,
based upon the amount of relief present on site. The rooting depth function used in the
simulation was a constant depth of 1.5 ft, which represents a value typically used for forested
i conditions.
1

1

0
N ?
= v
0
75
E z
O 2 O
U
Z O =
?QV a?
GC >
0 0
o ' a C)
U. 6
5 N (/?
N G)
d 0
d)
R
E
? m
N
O
,, o

?a
i
4)
ci CD
R O
w r
m

o ? ar
? U
>
` X M
C a m co m Cl) m
_C
R td io m m
>. L O O O O O
(? i" V «. = U r r r r r
c O Q N N N N N
O
O O
N
•

R N
m N
L
ar

?
C > L R ? ?

C E 5 O
Z N
O t O
m Z
M
w w y-
C
O
O j O
C L
i. U T
C ? cli U r

-
n
C c r.0 > C
-0 ';7 CD
r
Co
N
V CC -a U O
?? ?- '
o
r co
to co
Lo 0)
Co
o
` w. c
w to t0 0 co 0
7 m m
'
- m 0

o
"
0
.
X
fl c
o
(O
L r+
U N CC
>
Q
C vi R >-
rn O
m O
E W O >

? C N
i ? •=
C7
07
C9 ?
('7 r
M

0 to co P, r

\L a.c
c ,n +? .n 'a U
oN
._ Ecc
7
Z

O 3 O L
0 CD
CD >
>
~ v

++ Q

>• U m
U

O N >
C

O C N
0
.
N
N
'a U w a
. C N ^
N O
co cn M
2 0 m
o N
cn '-
E
(D w ca C > cc
m Q
a?
a
a
0
S U)
•
N N
LL
-+
Y
C G
_

o co
c
4)
CD
c N
co O
ir L
U

LF]
N
Q
(C

L
41
C
N
C
m
N
a
N

N
4+
C

L.
N
C
N
O
rn
C O
U
ca ca
> N

cr
U
N ?

C
O
U C
4- CD
L
0
++
O
C
N O
Co a
N d
.(
Q.
j U
O C
-0 :3
C
c
N •-
1 O
? N
C ?
0 to
C
G ?
Z C13
Q?

oQ
?k e--

r
.4

U
T
O
O
i
.O

- C
R

4)
t
v

0
4
4.6
N
ca
U N
d
U. d C
Y
O Q O
V
C
N o t,m o
m V m ?. Z
ccl o d
~
y t0 /Q C
X ? m O
LU U

p = U
o
L

O
Z

00
rc_+ ?
N
O

N
NN
•
C
3

N
a
O U 'Q r r r r r
L m C ?•? O M M M M M
Co (D ?
O 0 L Y-
O 4-
O `F
O v-
O 4-•
O
E
=3} -Q U U
to
co
r-
r
r
Z T Q r- V- .- V-
2
a) ?-
C 0 0 0
C 0 0
> O O O O O

O
?
cO w w w
U .C c O O O O O

a
Q p V- V-
0
O
o
0
ca

Im C
c6
ti?
CO
CO
(O
t0
? ?
y oo
M M
M as
co 0o
M ao
M
>
O
Q
fQ
>
W
C
?
CD
0
? c
° LO LO LO
co
to
L
?

N i= a
i

d'
ci

d'
ai

d'
o
f
d'

ai
[t
Q ?
a? -
c CD
cLa ? ?
> d
Q
?t
O O U CV ,
+
"-
'- v rn C V O
C 00
N M
O N
r- N
r-
p - -O 'V
> N
N N M

M

M
W
C a

O
O.
C O N
? ? im 4•
•
L U
a
N v
-•
N v
-
N v
-
N
N
_
> p M M M M M

O
CD
r
a-+

0
-
a 4-- CO O
pp to 00
L Q
w
T
O
0
v
T
L
r
cC
O
L
U
L
ca
cc
m
L
0
L
O
(D
U
C
cc
0
E
C
E
II m
0) co
U L
C N
O >
O ?
C C
O
? L
o
L
a?
? O
t
U i
p>
O
N L
> O
v U
O
.*-
W
N N
C
Co U
CD 0
> s-
Q O

C)
W
0
Q

C
m
m
d
U
C
m
O
C
O
t+
H
ca
4
LL (D
R
O Q N ?
c U
+.°'o
C a
M 0- O)O
LZ I L
~ a a R ?
ul Q
L
O C
LL :a 0 >
N 7 to
U
c =
a
O
0
0
O
z
a
cc
0
O
N
y
G1
cc
M
O
E
3
co
la
Q -a ?- r r ?- •- •-
L M C •a! •? m M M M M M M
cLa O m N
m +0= y-
O v-
O v-
O v-
O
O `+-
O
O)?? U U

z = a N N N N N N

m ,~

C) ~-
C C ,^
LLJ
M
VJ
d
W
d'
V
!?
00
V/
M
:
> O O O O O O

m m
CO N N CO
U L- C C lf? LO CO N d
> v O O W M O O)
CL Q
7
O

O
•
.
M
•
Q
c O O N d
CO r r r r ?- N
?
m ca ;.- O O 07 00 M ?
> ?- M M M M M M
Q p
Q
CO

w
c
m
O
c . +,
Co (a N ?- r- 00 r-
C
> 0i 00 O) M 00
?r Q)

m -

CO _
C C
> 'ta " d
Q

m
O
c r N "- mt CO c0 rn O

c
'U
>
0
r-
LO
LO
CO
U)
co
OD
(O
W co : "j.
?.

O
Q.
c m m
? 4-
R +Q
`- U aU- 'p N N N N N r'
CD Co
>
M
M
M
M
M

m
?-,
m d 07 00 ? O
>
> Q r

i
f
a
O
O
L L
C >
ca
?
4
m M
O

L CA
U N
Q
a
E

m
ca
N E
L
O U

U CD

a 0

E s

C
m
c
E
0
v i
-0 C=
O
E
E?
m

E? o
II ? O
00
U) c
O a) O
y- Q.
C m }+
? L
O to
U
y O
m U
.
L
R ?
? c) a
L .I.- L
U O CD
co
N
m .Q
O
>
Q L
++ U Ll
wm- O O
W +1O O
O

(D U
"
E
>
Q O
4--
CD

e
t

DRAINMOD OUTPUTS
i

------ --------------------------- ---------------------
-
* DRAINMOD version 4 .60a
University
*
State
Carolina
North
1990
91
Copyright
*
-
-
-
-
_
ADTALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR -
-
-
Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:135m D/SPACING, STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,

----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 4/30/1996 @ 13: 3
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER002.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 13500. cm
- drain depth = 120.0 cm
-
---------------- -----------------------
D R A I N M O D --- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
- ****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
30.00 cm
--------------------
1956 -----------
0. 0.
1957 0. 0.
1958 1. 92.
1959 1. 67.
1960 2. 69.
1961 1. 124.
1962 1. 52.
1963 1. 34.
1964 2. 63.
1965 2. 78.
1966 1. 82.
1967 0. 10.
1968 0. 23.
1969 0. 24.
1970 1. 57.
1971 0. 21.
1972 0. 0.
1973 0. 29.
1974 0. 1.
1975 1. 37.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 0.
1978 1. 77.
1979 2. 177.
1980 1. 63.
1981 0. 0.
1982 0. 3.
1983 1. 62.
1984 3. 106.
1985 0. 10.
1986 0. 0.
Number of Years with at least one period = 16. out of 31 years.
I
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copy-right-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
IANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:135m D/SPACING, STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 4/30/1996 Q 13: 3
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT 46\DOVER002.LIS
t
l
l
parameters: free drai nage and yi elds not cu
a
ca
drain spacing = 13500. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
------ ---------- ------------ ------- ---------- ------- -------- ---------- --
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
-= 1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 12.89 .00 .00 12.91 .00
1957 140.31 138.60 100.31 16.90 .00 .00 16.92 .00
1958 135.99 134.86 93.55 41.31 -.01 2241.50
03
269 41.30
72
38 .00
00
1959 137.97 140.82 104.04 38.72 .00 .
1 . .
1960 135.33 135.34 97.68 43.27 -.01 2407.04 43.26 .00
1961 129.36 129.36 103.01 31.85 .00 2314.13 31.85 .00
1962 133.15 133.15 100.34 27.28 .00 621.34 27.28 .00
1963 120.50 120.50 98.15 25.51 .00 255.59 25.51 .00
1964 158.50 153.26 105.22 37.36 .86 2607.28 38.22 .00
1965 117.20 121.58 101.18 36.05 .00 2133.57 36.05 .00
1966 149.25 149.25 97.06 40.81 .00 2527.74 40.81 .00
1967 121.23 121.23 96.87 25.38 .00 .00 25.38 .00
1968 102.34 102.34 96.80 24.46 .00
00 234.10
79
1052 24.46
28
28 .00
.00
1969 149.02 145.79 93.30 28.28 . . .
1970 106.10 109.33 100.59 27.73 .00 946.15 27.73 .00
1971 132.28 132.28 97.84 25.88 .00 188.82 25.88 .00
1972 120.95 120.95 96.19 24.91 .00 .00 24.91 .00
1973 89.87 89.87 75.04 21.10 .00 417.06 21.10 .00
1974 134.77 134.77 101.36 23.53 .00 .00 23.53 .00
1975 110.16 110.16 101.41 21.28 .00 170.99
00 21.28
33
12 .00
00
1976 102.41 102.41 90.79 12.31 .00 . . .
1977 126.16 126.16 98.60 16.63 .00 .00 16.63 .00
1978 119.61 119.61 94.21 32.74 .00 1872.81 32.73 .00
1979 163.37 158.04 96.04 45.39 4.88 4826.67 50.27 .00
1980 118.19 118.65 99.17 32.22 .00 1054.13 32.22 .00
1981 99.03 99.03 95.54 14.41 .00 .00 14.42 .00
1982 145.03 145.03 101.16 23.39 .00 4.47 23.39 .00
1983 117.83 117.83 98.14 27.37 .00 1115.92 27.37 .00
1984 128.78 128.78 90.28 37.08 .00 4401.15 37.08 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 104.02 20.50 .00
0 .00
00 20.50
70
11 .00
00
¦ 1986 118.62 118.62 101.58 11.65 .0 . . .
AVG 125.9 1 125.72 97.86 27.36 .18 1053.62 27.55 .00

1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD.version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:170m D/SPACING,180cm D/drain STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
-----RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/ 8/1996 Q 11: 2
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER180.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 17000. cm drain depth = 180.0 cm
- - - - - - - - --- --------- ----------
D R A I N M O D --- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR
Number of Periods
Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
-------------------
1956 -----------------
0. - -
0.
1957 0. 0.
1958 2. 95.
1959 1. 68.
1960 2. 104.
1961 1. 126.
1962 1. 59.
1963 1. 35.
1964 2. 63.
1965 2• 92'
1966 2. 91.
1967 0. 15.
1968 1. 54.
1969 0. 25.
.
1970 1. 62.
1971 0. 29.
1972 0. 0.
1973 1. 73.
1974 0. 0.
1975 1. 37.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 0.
1978 1. 70.
1979 2. 181.
1980 1. 74.
1981 0. 0.
1982 0. 0.
1983 1. 71.
1984 3, 110.
1985 0. 14.
1986
Number 0. 0.
of Years with at least one period = 18. out of
31 years.

t
---- ---- --
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
----------------------------------------------
tNALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
-for FOREST:170m D/SPACING,180cm D/drain STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
---RUN STATISTICS - - time: 5/ 8/1996 @ 11: 2
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER180.LIS

parameters:
free drainage and fi
yi elds not
elds calculat
t
----- drain spacing
---------------------- = 17
------- 000. cm
---------- drain depth =
--------------- 180.0 cm
----------
--

YEAR
RAINFALL
INFILTRATION
ET
DRAINAGE
RUNOFF
SEW
TWLOSS
PUMP VOL
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 16.80 .00 .00 16.80 .00
00
1957 140.31- 140.31 100.31 17.72 .00 .00 17.72 .
00
1958 135.99 131.20 93.55 34.63 .00 2944.21 34.63 .
00
1959 137.97 142.77 104.04 39.51 .00 1336.83 39.51 .
00
1960 135.33 135.34 97.68 42.37 .00 3209.50 42.37 .
00
1961 129.36 129.36 103.01 32.88 .00 2868.01 32.88 .
1962 133.15 133.15 100.34 26.68 .00 911.73 26.68 .00
00
1963 120.50 120.50 98.15 27.45 .00 302.23 27.44 .
00
1964 158.50 151.19 105.22 34.98
47
36 1.45
01
- 2678.63
16
3145 36.43
36.47 .
.00
1965 117.20 123.07 101.18 . . . 00
1966 149.25 149.25 97.06 40.68 .00 3072.24 40.68 .
00
1967 121.23 121.24 96.87 25.50 .00 .00 25.50 .
00
i 1968 102.34 102.34 96.98 25.30 .00 694.57 25.30 .
00
1969 149.02 144.10 93.30 26.64 .00 1261.40 26.64 .
00
1970 106.10 111.02 100.59 29.32 .00 1029.98 29.31. .
00
1971 132.28 132.28 97.84 25.27 .00
00 250.56
00 25.27
02
25 .
.00
1972 120.95 120.95 96.19 25.02 . . . 00
1973 89.87 89.87 76.41 22.67 .00 803.37 22.67 .
00
1974 134.77 134.77 101.36 22.91 .00 .00 22.91 .
00
1975 110.16 110.16 101.48 21.94 .00 165.00 21.94 .
00
1976 102.41 102.41 90.79 15.75 .00 .00 15.75 .
00
1977 126.16 126.16 98.60 17.10 .00 .00 17.10 .
00
1978 119.61 119.61 94.21 26.34 .00 1846.16 26.34 .
00
1979 163.37 155.27 96.04 42.68 5.80 5225.96 48.47 .
00
1980 118.19 120.50 99.17 33.91 .00 1150.95 33.91 .
00
1981 99.03 99.03 95.54 18.16 .00
00 .00
00 18.16
20
22 .
.00
1982 145.03 145.03 101.16 22.20 . . . 00
1983 117.83 117.83 98.14 25.67 .00 1193.59 25.67 .
00
1984 128.78 128.78 90.28 34.81 .00 4967.64 34.80 .
00
1985 111.63 111.63 106.36 22.18 .00 .00 22.18 .
00
1986 118.62 118.62 101.58 14.96 .00 .00 14.96 .
AVG 125.9 1 125.67 97.98 27.37 .23 1259.93 27.60 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright -1990_91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST•185m D/SPACING,240cm D/Drain, STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
******************************************************************************
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/ 8/1996 Q 11:12
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER240.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 18500. cm drain depth = 240.0 cm
- - - - - - - - --- --------- ----------
D R A I N M 0 D --- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Number
of Years with
0.
0.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
3.
0.
0.
at least
one period =
0.
0.
98.
68.
105.
128.
60.
35.
63.
93.
92.
16.
55.
24.
62.
21.
0.
38.
0.
11.
0.
0.
54.
177.
75.
0.
0.
57.
108.
16.
0.
17.

11

out of 31 years.
I
rl
-----------------------------------------------------
* --DRAINMOD
State Uni--- ity
*-Copyright-1990-91 North North Carolina State University
-- ------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:280m D/SPACING,120cm D/Drain STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 7/15/1996 Q 8: 2
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA120.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 28000. cm drain depth = 120.0 cm
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year

YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
30_00
cm
<
--------
1956 -
_
--- ------------
-----
0. 0.
1957 1. 31.
1958 2. 136.
1959 3. 74.
1960 1. 242.
1961 1. 221.
1962 4. 68.
1963 1. 52.
1964 2. 80.
1965 3. 102.
1966 1. 242.
1967 1. 86.
1968 1. 141.
1969 2. 155.
1970
1971 1. 76.
2. 119.
1972 1. 242.
1973 1. 92.
1974 2. 103.
1975 1. 66.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 23.
1978 1. 139.
1979 1. 242.
1980 1. 82.
1981 0. 27.
1982 2. 165.
1983 1. 115.
1984 1. 242.
1985 1. 31.
1986 1. 34.
Number of Years with at least one period = 27. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:350m D/SPACING,180cm D/drain STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 7/15/1996 @ 8: 3
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA180.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 35000. cm drain depth = 180.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD

00 cm
30

---------------
1956 ---
-------_
0. - -----
0.
1957 0. 16.
1958 2. 137.
1959 3. 75.
1960
1961 1.
1. 242.
225.
1962 2. 140.
1963 1. 52.
1964 2. 80.
1965 2. 149.
1966 1. 242.
1967 1. 86. 1
1968 1. 142.
1969 2. 155.
1970 1. 77.
1971 2. 119.
1972 1. 242.
1973 1. 92.
1974 2. 103.
1975 1. 66.
1976 0. 0.
1977
1978 0.
1. 23.
150.
1979 1. 242.
1980 1. 83.
1981 1. 30.
1982 2. 165.
1983 1. 116.
1984 1. 242.
1985 1. 31.
1986 1. 33.
Number of Years with at least one period = 27. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:190m D/SPACING,30 0cm D/D EPTH STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd= 30cm/30days,

----------RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 5/ 7/1 996 Q 15:31
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVE R015.LIS
i
d
lds not
calculat
parameters: free drai nage an
y e
drain spacing = 19 000. cm drain d epth = 300.0 cm
------ ---------- ------------ ------- --------- -------- -------- ------------
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
00
15
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 19.15 .00 .00 19. .
1957 140.31 140.31 100.31 19.09 .00 .00 19.09 .00
1958 135.99 130.59 93.55 30.30
95 .00
00 3198.73
1351
86 30.30
39
95 .00
00
1959 137.97 143.38 104.04 39. . . . .
1960 135.33 135.33 97.68 41.87 .00 3525.34 41.87 .00
1961 129.36 129.36 103.01 33.44 .00 2935.33 33.44 .00
1962 133.15 133.15 100.34 26.58 .00 985.41 26.58 .00
1963 120.50 120.50 98.15 28.16 .00 317.21 28.16 .00
1964 158.50 150.84 105.22 34.11 1.33 2666.16 35.44 .00
1965 117.20 123.53 101.18 36.74 .00 3243.95
47
49 36.74
40
53 .00
00
1966 149.25 149.25 97.06 40.53 .00 32
. . .
1967 121.23 121.23 96.87 25.79 .00 .00 25.79 .00
1968 102.34 102.34 96.98 25.67 .00 914.30 25.67 .00
1969 149.02 144.09 93.30 26.32 .00 1150.78 26.32 .00
1970 106.10 111.03 100.59 29.62 .00 1057.14 29.62 .00
1971 132.28 132.28 97.84 25.38 .00 172.59 25.38 .00
? 1972 120.95 120.95 96.19 25.25 .00 .00 25.25 .00
. 1973 89.87 89.87 76.30 23.49 .00 756.16 23.49 .00
1974 134.77 134.77 101.36 23.38 .00 .00 23.38 .00
1975 110.16 110.16 100.32 22.70 .00
00 59.30
00 22.70
04
18 .00
00
1976 102.41 102.41 90.79 18.04 . . . .
1977 126.16 126.16 98.60 18.26 .00 .00 18.26 .00
1978 119.61 119.61 94.21 24.85 .00 998.87 24.85 .00
1979 163.37 154.81 96.04 38.85 5.82 4862.51 44.68 .00
1980 118.19 120.93 99.17 34.60 .00 1184.66 34.60 .00
1981 99.03 99.03 95.54 20.18 .00 .00 20.18 .00
1982 145.03 145.03 101.16 22.52 .00 .00 22.52 .00
1983 117.83 117.83 98.14 25.23 .00 909.80 25.23 .00
1984 128.78 128.78 90.28 32.33 .00 4545.84 32.33 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 106.82 23.29 .00 .00 23.29 .00
1986 118.62 118.62 101.58 17.30 .00 .00 17.30 .00
AVG 125.91 125.68 97.96 27.51 .23 1228.56 27.75 .00

[7

DRAiNMOD OUTPUTS

a

1
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright -1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
tor FOREST:190m D/SPACING,280cm D/drain STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/ 8/1996 Q 10:57
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER280.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 19000. cm drain depth = 280.0 cm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I YEAR. RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 19.02 .00 .00 19.02 .00
1957 140.31 140.31 100.31 19.01 .00 .00 19.01 .00
1958 135.99 130.50 93.55 30.42 .00 3229.96
17
1357 30.42
96
39 .00
00
' 1959 137.97 143.47 104.04 39.96 .00 . . .
1960 135.33 135.34 97.68 41.96 -.01 3497.60 41.95 .00
1961 129.36 129.36 103.01 33.34 .00 2951.67 33.34 .00
1962 133.15 133.15 100.34 26.51 .00 1005.21 26.51 .00
1963 120.50 120.50 98.15 28.17 .00 324.47 28.17 .00
1964 158.50 150.68 105.22 34.13 1.46 2682.01 35.59 .00
1965 117.20 123.55 101.18 36.73 .00 3236.23 36.73 .00
1966 149.25 149.25 97.06 40.54 .00 3267.29 40.54 .00
1967 121.23 121.23 96.87 25.69 .00 .00 25.69 .00
1968 102.34 102.34 96.98 25.61 .00 972.69 25.61 .00
1969 149.02 143.85 93.30 26.27 .00 1211.45 26.27 .00
1970 106.10 111.26 100.59 29.72 .00 1060.57 29.73 .00
1971 132.28 132.28 97.84 25.31 .00 201.85 25.31 .00
1972 120.95 120.95 96.19 25.19 .00 .00 25.19 .00
1973 89.87 89.86 76.51 23.43 .00 827.57 23.43 .00
1974 134.77 134.77 101.36 23.30 .00 .00 23.30 .00
1975 110.16 110.16 100.44 22.62 .00 69.12 22.62
95 .00
00
1976 102.41 102.41 90.79 17.95 .00 .00 17. .
1977 126.16 126.16 98.60 18.20 .00 .00 18.20 .00
1978 119.61 119.61 94.21 24.82 .00 1062.08 24.82 .00
1979 163.37 154.76 96.04 39.12 5.84 4917.10 44.96 .00
1980 118.19 120.96 99.17 34.59 -.01 1181.30 34.58 .00
1981 99.03 99.03 95.54 20.08 .00 .00 20.08 .00
1982 145.03 145.03 101.16 22.45 .00 .00 22.45 .00
1983 117.83 117.83 98.14 25.18 .00 942.11 25.18 .00
1984 128,78 128.78 90.28 32.58 .00 4653.01 32.58 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 106.86 23.17 .00
00 .00
00 23.17
17
20 .00
00
1986 118.62 118.62 101.58 17.20 . . . .
AVG 125.91 125.67 97.97 27.49 .24 1246.79 27.73 .00

11
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a

* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University *
----------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR ---
Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:190m D/SPACING,300cm D/DEPTH STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,

----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/ 7/1996 @ 15:31
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER015.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 19000. cm
- drain depth = 300.0 cm
----------------------------
---------------- ---------------------------
D R A I N M O D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for atleast 30 days. Coun ting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
30
-------_00 cm
----

--------------------
1956 0. 0.
1957 0. 0.
1958 2. 98.
1959 1. 68.
1960 2. 105.
1961 1. 128.
1962 1. 60.
1963 1. 35.
1964 2. 63.
1965 2. 93.
1966 2. 108.
1967 0. 17.
1968 1. 65.
1969 0. 24.
1970 1. 62.
1971 0. 22.
1972 0. 0.
1973 2. 38.
1974 0. 0.
1975 0. 11.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 0.
1978 1. 53.
1979 1. 176.
1980 1. 75.
1981 0. 0.
1982 0. 0.
1983 1. 57.
1984 3. 108.
1985 0. 16.
1986 0. 0.
Number of Years with at least one period = 17. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
, LYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
I.N
r FOREST:185m D/SPACING,240cm D/Drain, STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/ 8/1996 @ 11:12
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER240.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 18500. cm drain depth = 240.0 cm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR
1 RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1 1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 18.73 .00 .00 18.73 .00
1957 140.31 140.31 100.31 18.82 .00 .00 18.82 .00
1958 135.99 130.79 93.55 31.20 .00
00 3125.59
34
1347 31.20
86
39 .00
00
1959 137.97 143.17 104.04 39.86 . . . .
1960 135.33 135.33 97.68 42.04 .00 3396.01 42.04 .00
1961 129.36 129.36 103.01 33.22 .00 2929.76 33.22 .00
1962 133.15 133.15 100.34 26.73 .00 957.44 26.73 .00
1963 120.50 120.50 98.15 27.92 .00 313.57 27.92 .00
1964 158.50 151.03 105.22 34.33 1.28 2660.09 35.61 .00
1965 117.20 123.38 101.18 36.70 .00 3203.59 36.71 .00
1966 149.25 149.25 97.06 40.52 .00 3179.77 40.52 .00
1967 121.23 121.23 96.87 25.85 .00 .00 25.85 .00
1968 102.34 102.34 96.98 25.67
42
26 .00
00 795.03
05
1103 25.67
26
42 .00
.00
1969 149.02 144.36 93.30 . . . .
1970 106.10 110.76 100.59 29.42 .00 1048.41 29.42 .00
1971 132.28 132.28 97.84 25.42 .00 159.65 25.42 .00
1972 120.95 120.95 96.19 25.26 .00 .00 25.26 .00
1973 89.87 89.87 76.09 23.36 .00 695.04 23.36 .00
1974 134.77 134.77 101.36 23.35 .00 .00 23.35 .00
1975 110.16 110.16 100.38 22.60 .00 66.47 22.60
60
17 .00
00
1976 102.41 102.41 90.79 17.60 .00 .00 . .
1977 126.16 126.16 98.60 18.01 .00 .00 18.01 .00
1978 119.61 119.61 94.21 25.15 .00 1176.67 25.15 .00
1979 163.37 154.89 96.04 39.60 5.83 4930.63 45.43 .00
1980 118.19 120.84 99.17 34.58 .01 1170.89 34.58 .00
1981 99.03 99.03 95.54 19.80 .00 .00 19.80 .00
1982 145.03 145.03 101.16 22.47 .00 .00 22.47 .00
1983 117.83 117.83 98.14 25.37 .00 932.23 25.37 .00
1984 128.78 128.78 90.28 32.64 .00 4566.89 32.64 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 106.70 23.16 .00
00 .00
00 23.16
16
81 .00
00
1986 118.62 118.62 101.58 16.81 . . . .
AVG 125.91 125.68 97.95 27.50 .23 1218.00 27.73 .00
1

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright-1990-91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:190m D/SPACING,280cm D/drain STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 5/ 8/1996 @ 10:57
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVER280.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 19000. cm drain depth = 280.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
----------------
1956 ------------------ ----
0. 0.
1957 0. 0.
1958 2. 98.
1959 1. 68.
1960 2. 105.
1961 1. 128.
1962 1. 60.
1963 1. 35.
1964 2. 63.
1965 2. 93.
1966 2. 108.
1967 0. 17.
1968 1. 65.
1969 0. 25.
1970 1. 63.
1971 0. 22.
1972 0. 0.
1973 1. 74.
1974 0. 0.
1975 0. 13.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 0.
1978 1. 54.
1979 1. 177.
1980 1. 75.
1981 0. 0.
1982 0. 0.
1983 1. 58.
1984 3. 109.
1985 0. 16.
1986
Number 0. 0.
of Years with at least one period = 17. out of
31 years.

f
-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
V YSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:350m D/SPACING,180cm D/drain STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
---RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 7/15/1996 Q 8: 3
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA180.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yi elds not calculat
drain spacing = 35000. cm drain d epth = 180.0 cm
------ --------- ------------ ------- --------- -------- -------- ---------- --

$ YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 4.67 .00 .00 4.70 .00
1957 140.31 130.46 105.22 12.07 .00 21.60 12.09 .00
1958 135.99 133.85 93.55 40.30 2.02 5920.41 42.32 .00
1959 137.97 138.38 104.04 34.34 .01 4012.18 34.36 .00
1960 135.33 136.42 97.68 38.74 .00 6621.10 38.74 .00

1 1961 129.36 136.62 103.01 33.62 .65
00 5379.55
4210
49 34.27
50
23 .00
00
1962 133.15 123.83 100.34 23.49 . . . .
1963 120.50 125.80 98.15 27.65 .45 1102.14 28.11 .00
1964 158.50 145.76 105.22 40.55 7.28 3295.51 47.84 .00
1965 117.20 124.53 101.18 29.25 2.23 4625.48 31.48 .00
1966 149.25 144.38 97.06 41.42 .32 6291.45 41.74 .00
1967 121.23 115.99 96.87 19.13 .00 2510.62 19.14 .00
1968 102.34 110.55 96.98 19.55 1.57 3362.03 21.13 .00
1969 149.02 138.11 93.30 38.83 1.63 6436.02 40.46 .00
1970 106.10 115.05 100.59 18.18 .33 1452.30 18.53 .00
1971 132.28 128.82 97.84 27.26 .00 5306.62 27.26 .00
1972 120.95 114.79 96.19 18.60 .01 6630.00 18.60 .00
1973 89.87 99.48 85.87 25.95 .00 1941.80 25.96 .00
1974 134.77 125.18 101.36 11.48 .00 3921.95 11.49 .00
1975 110.16 119.75 107.76 21.31 .00 1165.02 21.33 .00
1976 102.41 102.41 100.12 5.19 .00 .00 5.21 .00
1977 126.16 125.94 108.02 5.73 .00 .00 5.75 .00
1978 119.61 109.25 94.21 17.22 10.58 3931.47 27.81
59
56 .00
00
1979 163.37 144.60 96.04 46.36 10.23 6630.00 . .
1980 118.19 125.39 99.17 26.22 .01 1762.44 26.24 .00
1981 99.03 100.36 95.54 6.52 .00 570.08 6.54 .00
1982 145.03 133.89 101.16 31.03 1.11 6271.87 32.15 .00
1983 117.83 124.61 98.14 26.47 .01 2547.86 26.48 .00
1984 128.78 132.01 90.28 43.13 .01 6323.41 43.14 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 107.84 14.24 .00 45.48 14.25 .00
1986 118.62 118.62 102.07 5.47 .00 541.97 5.49 .00
AVG 125.9 1 124.67 99.32 24.32 1.24 3317.13 25.57 .00
Pi

1
------
* -----------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 4.60a
Copy right 1990-91 North Carolina State University
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:400m D/SPACING,240cm D/Drain, STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,

----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 7/15/1996 Q 8: 4
input file: D :\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA240.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
d rain spacing = 40000. cm drain depth = 240.0 cm
---------------- ------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- --------------------------------
HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water t able closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
30.00 cm
--------------
1956 ---------
0. -- ------
0.
1957 0. 17.
1958 1. 242.
1959 2. 124.
1960 1. 242.
1961 1. 227.
1962 2. 156.
1963 1. 53.
1964 2. 80.
1965 2. 152.
1966 1. 242.
1967 1. 87.
1968 1. 143.
1969 2. 155.
1970
1971 1.
1. 77.
242.
1972 1. 242.
1973 1. 93.
1974 2. 103.
1975 1. 66.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 23.
1978 1. 143.
1979 1. 242.
1980 1. 83.
1981 2. 34.
1982 2. 165.
1983 1. 116.
1984 1. 242.
1985 1. 32.
1986 1. 35.
Number of Years with at least one period = 27. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
ffFOREST:400m YSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FCR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
D/SPACING,240cm D/Drain, STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
*******************************************************************************
---RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 7/15/1996 @ 8: 4
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT 46\DOVA240.LIS
parameters: free drai nage and yi elds not calculat
drain spacing = 40 000. cm drain depth = 240.0 cm
- ----- ---------- ------------ ------- ---------- ------- -------- ---------- --
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 4.60 .00 .00 4.62 .00
1957 140.31 130.53 105.33 12.10 .00 29.17 12.11 .00
1958 135.99 133.00 93.55 39.45 2.15 5968.74 41.61 .00
1959 137.97 138.97 104.04 34.94 .01 4203.57 34.95 .00
1960 135.33 136.11 97.68 38.43 .01 6607.42 38.44 .00
1961 129.36 134.93 103.01
0 31.92
17 1.97
01 5545.19
01
4426 33.90
24
19 .00
00
1962 133.15 124.51 1
0.34 24. . . . .
1963 120.50 124.57 98.15 26.42 1.23 1140.85 27.66 .00
1964 158.50 145.46 105.22 40.25 8.04 3309.48 48.30 .00
1965 117.20 123.90 101.18 27.85 2.90 4815.26 30.75 .00
1966 149.25 143.84 97.06 41.65 .54 6338.36 42.20 .00
1967 121.23 116.25 96.87 19.41 .01 2541.50 19.42 .00
1968 102.34 110.46 96.98 18.84 1.71 3424.66 20.56
08 .00
00
1969 149.02 137.91 93.30 39.23 1.84 6441.58 41. .
1970 106.10 114.94 100.59 17.64 .42 1478.64 18.07 .00
1971 132.28 123.12 97.84 21.99 5.59 6548.84 27.58 .00
1972 120.95 114.83 96.19 18.64 .01 6630.00 18.65 .00
1973 89.87 99.54 86.14 25.75 .01 1951.17 25.77 .00
1974 134.77 125.20 101.36 11.49 .01 3961.20 11.51 .00
1975 110.16 119.72 107.76 20.87 .01 1184.09 20.89 .00
1976 102.41 102.41 100.61 4.99 .00 .00 5.00 .00
1977 126.16 125.48 108.02 5.36 .00 .00 5.37 .00
1978 119.61 120.29 94.21 30.71 .01
63 3111.68
00
6630 30.73
71
53 .00
00
1979 163.37 143.76 96.04 43.08 10. . . .
1980 118.19 125.31 99.17 26.15 .01 1806.67 26.16 .00
1981 99.03 100.88 95.54 5.94 .00 762.02 5.95 .00
1982 145.03 133.69 101.16 31.94 1.13 6291.09 33.07 .00
1983 117.83 124.36 98.14 26.21 .01 2578.05 26.23 .00
1984 128.78 132.45 90.28 43.22 .01 6371.18 43.23 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 107.84 14.24 .00 53.74 14.25
5
20 .00
00
1986 118.62 118.62 102.07 5.19 .00 599.02 . .
AVG 125.91 124.67 99.34 24.28 1.23 3379.01 25.52 .00
1
1

------
* -----------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 4.60a
University
*
State
Carolina
91
North
1990
Copyright
*
-
-
-
-
_
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA -
-
-
FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:400m D/SPACING,280cm D/drain STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,

----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 7/15/1996 @ 8: 5
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA280.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 40000. cm drain depth = 280.0 cm
---------------- -----------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- ---------------------------------
HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year

YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD

00 cm
30

-----------------
1956 -
-------_
0. --- --
0.
1957 0. 11.
1958 1. 242.
1959 3. 75.
1960 1. 242.
1961 1. 227.
1962 2. 156.
1963 1. 52.
1964 2. 80.
1965 2. 152.
1966 1. 242.
1967 1. 86.
1968 1. 143.
1969 2. 155.
1970
1971 1.
2. 77.
119.
'
1972 1. 242.
1973 1. 93.
1974 2. 103.
1975 1. 66.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 23.
1978 1. 143.
1979 1. 242.
1980 1. 83.
1981 2. 33.
1982 2. 165.
1983 1. 116.
1984 1. 242.
1985 1. 31.
1986 1. 33.
Number of Years with at least one period = 27. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-- -----------------------------------------------------
NALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:400m D/SPACING,280cm D/drain STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
---RUN STATISTICS - ------- -- time: 7/15/1996 @ 8: 5
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT 46\DOVA280.LIS
parameters: free drai nage and yi elds not calculat
drain spacing = 40 000. cm drain depth = 280.0 cm
----- ---------- ------------ ------- ---------- ------- ---.----- ---------- --
YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 4.89 .00 .00 4.91 .00
1957 140.31 130.45 105.17 11.89 .00 16.94 11.90 .00
1958 135.99 132.66 93.55 39.12 2.11 5956.97 41.23 .00
1959 137.97 139.40 104.04 35.36 -.01 4186.68 35.36 .00
1960 135.33 136.18 97.68 38.50 -.01 6629.33 38.49 .00
1961 129.36 134.44 103.01 31.44
26 2.40
00 5600.19
4392
69 33.84
26
24 .00
00
1962 133.15 124.60 100.34 24. . . . .
1963 120.50 124.44 98.15 26.28 1.54 1130.77 27.83 .00
1964 158.50 145.01 105.22 39.79 8.33 3306.88 48.13 .00
1965 117.20 123.56 101.18 27.59 3.20 4802.72 30.79 .00
1966 149.25 143.69 97.06 41.42 .72 6341.13 42.14 .00
1967 121.23 116.23 96.87 19.37 .00 2529.99 19.37 .00
1968 102.34 110.46 96.98 19.07 1.72 3422.35 20.79
80 .00
00
1969 149.02 137.87 93.30 38.99 1.81 6441.04 40. .
1970 106.10 114.96 100.59 17.86 .48 1467.96 18.34 .00
1971 132.28 128.45 97.84 27.13 .19 5371.41 27.32 .00
1972 120.95 114.92 96.19 18.73 -.01 6630.00 18.73 .00
1973 89.87 99.54 86.08 25.94 .00 1949.74 25.94 .00
1974 134.77 125.17 101.36 11.35 .00 3907.71 11.35 .00
1975 110.16 119.77 107.76 21.12 .00 1181.43 21.13 .00
1976 102.41 102.41 100.36 5.26 .00 .00 5.27 .00
1977 126.16 125.94 108.02 5.60 .00 .00 5.61 .00
1978 119.61 119.84 94.21 30.34 -.01 3121.16 30.33 .00
00
1979 163.37 143.52 96.04 42.76 10.92 6630.00 53.68 .
1980 118.19 125.44 99.17 26.27 .00 1800.39 26.28 .00
1981 99.03 100.72 95.54 6.17 .00 695.15 6.18 .00
1982 145.03 133.60 101.16 31.46 1.21 6280.34 32.67 .00
1983 117.83 124.54 98.14 26.40 .00 2573.13 26.40 .00
1984 128.78 132.30 90.28 43.10 -.01 6377.93 43.10 .00
1985 111.63 111.64 107.84 14.44 .00 52.04 14.45 .00
1986 118.62 118.62 102.07 5.44 .00 546.48 5.45 .00
AVG 125.91 124.79 99.33 24.43 1.11 3333.63 25.55 .00

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
*-Copyright -1990_91 -North -Carolina -State -University-*
ANALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:420m D/SPACING,300cm D/DEPTH STMAX=15.Ocm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 7/15/1996 @ 8: 5
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA300.LIS
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 42000. cm drain depth = 300.0 cm
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
****** INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ******
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 30 days. Counting starts on day
78 and ends on day 319 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 30 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1956 0. 0.
1957 0. 17.
1958 1. 242.
1959 2. 125.
1960 1. 242.
1961 1. 228.
1962 2. 156.
1963 1. 53.
1964 2. 80.
1965 2. 157.
1966 1. 242.
1967 1. 87.
1968 1. 143.
1969 1. 242.
1970 1. 77.
1971 2. 119.
1972 1. 242.
1973 1. 93.
1974 2. 103.
1975 1. 66.
1976 0. 0.
1977 0. 24.
1978 1. 143.
1979 1. 242.
1980 1. 84.
1981 2. 37.
1982 2. 165.
1983 1. 117.
1984 1. 242.
1985 1. 32.
1986 1. 36.
IF-1
LJ

I

Number of Years with at least one period = 27. out of 31 years.

-----------------------------------------------------
* DRAINMOD version 4.60a
* Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
JkNALYSIS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA FOR Croatan muck SOIL AT Dover, N.C.
for FOREST:420m D/SPACING,300cm D/DEPTH STMAX=15.0cm, thwtd=30cm/30days,
----------RUN STATISTICS -------- -- time: 7/15/1996 @ 8: 5
input file: D:\DM46\INPUT46\DOVA300.LIS
parameters: free dra inage and yi elds not calculat
drain spacing = 42 000. cm drain d epth = 300.0 cm
' ------- ---=----- ----------- -------- --------- -------- -------- ---------- --

YEAR RAINFALL INFILTRATION ET DRAINAGE RUNOFF SEW TWLOSS PUMP VOL
1956 128.14 128.14 104.05 4.48 .00 .00 4.49 .00
1957 140.31 123.63 105.46 5.22 1.82 36.92 7.06 .00
1958 135.99 112.34 93.55 18.77 26.97 6567.14 45.74 .00
1959 137.97 139.85 104.04 35.81 -.01 4280.95 35.81 .00
1960 135.33 135.94 97.68 38.26 -.O1 6630.00 38.25 .00

1 1961 129.36 133.72 103.01
00
34 30.71
72
24 2.85
O1
- 5707.49
4643
25 33.57
24
72 .00
00
1962 133.15 125.06 .
1 . . . . .
1963 120.50 123.66 98.15 25.51 1.91 1170.19 27.42 .00
1964 158.50 145.09 105.22 39.87 8.65 3322.70 48.53 .00
1965 117.20 123.39 101.18 26.96 3.45 4906.75 30.41 .00
1966 149.25 143.15 97.06 41.33 1.06 6379.32 42.39 .00
1967 121.23 116.42 96.87 19.55 .00 2559.19 19.55 .00
1968 102.34 110.46 96.98 18.62 1.74 3472.87 20.36
23
41 .00
00
1969 149.02 137.79 93.30 39.36 1.87 6447.98 . .
1970 106.10 114.90 100.59 17.43 .55 1487.01 17.99 .00
1971 132.28 127.94 97.84 26.99 .46 5430.04 27.45 .00
1972 120.95 115.13 96.19 18.93 -.O1 6630.00 18.92 .00
1973 89.87 99.59 86.29 25.61 -.O1 1962.75 25.61 .00
1974 134.77 125.19 101.36 11.53 .00 3993.09 11.53 .00
1975 110.16 119.75 107.76 20.72 -.01 1189.82 20.72 .00
1976 102.41 102.41 100.84 4.82 .00 .00 4.84 .00
1977 126.16 125.15 108.02 5.15 .00 .90 5.16 .00
1978 119.61 120.62 94.21 30.78
2
61 -.O1
20
11 3174.77
00
6630 30.77
81
53 .00
00
1979 163.37 143.02 96.04 .
4 . . . .
1980 118.19 125.22 99.17 26.05 -.O1 1838.49 26.05 .00
1981 99.03 101.17 95.54 5.67 .00 858.99 5.68 .00
1982 145.03 133.39 101.16 32.19 1.33 6297.17 33.52 .00
1983 117.83 124.23 98.14 26.09 -.01 2593.66 26.08 .00
1984 128.78 132.71 90.28 43.34 -.O1 6399.37 43.33 .00
1985 111.63 111.63 107.84 14.23 .00 55.01 14.24 .00
00
1986 118.62 118.41 102.07 5.00 .00 637.42 5.01 .
AVG 125.91 123.84 99.36 23.43 2.06 3396.88 25.49 .00

11
f

APPENDIX I
REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT MODEL
RIVERINE, LOW ORDER BLACKWATER STREAMS (HARDWOOD FOREST)

REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Definition of Function and Functional Capacity Index Formula
Riverine, Low Order BIackwater Streams, Hardwood Forest
1.0 DYNAMIC SURFACE WATER STORAGE'
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to retain or divert flowing surface water in the
floodplain resulting from riparian groundwater discharge, secondary channel.
flow, or primary channel flow.
(INDEX =
l • freq + Vdredge + Vfeed + (Vi .. d + Vmicro + Vshrub + Vbtree + Vcwd)/5)/4
A

1
2.0 LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to retain surface water discharged onto the
floodplain for relatively long periods of time (generally longer than 1 week).
/I?N?DEX =
l r inund +Vlwater + (' dr.dge + Vlevee + Vfeed)/3 + ( orgdep + Vmicro + Vmacro)13)/4
3.0 ENERGY DISSIPATION
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to reduce surface flow velocities and promote alternative
surface flow pathways. In the low stream order systems modeled, reductions in
stream flow velocities by in-stream vegetation and reductions in stream bank/levy
erosion represent important components of this model function.
INDEX =
It V freq + Vdredge + Vfeed)/3 + (r bank + Vmacro + Vmicro)/3 + Mtree + Vbt. + Ve,,,,d)/3)/3
4.0 SUBSURFACE STORAGE OF WATER
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain groundwater storage characteristics beneath
I the floodplain surface.

t

11
INDEX= (Vdreage + Vfeed + Vredox + Vpore + V,, J/5
Wetland Functions, variables, reference standards, and terminology adapted from project data,
Brinson et al. (1995), and, "Guidebook for functional assessment of riverine wetlands: Inner
Coastal Plain of Chesapeake Bay (1st and 3rd order streams of Maryland)" (Workshop 1995,
unpublished).
I-1

5 .0 MODERATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW OR DISCHARGE
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to moderate groundwater discharge/recharge dynamics
between outer floodplain fringes and uplands and between the floodplain and stream
channel.
INDEX = (Vdredge + Vfeed + Vsubin)/3
6.0 RECYCLE NUTRIENTS AND NONESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to convert nutrients and non-essential elements
from one form to another. Riverine wetlands are assumed to recycle nutrients
and elements primarily through uptake in living vegetation and
decomposition processes. The capacity to maintain characteristic nutrient
cycling is characterized by estimates of net primary productivity in various
components of living vegetation, and detrital storage and turnover in various
components of dead vegetation and in soils.
INDEX = (• btree + Vstrata + VIRter + Vsnag + (r cwd + Vtogs)/2)15

t
7.0 REMOVAL OF ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS
Definition: The capacity of wetland a remove non-point source pollution inputs such as
contaminants, elements, and compounds. Contaminant removal processes are
assessed through evaluation of stream discharge characteristics into the
floodplain, retention capacity, and biological processes expected to promote
assimilation of elements and compounds. M
INDEX=
(?)(T freq + Vdredge)/2 + Vfeed + Vsubin + (r micro + Vmicrob + Vpore)/3 + Vbtree)/5
8.0 RETENTION OF PARTICULATES
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to promote entry, deposition, and retention of
organic and inorganic particulates in the water column (from internal and
external sources).
INDEX=
/??
t ? sedim + (' freq + Vdredge)/2+ l ? (?? feed +Vsubin)/2 + (Vmicro + Vstrata + Vbtree + Vdtree + Vewd)/5)/4

I-2

9.0 ORGANIC CARBON EXPORT
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to export dissolved and suspended organic carbon through
leaching, flushing, displacement, and erosion. Organic carbon represents the primary
nutrition source for microbial organisms which function as the foundation for aquatic
ecosystems.
INDEX=
(• fr, + VdredgJ/2 + (? l r sobin + Vfeed + V1evJ/3 + M ml cwd + VIM + Vlitter + Vorg.$)/4)/3
10.0 MAINTAIN CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITY
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain species composition and regenerative
dynamics necessary to sustain the natural wetland community .
INDEX = Veomp + Vregen + Vcanopy + (• dtree + Vbtree)/2)/4
11.0 MAINTAIN CHARACTERISTIC DETRITAL BIOMASS
Definition: Riverine wetlands maintain substantial stocks of detrital biomass as a
foundation for the wetland food web. The capacity to maintain characteristic
invertebrate species populations and nutrients for vegetation is dependent on
the distribution and abundance of stocks of detrital biomass. The index
variables attempt to characterize detrital biomass through measurement of
dead vegetation including snags, woody debris, and leaf litter (this function
has been, utilized as a substitute for the function, "Distribution and
Abundance of Invertebrates" (Brinson et al. 1995)).
INDEX = (Vsnag + Vlitter + (Vewd + VtogJ/2)/3
12.0 MAINTAIN SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF HABITAT
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain structural micro- and macro-habitat
variability needed to sustain wildlife communities.
INDEX = (Vsnag + Vmatu. + Vpoois + Vgaps + Vmta + Vg-cavity + Vtip + (Ncwd + Viogs]/2)/8
w
[-3

13 .0 MAINTAIN INTERSPERSION AND CONNECTIVITY AMONG WETLAND
CLASSES AND WETLAND/UPLAND ECOTONAL HABITAT
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain functioning linkages between wetland
habitat areas, wetland/upland ecotonal habitat, and associated hydrologic
pathways. Wetland habitat areas may include landscape-level diversity
within the wetland site, riverine forested corridors within the drainage
system, and connectivity between the riverime wetland, abutting slope
wetlands, uplands, and upslope interstream divides.
INDEX = (Vf N + Vdreage) feed + Vhyacon) + Vcontig)3
14.0 MAINTAIN THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF VERTEBRATES
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain viable species populations of herptiles,
resident and migratory birds, and mammals.
INDEX = (Vherp + Vbird + VmammaP

I-4
REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Field Variables, Method of Measurement, and Measure Relative to the Reference Standard
Riverine, Low Order Blackwater Streams, Hardwood Forest
11

1
1

1
1.0 Vbank• PRESENCE OF SHRUB AND SUBMERGED VEGETATION
ALONG STREAM BANKS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Stream banks are walked and Shrub and submerged vegetation present along the stream 1.0
visually evaluated for the presence bank. Shrub and submerged vegetation appears to dissipate
of shrub and submerged vegetation energy associated with discharges above base flow
along the margins between base conditions.
flow and overbank flow elevations.
Shrub and submerged vegetation reduced relative to the 0.5
reference standard.
Shrub and submerged vegetation absent relative to the 0.1
reference standard. Disturbance factors such as vegetation
clearing, conversion to pasture, or other features noted,
restoration possible.
Shrub and submerged vegetation absent relative to the 0
reference standard, restoration not possible.
2.0 Vbird' DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF RESIDENT
AND MIGRATORY BIRDS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by . Sightings and indications of birds similar to the 1.0
walking the site and visually reference standard.
sighting or hearing diagnostic bird
species as designated in the Reference Standard: In general, two or more
following table. Supplemental identifications listed in the following table.
information may also be applied to
infer presence of diagnostic bird Bird calls represent the primary mechanism for bird
species. identification in reference standard sites.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic bird species 0.5
reduced relative to the reference standard. Limited
habitat typically appears available.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic bird species 0.1
absent, heavily degraded habitat may occur, natural
vegetation remains on the site.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic bird species 0
absent, vegetation has been removed from the site.
1-5
3.1 DIAGNOSTIC BIRD SPECIES
RIVERINE, LOW ORDER BLACKWATER STREAMS
(Hardwood Forest)
Acadian Flycatcher Barred Owl Coopers Hawk
Downy Woodpecker Eastern Wood-pewee Great Crested Flycatcher
Green Heron Hooded Warbler Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush Northern Parula Pileated Woodpecker
Prothonotary Warbler Summer Tanager Swainson's Warbler
Wood Thrush Yellow-billed Cuckoo Yellow-throated Warbler
Yellow-throated Vireo
4.0 Vbcrec: TREE BASAL AREA
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Tree basal area is measured within The measure of basal area is 05% of the reference 1.0
random sample plots. Diameter standard.
breast high (DBH) is recorded by
species and basal area calculated on Reference Standard: 147 ft2/ac
2
/ac scale.
a ft
The measure of basal area is between 25% and 75% 0.5
of the reference standard.
The measure of basal area is between 0% and 25% of 0.1
the reference standard, restoration possible.
The measure of basal area is 0% of the reference 0
standard, restoration not possible.
15.0 V.„o : CANOPY COVER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by The estimate of canopy cover is a 75% of the 1.0
walking the site and visually reference standard.
estimating the % cover of the sky
by leaves in the canopy. Reference Standard: 80% canopy cover
The estimate of canopy cover is between 25% and 0.5
75% of the reference standard.
The estimate of canopy cover is between 1% and 25% 0.1
of the reference standard.
Canopy cover is absent. 0
I-6

1

1

uu

6.0 V,.. P: SPECIES COMPOSITION FOR TREE, SHRUB, AND HERB LAYERS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured within At least 50% of the reference standard tree species 1.0
random sample plots. The tree and occur on the assessment site. No species represents
shrub/sapling strata are identified to greater than 30% of total stems.
species with dominance assessed.
Low shrubs, herbs, mosses, and Reference Standard: The following table depicts
grasses in the plots are identified to the reference standard species composition.
species. The list of species present
and observed estimates of Between 25% and 50% of the reference standard tree 0.5
dominance are compared to the species occur on the site or pronounced dominance by
reference standard one species is noted (typically sweet gum).
Between 1% and 25% of the reference standard 0.1
species occur on the site.
No species tabulated occur on the reference standard 0
sites.
I-7
TABLE
LOW ORDER BLACKWATER STREAMS
Reference Standard Species Composition and Importance Values
6.1 Species Rel. Species Rel Species Rel
Import Import Import
Value Value Value
Trees (2 4 in DBI)
Nyssa biflora 18 Acer rubrum 16 Taxodium distichum 10
Liriodendron tulipifem 9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 Quercus michauxii 8
Quercus Laurifolia 6 Nyssa aquatica 5 Liquidambar styraciflua 4
Quercus lyrata 3 Pinus taeda 3 Carya aquatica 2
Fraxinus caroliniana 2 Carpinus caroliniana 2 Populus heterophylla 1
Quercus phellos 1 Quercus pagoda 1 Quercus nigra I
Fagus grandifolia I Betula nigra I Ulmus americana
Platanus occidentalis
Shrubs and Saplings (s 4 in DBH; z 4.5 ft tall)
Ilex opaca 16 Fraxinus caroliniana 13 Acer rubrum 13
Magnolia virgmiana 9 Carpinus caroliniana 7 Liquidambar styraciflua 7
Persea palustris 6 Ulmus americana 5 Quercus michauxii 3
Ilex laevigata 3 Nyssa biflora 2 Quercus Laurifolia 2
Clethra alnifolia 2 Cyrilla racemiflora 1 Ilex coriaceae 1
Ilex'decidua 1 Itea virginica 1 Leucothoe racemosa 1
Rhododendron 1 Salix nigra I Symplocus tinctoria 1
nudiflorum
Vaccinium corymbosum 1 Viburnum nudum I Ligustrum sinense 1
Carya sp -- Hamamelis virginiana -- Morus rubra ---
Quercus nigra --
Low Shrubs, Seedlings, and Herbs (c 4.5 ft tall) (% importance-name.)
5.2 Woodwardia areolata 3.8 Boehmeria cylindrica 3.8 Vitis rotundifolia 3.8 Leucothoe axillaris
3.8 Smilax rotundifolia 3.8 Saururus cemuus 3.4 Toxicodendron radicans 3.4 Decumaria barbara
2.9 Acer mbrum 2.9 Itea virginica 2.4 Athyrium asplenioides 2.4 Osmunda cinnamomea
2.4 Carex sp. 2.4 Impatiens capensis 1.9 Bignonia capreolata 1.9 Ligustrum sinense
1.9Arundinaria gigantea 1.9 Persea palustris 1.9 Fraxinus caroliniana 1.9 Mitchella repens
1.9 Lyonia lucida IA Woodwardia virginica 1.4 Liquidambar styraciflua 1.4 Viburnum nudum
1.4 Smilax laurifolia IA 11" opaca 1.4 Quercus michauxii 1.4 Quercus laurifolia
1.4 Polygonum hydropiperoides 1.4 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 1.4 Murdania keisak 1.4 Osmunda regal is
1.0 Betula nigra 1.0 flex coriaceae 1.0 Lobelia cardinalis 1.0 Lonicera japonica
1.0 Ludwigia altemifolia 1.0 Arisaema triphyllum 1.0 Ulmus americana 1.0 Symplocus tinctoria
1.0 Rubus sp. 1.0 Polygonum arifolium 0.5 Campsis radicans 0.5 Leucothoe racemosa
0.5 Panicum sp. 0.5 Lemna sp. 0.5 Bidens sp. 0.5 Myrica cerifera
0.5 Juncus sp. 0.5 Polygonum polypodioides 0.5 Polygonum saggitatum 0.5 Pueraria lobata
0.5 Clethra alnifolia 0.5 Quercus lyrata 0.5 Comus ammomum 0.5 Rosa palustris
0.5 Hyepricum sp. 0.5 Sagitaria latifolia 0.5 Sambucus canadensis 0.5 Berchemia scandens
0.5 Ilex laevigata 0.5 Botrychium virginianum 0.5 Styrax sp. 0.5 Gelsimium sempervirens
0.5 Tillandsia usneoides 0.5 Asplenium platyneuron 0.5 Typha latifolia 0.5 Magnolia virginiana
0.5 Vaccinium corymbosum 0.5 Ilex glabra 0.5 Decodon verticullatus 0.5 Hexastylis sp.
0.5 Cuscuta sp.
11

I

f f ?1
lJ

t
1

i

7.0 V,,.. ,,g: CONTIGUOUS VEGETATION COVER AND/OR CORRIDORS BETWEEN
WETLAND AND UPLAND AND BETWEEN WETLAND CLASSES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Vegetation cover and corridors similar to the 1.0
walking the area and visually reference standard.
assessing the presence of
contiguous vegetation cover Reference Standard: Vegetation cover is present
between wetlands, uplands, and within the riverine wetland site and along abutting
wetland classes. Aerial uplands or slope wetlands. Forest cover occurs along
photography, soil mapping, and feeder tributaries. The riverine wetland represents a
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) forested corridor into the upper or lower watershed.
topographic mapping supplements
the field investigation. Vegetation cover and corridors substantially reduced 0.5
relative to the reference standard.
Vegetation cover and corridors considered absent 0.1
relative to the reference standard. The site is isolated
from other forests by alternative land uses, restoration
or enhancement of connectivity possible.
Vegetation cover and corridors considered absent 0
relative to the reference standard. The site is isolated
from other forests by alternative land uses, restoration
or enhancement of connectivity not possible.
$,0 V,,Wd: COARSE WOODY DEBRIS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The frequency of woody stems Density of coarse woody debris >75% and s 125% of 1.0
greater than 4 in DBH is measured the reference standard. Forest canopy remains.
within random sample plots. The
frequency is calculated on a per ac Reference Standard: 65 stems/ac (frequent)
basis.
The frequency of coarse woody Density of coarse woody debris between 250/6-75% or 0.5
debris is also visually estimated as 1250/o-175% of the reference standard.

1) excessive; 2) frequent (reference
standard); 3) moderate; 4) few; and Density of coarse woody debris between 0% and 25% 0.1
5) none. or z 175% of the reference standard, natural
vegetation remains on the site (or ag field).
No woody debris present, natural vegetation 0
permanently removed.
I-9
9.0 Vd, e: EVIDENCE OF PRIMARY CHANNEL DREDGING/LOWERING
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: 1.0
visually evaluating primary No evidence of channel dredging in the primary channel
channels for evidence of periodic
dredging. Diagnostic indications Limited evidence of past dredging such as relic spoil piles 0.5
include dredge spoil piles, spoil which have weathered to near floodplain elevation. Channel
ridges, near vertical stream banks, banks may have initiated stabilization and passive resloping
and stream flow records. FEMA - but remain disturbed. These sites appear to have been
reports or local information sources extensively dredged in the last 20 years
also indicate the extent and
may
frequency of dredging activities. Substantial evidence of dredging activity in the primary 0.1
Sites with no indication of periodic channel and feeder channels. Restoration or enhancement of
dredging/ cleaning receive a score stream structure possible.
of 1.0.
Substantial evidence of dredging activity in the primary 0
channel and feeder channels. Restoration or enhancement of
stream structure not possible.
10.0 Vdtree: TREE DENSITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Measurement is undertaken within The measured density of tree stems is z 75% and s 1.0
random sample plots on the site. 125% of the reference standard.
Tree density is calculated on a per
ac basis and compared to the Reference Standard: 176 trees/ac (15 ft x 15 ft avg)

reference standard.
The measured density of tree stems is between 25% 0.5
and 75% or between 125% and 200% of the reference
standard.
The measured density of tree stems is between 0% 0.1
and 25% or Z 200% of the reference standard with
restoration possible.
No trees are present, restoration not possible. 0
I-10
1

?I

`r1
L
1

1

1
A
t

I

1
1
1
1
1
11.0 V,,,: EVAPO I RANSPIRATION (E/T) RATES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Evapotranspiration (E/1) rates are Estimated E/T similar to the reference standard. 1.0
dependent upon the stage of
succession and the type of Reference Standard: steady-state
community present.
Successional stage: mid-successional
0.75
This variable is measured by
identifying the stage of succession
or level of disturbance to Successional stage: transitional 0.5
Successional stages are
etation
ve
.
g
classified as: 1) cut-over; 2) early Successional stage: early successional or cut over 0.25
successional; 3) transitional; 4)
d
y-state
mid-successional; or 5) stea
(reference standard). Successional stage: cleared, restoration possible. 0.1
L I
Successional stage: cleared, restoration not possible.
1
0
0 11
12.0 Vf m: EVIDENCE OF DITCHING IN FEEDER CHANNELS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: No evidence of ditch construction in 1.0
visually evaluating primary and secondary feeder channels extending laterally into the
secondary channels for evidence of floodplain
periodic ditching. Diagnostic
indications include dredge spoil
A mix of ditched feeder channels and natural stream
0.5
piles, spoil ridges, and near vertical channels extend into the floodplain (or) past ditching
banks. Local information sources activities have not been maintained and antecedent ditches
may also indicate the extent and have initiated natural stabilization processes.
frequency of ditching activities. Most feeder channels have been converted to drainage 0.1
Sites with no indication of periodic . ditches extending through the floodplain Restoration or
ditching/ cleaning receive a score enhancement of stream function possible.
of 1
0
.
.
Most feeder channels have been converted to drainage 0
ditches extending through the floodplain Restoration of
stream function not possible.
I-11
13.0 Vf : FREQUENCY OF OVERBANK FLOW
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
indications of periodic overbank Reference Standard: 1.0
flow are visually recorded relative Layered leaves, wrack lines, and\or thin layers of silts\clays
to the reference standard. are common within the floodplain

Performance indications include
layered leaves and sediments in Indications of overbank flow frequency somewhat dissimilar 0.5
overbank flow pathways, thin to the reference standard. Area semi-permanently flooded
layers of silts and clays on leaf . or thin layers of silt/clay are not evident on leaf litter. Scour
litter, wrack lines in dense shrub points and levee breaks along the primary channel are less
clusters, scattered sediment common relative to the reference standard..
deposits, and levee scour features in Indicators of overbank flow absent, restoration possible. 0.1
periodic levee breaks along the
channel.
Indicators of overbank flow absent, restoration not possible. 0
14.0 V -,.,,ih,: ABUNDANCE OF NEAR-GROUND NESTING CAVITIES IN TREES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
For riverine hardwood forest Abundance of near-ground cavities in trees similar to 1.0
systems, the variable is measured the reference standard.
by walking the site and visually
assessing the abundance of near- Reference Standard: Near ground cavities abundant
ground cavities in trees. If the and well developed in trees in the wetland.
lower bole or butt-swell contains
deep fissures, hollows, or attached Abundance of near-ground cavities in trees 0.5
decaying hollows, a cavity is substantially less than the reference standard, or trees
presumed. are beginning to develop fissures and small hollows
that will support cavities in the future, or trees 12 in
DBH or greater present on the site.
No near ground cavities present and trees 12 in DBH 0.1
or greater not present on the site, natural vegetation
remains.
No trees on the site, natural vegetation removed. L--]
I-12

11

1
L?
1

r?
?J

15.0 V : PRESENCE OF CANOPY GAPS DUE TO TREE FALL
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Tree fall canopy gaps present as indicated in the 1.0
walking the site and determining reference standard.
the presence of canopy gaps due to
tree fall. The site is classified as 1) Reference Standard: Canopy gaps due to tree fall
characteristic canopy gaps present; present or gap management in forested floodplains
2) canopy gaps relatively lacking (food plots) have been established.
but forest structure may be -
available to promote or manage for
the feature; and 3) canopy gaps due Tree fall gaps or gap management absent but forest 0.5
to tree fall absent with no potential structure is available to promote or manage the
for short term gap management. feature. Trees i 12 in DBH generally available.
lots in managed forest
Small food
p
are considered to mimic tree fall Tree fall gaps absent with no potential for gap 0.1
gap functions in the habitat management, natural vegetation remains on the site.
complex.
Tree fall gaps absent with no potential for gap 0
management, vegetation has been removed from the
site.
15.0 Vh,, : DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HERPTILES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Sightings and indications of herptiles similar to the 1.0
walking the site and visually reference standard.
sighting or identifying indications
of herptile activity. Indications Reference Standard: Indication of three or more
may include calls, larval forms, species present. During spring and early summer,
skins, egg masses, tracks, and sightings, calls, and larval forms are common. Egg
skeletons masses and tadpoles are typically throughout
depressional pools. During summer and early fall,
This variable is difficult to evaluate calls, larval forms, and occasional sightings are
during the winter months. If typical within reference standard sites.
evaluations are performed in the .
winter or time does not allow Sightings and indications of herptiles substantially 0.5
prolonged site analysis, this reduced relative to the reference standard. Limited or
variable is removed from the degraded habitat typically appears available.
model.
Sightings and indications of herptiles absent relative
0.1
to the reference standard, natural vegetation remains
on the site.
Sightings and indications of herptiles absent relative 0
to the reference standard, vegetation has been
removed
1-13
17.0 Vhydcoq: SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE HYDRAULIC CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN THE RIVERINE WETLAND, SLOPE WETLANDS,
UPLAND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND STREAM CHANNELS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Hydrologic pathways similar to the reference 1.0
walking the area and visually standard.
assessing the condition of hydraulic
pathways between the channel and Reference Standard: Surface water discharges from
floodplain, between the floodplain the channel through small periodic levee openings or
and adjacent slopes, and along along the channel length after peak storm events.
feeder streams above the Mainstem overbank flow appears to move laterally
floodplain. Ditches, constructed (downslope) across the floodplain with re-entry into
outlets, channelized streams, or the main channel occurring at subsequent levee
intensive land uses may have breaks. Groundwater seeps occur along the
altered the character and floodplain fringe and exhibit dendritic flow pathway
connectivity of hydrologic across the floodplain Feeder stream channels flow
pathways. Aerial photography, soil into the floodplain and typically discharge into a
mapping, and U.S. Geological dendritic series of drainage channels, some
Survey (USGS) topographic abandoned or noncontinuous, others discharging into
mapping supplements the field seeps or depressions behind levees. Feeder streams
investigation. upslope of the primary floodplain exhibit slow,
meandering flow pathways surrounded by forested
buffers. Discharges along the floodplain fringe are
predominantly groundwater in origin except within
natural stream channels.
Hydrologic pathways have been altered somewhat 0.5
relative to the reference standard.
Hydrologic pathways have been substantially altered 0.1
relative to the reference standard, recovery possible.
Hydrologic pathways have been substantially altered 0
relative to the reference standard, recovery not
possible.
I-14

J

L]
1

1

1

1

1

0

1
18.0 Vial: AVERAGE DEPTH OF INUNDATION
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The height of water/silt stains is Height of water/silt stains similar to the reference standard. 1.0
measured from ground surface at a
number of random locations in the Reference Standard: 1.5 ft (range 1 ft to 2 ft)

floodplain Height measurements
are collected from tree stems and Height of water/silt stains somewhat dissimilar to the 0.5
from shrub clusters. The average reference standard.
depth of inundation is estimated by Height of water/silt stains substantially altered relative to 0.1
averaging the height of stains. the reference standard (usually absent), recovery possible.
Height of water/silt stains absent, recovery not possible. 0
119.0 V1e,,,,,,: PRESENCE AND STRUCTURE OF STREAM LEVEES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Stream-side levees are walked and Slightly elevated stream levees are present and similar in 1.0
visually evaluated for presence and structure to the reference standard.
condition.
Reference Standard:
Levees similar to the reference standard include slightly
elevated sandy ridges averaging 1-3 ft above the adjacent
floodplain surface. Breaks occur intermittently within the
levee. Dense shrub and herb vegetation typically occur on or
around the levee. Levee structures appear to promote long
term water storage and energy dissipation in the floodplain
immediately behind continuous levee segments.
Stream levees present and somewhat dissimilar to the 0.5
reference standard. Spoil material has been placed on the
levee, past road construction has fragmented, removed, or
disturbed levee segments, shrub vegetation is removed, or
other disturbance noted.
Stream levees absent or continuous spoil ridges constructed, 0.1
restoration possible.
Stream levees absent or continuous spoil ridges constructed, 0
restoration possible..
I-15
20.0 Vliner: THICKNESS OF THE LITTER LAYER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Measurements are taken randomly Litter layer thickness is z 75% of the reference 1.0
across the site by scraping back the standard
litter to the soil surface and
recording the thickness. An Reference Standard: 1.2 in
average thickness is calculated from
20 or more measurements. Litter layer thickness is between 50% and 75% of the 0.75
reference standard
Litter layer thickness is between 25% and 50% of the 0.5
reference standard.
Litter layer thickness is between 0% and 25% of the 0.1
reference standard.
Litter layer not present, native vegetation removed 0
121.0 Vio s: STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION OF COARSE WOODY DEBRIS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The assessment site is walked and Stages of decomposition equivalent to the reference 1.0
visually evaluated for the presence/ standard.
absence of decomposition stages
relative to the reference standard. Reference Standard: Four distinct stages of
Coarse woody debris is classified decomposition present including exposed and buried
into four stages of decomposition: coarse woody stems. .
1) Recently fallen with bark
attached.
One stage of decomposition is absent
.75
2) Partially decomposed, bark
falling off or can be pulled off.

3) Heavily decomposed with no Two stages of decomposition are absent 0.50
bark cover.
4) Elliptical cross-sections of logs
or indications of former coarse
woody debris (most commonly Three stages of decomposition are absent 0.1
elliptical cross-sections buried
under leaf litter).

Coarse woody debris is not present, natural 0.0
vegetation permanently removed.
1-16

C

1

1
i

1
1

1

22.0 COVER OF-LONG TERM STANDING WATER (z 1 WEEK)
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The measurement is performed by Percent or area cover of standing water is between 1.0
the plot sample method and by a 75% and 125% of the reference standard.
visual estimate of % cover.
Transects are placed on the site and Reference Standard: 25% cover
the area of standing water measured Time of Measurement: March 15-April 15
The actual
estimated
ll
d
i
.
sua
y
v
an
coverage is calculated on a percent. Percent cover of standing water is between 25% and 0.5
area basis and compared to the 75% of the reference standard.
reference standard.
The actual cover of standing water
varies by season and by recent

rainfall patterns. Therefore, The Percent cover of standing water is between 0% and 0.1
measurements must be performed 25% of the reference standard, restoration possible
in the reference standard and
assessment areas during the same
time period (preferably February,
March, br April).- If coincident
measurement is not possible, the percent cover of standing water is between 0% and 0
variable should be removed. 25% of the reference standard, restoration not
Summer measurements during possible
periods of low rainfall may indicate
low coverage.
23.0 Vmacro• MACROTOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The site is walked and visually Old meander scars, secondary channels, and 1.0
evaluated for the presence of depressional pools present and similar in distribution
macrotopographic relief in the to the reference standard.
fioodplain cross-section. From the
outer edge of the fioodplain to the
Old meander scars, secondary channels, and
0.5
old meander scars,
channel depressional pools reduced relative to the reference
,
secondary channels, and standard. Disturbance factors noted such as historic
depressional pools are documented. pasture or agricultural uses, clearing and bedding,
antecedent road construction, or other feature.
Old meander scars, secondary channels, and 0.1
depressional pools absent, restoration possible.
Old meander scars, secondary channels, and 0.0
depressional pools absent, restoration possible.
1-17
124.0 V.....,: DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF MAMMALS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammals 1.0
walking the site and visually similar to the reference standard.
sighting or identifying indications
of diagnostic mammal species (see Reference Standard: Two or more identifications
following table). Supplemental listed in the following table.
information may also be applied to
infer presence of diagnostic Activity patterns vary. seasonally. Primary
mammals. indications of diagnostic species include paths, tracks,
browse patterns, scratches, and scat..
Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammal 0.5
species substantially reduced relative to the reference
standard. Limited or degraded habitat typically
appears available.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammal 0.1
species absent, natural vegetation remains on the site.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammal 0
species absent, natural vegetation has been removed
from the site.
24.1 DIAGNOSTIC MAMMAL SPECIES
RIVERINE, LOW ORDER BLACKWATER STREAMS
(Hardwood Forest) 11
Black bear (Ursus americanus)
Bobcat (Fells rufus)
Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)
Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata)
Marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)
Mink (Mustela vison)
River otter (Lutra canadensis)
Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)
1-18

11

I

A
A

1
Vmsture? PRESENCE OF VERY MATURE TREES
Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
is measured by
r Reference Standard: Very mature trees z 20 in 1.0
ite and assessing the DBH are occasional to frequent (-5 per acre).
ence of very mature
DBH.
tprees>-
Very mature trees are rare or absent with DBH
0.5
cl asses z 12 in present.
Very mature trees and 12+ DBH classes absent, 0.1
natural vegetation remains.
Natural vegetation removed 0
26.0 VmicTo: MICROTOPOGRAPHIC COMPLEXITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The measurement is performed by Microtopographic complexity similar to the reference 1.0
visual comparison with the standard.
reference standard. The visual
estimate rates the site relative to the Reference Standard: Complex microtopography
reference standard with a score of 1 with no indication of past land clearing activities,
representing similarity. A score of antecedent farming, or heavy sediment loading
0.5 denotes a site with roughly half
the microtopographic complexity
observed at the reference standard. Based on visual estimates, the site supports 0.75
A value of 0.1 or 0 denotes a site moderately reduced microtopographic complexity
where microtography is negligible due to logging, some loss of tree induced hummocks,
with restoration possible, or not and reduced topographic variations. Site preparation
possible. for tree plantation is not evident.

Based on visual estimates, the site supports half the 0.5
microtopographic complexity of the reference
standard. Past site prep, bedding, or other
disturbances evident.
Based upon visual estimates, surface 0.1
microtopography is negligible; or active farm land,
restoration possible.
Based upon visual estimates, surface 0
microtopography is negligible; or active farm land,
restoration not possible.
I-19
27.0 Vmiemb: SURFACES AVAILABLE FOR MICROBIAL ACTIVITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The site is walked and visually Microbial surfaces available as indicated in the reference 1.0
evaluated for the presence of standard.
diverse surfaces available for
microbial activity. Surface Reference Standard Features Present:
indicators are recorded and 1) Exposed and buried coarse woody material; 2) dry and
compared to conditions in the wet leaf litter material; 3) standing water; 4) exposed dry
reference standard. and wet soil surfaces; 5) floating, submerged, and
herbaceous emergents; 6) dry and wet root mats; dry and
wet fine woody debris; 7) dry and wet coarse woody debris;
8) dry and wet tree roottstem collars; 9) shrub clusters
retaining sediments and fine woody debris.
1 or 2 surfaces for microbial activity listed above not 0.75
observed.
3-6 surfaces for microbial activity listed above not observed 0.5
6-9 surfaces not observed 0.25
Surfaces not observed, restoration possible 0.1
[Surfaces not observed, restoration not possible. 0
28.0 Vorgdep• PRESENCE OF ORGANIC MATTER ACCUMULATION IN
BACKSWAMP AREAS AND DEPRESSIONS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The site is walked and visually Organic matter accumulations occur in backswamp areas 1.0
surveyed for depressional or and depressions as indicated in the reference standard.
backswamp areas. Surface soil
samples are collected in Reference Standard:
depressional areas and evaluated for Umbric, humic, or histic soil epipedons occur within minor
organic matter content. backswamp pockets along the outer edge of the floodplain
or in minor depressions. These depressions often contain
relatively stagnant standing water covering s 10% of the
floodplain area.
Organic matter accumulations in long term water storage 0.5
areas dissimilar to the reference standard. Evidence of
artificial drainage, subsidence, or other feature noted.
Organic matter accumulations in long term water storage 0.1
areas absent, Evidence of artificial drainage, subsidence, or
other feature noted, restoration possible.
Organic matter accumulations in long term water storage 0
areas absent, Evidence of artificial drainage, subsidence, or
other feature noted, restoration not possible.
I-20
r

r

1

e.J
CI'

u

1
29.0 Vo mat= ORGANIC MATTER IN WETLAND
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The site is walked and visually The distribution and abundance of organic materials and 1.0
evaluated for the presence of stages of decay similar to the reference standard.
organic material. Organic matter
distribution, abundance, stages of Reference Standard: Litter, coarse woody debris, live
decay, and deposition rates are woody vegetation, and live/dead herbaceous plants evident
subsequently compared to the within the reference standard. Variable stages of
reference standard. decomposition noted within each component. Organic rich
mineral soils occur in back swamp, swale, and relic channel
features.
The distribution and abundance of organic materials and 0.5
stages of decay dissimilar to the reference standard. Forest
die back, clear-cutting, artificial drainage or other
disturbance noted.
Organic materials removed from site, restoration possible. 0.1
Organic materials removed from site, restoration not 0
possible.
30.0 V ls: PRESENCE OF EPHEMERAL POOLS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: Presence of ephemeral ponding 1.0
walking the site and determining similar to the reference standard.
the presence of depressions which
support or may support ephemeral Reference Standard: Ephemeral pools occur
pools of standing water. Stained frequently throughout the area ranging from small
leaf litter in minor depressions, pools in relic drainage segments or swaies to large
transitions to duck weed clusters in linear depressions behind the levee or along the outer
lower landscape positions, and floodplain These vernal pools are not connected
crayfish burrows are used as through expressed surface drainage pathways. Egg
alternative indicators during masses, tadpoles, and crayfish burrows are in the
excessively dry periods. ephemeral pool area, primarily in the spring.
Evidence of ephemeral pools substantially less than 0.5
the reference standard.
No evidence of ephemeral pools or unvegetated 0.1
depressions present, restoration possible.
No evidence of ephemeral pools or unvegetated 0
depressions present, restoration not possible.
1-21
31.0 V ore• SOIL POROSITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Texture of the defined control section similar to the 1.0
collecting random soil samples and reference standard
identifying texture of the control
section at various locations in the Reference Standard: sand to fine sandy loam.
floodplain The control section is
generally assumed at 24 in depth.
NRCS soil mapping and soil series Subsurface texture somewhat dissimilar to the 0.5
texture may be referenced to reference standard (sandy clay loam, silt loam, etc.).
supplement the field investigation.
The NRCS soil survey mapping
should be confirmed in the field
when utilizing soil series

descriptions for texture
determination. Subsurface texture is substantially different to the 0.1
reference standard (clay loam, clay, etc.). Evidence
of accelerated sedimentation and particulate inputs
evident for a long period of time or otherwise
compacted, etc; recovery possible.
Subsurface texture is substantially different to the 0
reference standard (clay loam, clay, etc.). Evidence
of accelerated sedimentation and particulate inputs
evident for a long period of time or otherwise
compacted, paved, etc; recovery not possible.
132.0 Vredox• SOIL REDOXYMORPHIC FEATURES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Soil redoxymorphic features (mottling, organic 1.0
collecting random soil samples and matter, oxidized root channels [rhizospheres]) similar
comparing the samples to reference. to the reference standard.
In most instances, the presence of
bright mottles, concretions, Reference Standard:
rhizosphere oxidations, or organic Soil redoxymorphic features present include oxidized
matter accumulation is assigned a rhizospheres, bright mottles, and/or concretions.
value of 1.0. The absence of Relatively thin organic matter accumulations occur in
redoxymorphic features is assigned depressional and backswamp areas.
a value of 0. 1, if there is potential
for recovery. Soil redoxymorphic features less evident or altered 0.5
relative to the reference standard.
Soil redoxymorphic features absent, restoration 0.1
possible.
Soil redoxymorphic features absent, restoration not 0
possible.
I-22

C

C
11

J

f
F I
L

1

1
1
33.0 V,,.: SPECIES REGENERATION FROM SEEDLINGS, SAPLINGS,
AND CLONAL SHOOTS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This measurement is performed by Z50% of reference standard tree species are supported 1.0
a visual assessment of propagule by propagules.
presence/absence. Regenerative
stems of the reference standard Reference standard: (see V.P: Species
canopy species are listed under Composition Table)
V.mP (Species Composition).
Between 25% and 50% of the reference standard 0.5
forest canopy is supported by propagules.
Between 1% and 25% of the reference standard forest 0.1
canopy is supported by propagules.
Seedlings, saplings, and clonal shoots are absent or 0
non-native.
34.0 V,di,„: RETAINED SEDIMENTS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The site is walked and visually Retained silt and clay size sediments similar to the reference 1.0
evaluated perpendicular to the standard.
primary channel (from the outer
edge of floodplain to the stream Reference Standard: Thin coatings of silts and/or clays
channel. Silt and clay size cover a majority of leaf litter, live stem, and woody debris
sediments are evaluated for surfaces. Recent sediments comprise thin layers or coatings
character, thickness, and compared originating from mainstem overbank flow and secondary
to the reference standard. channel flow. Thick layers (2 0.5 in) of predominantly silt
size sediments are not evident in the reference standard.
Fine grained sands represent a majority of surface layers
near the stream channel and decrease in quantity away from
the channel. However, fine grand sands appear to persist
throughout the floodplain in the reference standard
Retained silt and clay size sediments somewhat dissimilar to 0.5
the reference standard. Evidence of decreases in sediment
transport or accelerated rates of deposition evident.
Retained silt and clay size sediments substantially altered 0.1
relative to the reference standard Evidence of sediment
coatings absent or accelerated rates of sedimentation
affecting surface microtopography.
Hydrologic alterations eliminate variable 0
I-23
35.0 " Vsnrb: DENSITY OF THE SHRUB LAYER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Shrub layer density is measured by Shrub layer density is between 75% and 125% of the 1.0
the plot sample method and by a reference standard.
visual estimate of % cover. In plot
samples, the frequency of stems in Reference Standard: 180 stems/ac (20% cover)
the shrub layer (s 4.5 in DBH, z Shrub layer density is between 25% and 75% or 125% and 0.5
4.5 ft tall) is recorded and estimated 200% o
of the reference standard
on a per ac basis.

Shrub layer density below 25% or z 200% of the reference 0.1
standard, restoration possible.
Shrub layer density s 25% or 2200% of the reference 0
standard, restoration not possible.
36.0 Vs„a : FREQUENCY OF STANDING DEAD TREES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The frequency of standing dead Density of standing dead trees is 275% and s 125%0 1.0
trees (2 4 in DBH) is measured of the reference standard (similar in frequency to the
within random sample plots. The standard).
frequency is calculated on a per ac
basis. Reference Standard: 22 snags/ac (frequent)
The frequency of standing dead Density of standing dead trees is between 25% and 0.5
trees is also visually estimated as 0) 75% or 125% and 175% of the reference standard.
extensive (pronounced mortality). 1)

frequent; 2) moderate; 3) few; and Density of standing dead trees is between 0% and 0.1
4) none, for general assessment 25% or 2 175% of the reference standard; restoration
methods. possible.
Trees not present on site; restoration not possible. 0
I-24

1

1

t

u
1

37.0 Vst,,?,: NUMBER-AND ATTRIBUTES OF VERTICAL STRATA
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Sites are visually evaluated and Number and relative density of vertical strata is 1.0
compared to the reference standard similar to reference forest standard
for the presence and relative density
of each strata. Mature, nonriverine Reference Standard:
forested wetlands are considered to canopy: 80%
have five vertical strata of forest subcanopy: 10%
vegetation present for variable midstory: 30%
measurement. shrub layer: 20%
1) canopy groundcover: 50%
2) subcanopy (z 30 ft) One stratum is absent or severely diminished relative 0.75
3) midstory (10-30 ft) to the reference stratum.
4) shrub layer (3-10 ft)

5) groundcover (s 3 ft) Two strata are absent or severely diminished relative 0.5
to the reference standard.
Three strata are absent or severely diminished relative 0.25
to the reference standard.
Four or more strata are absent or severely diminished 0.1
relative to the reference standard.
Native vegetation has been removed or severely 0
depleted.
I-25
38.0 Vs„ b;a: SUBSURFACE FLOW FROM UPLANDS INTO WETLAND
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Upland riparian zones immediately Reference Standard: Seeps present at edge of wetland 1.0
adjacent to the wetland are walked along the outer floodplain fringe (or) vegetation growing
and visually surveyed for condition during dormant season or drought (i.e., wet soils support
relative to subsurface flow. vegetation). Upland riparian zones exhibit no indications of
Subsequently, wetlands along the overland runoff away from natural feeder stream channels
outer floodplain are walked and (ditches are not constructed away from natural channels to
assessed for groundwater discharge convey groundwater as contrived surface water). Upland
function. riparian zones are forested along the toe slopes immediately
adjacent to the wetland and appear to promote infiltration of
runoff before entry into the wetland.
Overland runoff from adjacent uplands, constructed ditches, 0.5
or ditched streams appears to have altered subsurface flow
patterns within the outer floodplain Seeps perpendicular to
the primary channel appear to have been effected; however,
the feature remains in a reduced condition relative to the
reference standard.
Seeps along the outer floodplain absent. Riparian 0.1
groundwater discharge appears to have been replaced by
overland runoff from adjacent uplands and ditch
construction through the floodplain, or other hydrological
alteration; restoration possible.
Seeps along the outer floodplain absent. Riparian 0
groundwater discharge appears to have been replaced by
overland runoff from adjacent uplands and ditch
construction through the floodplain, or other hydrological
alteration; restoration not possible.
139.0 Vt; : PRESENCE OF TIP MOUNDS
.
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: Tip mounds with exposed soil 1.0
walking the site and visually surfaces present intermittently. Grass or fern cover
assessing the presence of tip may dominate the exposed areas.
mounds with exposed soil surfaces
as a micro-habitat component on
No tip mounds present, trees 12 in DBH or greater
0.5
the site. The presence of any tip present on the site.
mounds on the site is considered an No tip mounds present, no trees 12 in DBH or greater 0.1
indication of sustainable provision on the site, restoration possible.
of the micro-habitat
.
Fo trees present on the site, restoration not possible. 0
1-26

n

APPENDIX J
REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT MODEL
INTERSTREAM DIVIDE, MINERAL SOIL FLAT HARDWOOD FOREST, MINERAL
SOIL FLAT PINE FOREST, AND ORGANIC SOIL DEPRESSION PINE FOREST

1

1
1
REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Definition of Function and Functional Capacity Index Formula
Interstream Divide Wetlands
1.0 STORE SURFACE WATER OVER SHORT TERM'
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to pond surface water originating from r
precipitation or internal flow processes for relatively short periods of time (<
I week).
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (Vdkch + V.dperm)/2
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = (• ditch + Vsurfperm)/2
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = l • diteh + Vsurfperm)/2
2.0 STORE SURFACE WATER OVER LONG TERM
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to pond surface water originating from =J1
precipitation or internal flow processes for relatively long periods of time (>
I week). I
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = Vd;te,, if ditches are present on-site.
= (Vditeh + Vwater + V.. + Vunveg + Vmicro)/5 if ditches are not present on-site.
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = Vditeh if ditches are present on-site.
= (Vditeh + Vwater + V... + Vuaveg + Vmicro)/5 if ditches are not present on-site.
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX= Vditeh if ditches are present on-site.
= / l r ditch + Vwater + Vmm + Vu„vg + Vmi?ra)/5 if ditches are not present on-site.
3.0 STORE SUBSURFACE WATER OVER LONG TERM
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain groundwater storage capacity for
relatively long periods of time.
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = Vditeh if ditches are present on-site. '
(Vditeh + Vredox + Vpore + Ve/t)14, if ditches are not present on-site.
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = Vditeh if ditches are present on-site.
(r ditch + Vredox + Vpore + V,,,}/4, if ditches are not present on-site.
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = Vditeh if ditches are present on-site.
(Vditeh + Vredox + Vpore + V,/,)/4, if ditches are not present on-site.
Wetland Functions, variables, reference standards, and terminology adapted from project data,
Brinson et al. (1995), Rheinhardt et al. (unpublished), Workshop on Depressional Wetlands (July
1995, unpublished), EST 1994, and EST 1995.
J-1
1 4.0 MAINTAIN CHARACTERISTIC GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
DISCHARGES
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain characteristic groundwater
discharge/recharge dynamics. Characteristics include discharge of water
through radial, semi-radial or vertical groundwater flow towards downslope
first order streams in lower landscape areas (Figure 3-1).
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (Vditeb + Vontlets)/2
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = (Vditeb + Vo„t,J/2
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = (Vditcb + Voutlets)/2
1 5.0 RECYCLE NUTRIENTS AND NONESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Definition: Nonriverine wetlands recycle nutrients and elements primarily through
uptake in living vegetation and decomposition processes. The capacity to
maintain characteristic nutrient cycling is associated with net primary
productivity in various components of living vegetation, and detrital storage
and turnover in various components of dead vegetation and in soils
(Rheinhardt et al., unpublished).
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (r btree + Vstrata + Vlitter + VS179g + (V? + V,g?/2)/5
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = (Vbtree + Vstrata + Vtitter + Vsnag + (Vewd + V,ogy)/2)/5
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = (V g + Vbtree + (N strata + Vlitter + Vsna)/3 + (V? + V,g?/2)/4
6.0 MAINTAIN CHARACTERISTIC PLANT COMMUNITY
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain species composition and regenerative
dynamics necessary to sustain the natural wetland community.
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (Vromp + Vregen + V.nopy + ( dtree + Vbtree)/2)/4
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = (Veomp + Vregen + Veanopy + (Vdtree + Vbtree]/2)/4
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = l • comp + Vregen + Veanopy + (V dtree + Vbtree)/2)/4
7.0 MAINTAIN CHARACTERISTIC DETRITAL BIOMASS
Definition: Nonriverine wetlands maintain substantial stocks of detrital biomass as a
foundation for the wetland food web. The capacity to maintain characteristic
invertebrate species populations and nutrients for vegetation is dependent on
the distribution and abundance of stocks of detrital biomass.
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (Vsnag +Vlitter + (• cwd + V,ogs)/2)/3
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = (Vsnag + Vlitter + (' rwd + V,ogs)/2)/3
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = (V ,g + (Vsnag + Vlitter)/2 + (r ewd t' V,og,)/2)/3
J-2
8.0 MAINTAIN SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF HABITAT

Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain structural micro- and macro-habitat
variability needed to sustain wildlife communities.
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX =
(V snag + Vmature + vpoots + Vgaps + Va., + Vg- .W0 + Vtip + (Vcwd + Vlogs)/2)/g
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX =
snag + Vmature + Vpools + Vgaps + Vstrata + Vtip + (•cwd + Vtov)/2)/7
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX =
(• snag + Vmature + Vpools + Vgaps + Yam. + Vtip + (V cwd + Vlogy)/2)/7
9.0 MAINTAIN INTERSPERSION AND CONNECTIVITY AMONG WETLAND
CLASSES AND WETLAND/UPLAND ECOTONAL HABITAT
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain functioning linkages between wetland
habitat areas, wetland/upland ecotonal habitat, and associated hydrologic
pathways. Wetland habitat areas may include landscape-level diversity
within the nonriverine wetland site and connectivity between the interstream
divide, abutting slope wetlands, uplands, and downslope riverine forest
corridors.
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (Vnydcon + Veontig + Vpatch)/3
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = (Vhydcon + Vcontig + Vpatch)/3
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = (• hydcon + Vcontig + Vpatch)/3
10.0 MAINTAIN THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF VERTEBRATES
Definition: The capacity of a wetland to maintain viable species populations of herptiles,
resident and migratory birds, and mammals.
MSF HARDWOOD FOREST INDEX = (Vherp + Vbird l+ VmammaJ/3
MSF PINE FOREST INDEX = l harp + Vbi,d + VmammalJ/3
OSD PINE FOREST INDEX = (Vherp + Vbird + VmammaP
J-3
A
1
A
A
1
1
I
1
1

REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
Field Variables, Method of Measurement, and Measure Relative to the Reference Standard
Interstream Divide Wetlands
1.0 Vbird: DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF RESIDENT
AND MIGRATORY BIRDS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Sightings and indications of birds similar to the 1.0
walking the site and visually reference standard.
sighting or hearing diagnostic bird
species listed in the following table. Reference Standard:
Supplemental information may also
be applied to infer presence of MSF Hardwood Forest: Two or more
diagnostic bird species. identifications listed in the following table.
MSF Pine Forest: Two or more identifications listed
in the following table.
OSD Pine Forest: Two or more identifications listed
in the following table.
Bird calls represent the primary mechanism for bird
identification in reference standard sites.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic bird species 0.5
substantially reduced relative to the reference
standard. Limited or degraded habitat typically
appears available.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic bird species 0.1
absent, heavily degraded habitat may occur, natural
vegetation remains on the site.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic bird species 0
absent, natural vegetation has been removed from the
site.
1.1 DIAGNOSTIC BIRD SPECIES
INTERSTREAM DIVIDE WETLANDS
Black-throated Green Warbler Chuck-will's-widow Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Wood Pewee Great Crested Flycatcher Great Horned Owl
Green Heron Hooded Warbler Pileated Woodpecker
Prothonotary Warbler Red-cockaded Woodpecker Screech Owl
Summer Tanager Swainson's Warbler White-eyed Vireo
Wood Thrush Worm-eating Warbler Yellow-billed Cuckoo
J-4
2.0 Vht.,,: TREE BASAL AREA
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Tree basal area is measured within The measure of basal area is,! 75% of the reference 1.0
random sample plots. Diameter standard.
breast high (DBH) is recorded by
species and basal area calculated on Reference Standard:
a ft /ac scale. MSF Hardwood Forest: 169 ft2/ac
MSF Pine Forest: 72 ft /ac
OSD Pine Forest: 124 111/ac
The measure of basal area is between 25% and 75% 0.5
of the reference standard.
The measure of basal area is between 01/o and 25% of 0.1
the reference standard, restoration possible.
F e measure of basal area is 0% of the reference 0
ndard, restoration not possible.
13.0 Veana : CANOPY COVER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard in' dex
This variable is measured by The estimate of canopy cover is z 75% of the 1.0
walking the site and visually reference standard
estimating the % cover of the sky
by leaves in the canopy. Reference Standard:
MSF Hardwood Forest: 80% canopy cover
MSF Pine Forest: 60% canopy cover
OSD Pine Forest: 80% canopy cover
The estimate of canopy cover is between 25% and 0.5
75% of the reference standard
The estimate of canopy cover is between I% and 25% 0.1
of the reference standard.
Fcanopy cover is absent. 0
J-5

11

I

1
1

I
1
4.0 Vcomp= SPECIES COMPOSITION FOR TREE,
SHRUB, AND HERB LAYERS
Method of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured within At least 50% of the reference standard tree species 1.0
random sample plots. The tree and occur on the site. For MSF and OSD pine forest, at
shrub/sapling strata are identified to least 75% of trees must consist of reference standard
species with frequency and species.
diameter breast high (DBH)
recorded. Low shrubs, herbs, Reference Standard:. The following table depicts
mosses, and grasses in the plots are reference standard species composition by interstream
identified to species. A list of wetland subclass.
species present and observed
estimates of dominance by strata Between 25% and 50% of the reference standard tree 0.5
may also be used. species occur on the site. For MSF and OSD pine
forest, between 25%° and 75% of trees consist of
reference standard species.
Between 1% and 25% of the reference standard tree 0.1
species occur on the site.
No species tabulated occur on the reference standard 0
sites.
J-6

TABLE
INTERSTREAM DMDE MINERAL SOIL FLATS AND ORGANIC SOIL DEPRESSIONS
Reference Standard Species Composition and Importance Values
MSF Hardwood Forest
4.1 MSF Hardwood Forest
Species Rel. Species Re[ Species Rel
Import Import Import
Value Value Value
Trees (2 4 in DBH)
Nyssa biflora 19 Quercus michauxii 16 Liquidambar styraciflua 14
Acer rubrum 12 Liriodendron tulipifera 11 Quercus laurifolia I 1
Quercus phellos 6 Ilex opaca 5 Magnolia virginiana 2
Quercus nigra I Pinus taeda 1 Gordonia iasianthus I
Taxodium distichum 1 Persea palustris I Quercus lyrata
Fagus grandifolia
Shrubs and Saplings (5 4 in DBH; Z 4.5 ft tall)
Ilex opaca 31 Acer rubrum 24 Liquidambar styraciflua 10
Vaccinium corymbosum 7 Quercus michauxii 7 Magnolia virginiana 5
Symplocus tinctoria 3 Persea palustris 4 Clethra alnifolia 2
Nyssa biflora 2 Gordonia lasianthus 1 Fagus grandifolia I
Cyrilla racemiflora I Quercus nigra I Rhododendron nudiflorum ---
Carpinus carolineana --- Quercus laurifolia -- Quercus lyrata -
Low Shrubs, Seedlings, and Herbs (5 4.5 ft tall) (Order of Importance - top to bottom)
Smilax rotundifolia Persea palustris Woodwardia aereolata Mitchella repens
Osmunda cinnamomea Symplocus tinctoria Vitis rotundifolia Acer rubrum
Clethra alnifolia Leucothoe axillaris Quercus michauxii Toxicodendron radicans
Ilex opaca Quercus nigra Osmunda regalis Quercus lyrata
Athyrium asplenioides Euonymus americana Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus laurifolia
Vaccinium corymbosum Bignonia capreolata Gelsemium sempervirens Morus rubra
Myrica cerifera Nyssa biflora Parthenocissus quinquefolia Pinus serotina
Quercus phellos Smilax bona-nox Tipularia bicolor Woodwardia virginica
Arisaema triphyllum Boehmeria cylindrica Campsis radicans Carpinus carolineana
Decumaria barbara Fagus grandifolia Hypericum spp. Ilex glabra
Itea virginica Liriodendron tulipifera Lyonia lucida Magnolia virginiana
J-7
i

I TABLE
INTERSTREAM DIVIDE MINERAL SOIL FLATS AND ORGANIC SOIL DEPRESSIONS

Reference Standard Species Composition and Importance Values
MSF Pine Forest
4.2 MSF Pine Forest
Species Rel.
Import
Value Species Rel
Import
Value Species Rel
Import
Value
Trees (2 4 in DBH)
Pinus palustris 39 Pinus serotina 33 Pinus taeda 25
Acer rubrum 3 Nyssa sylvatica i Liquidambar styraciflua 1
Shrubs and Saplings (5 4 in DBH; 2 4.5 ft tall)
Ilex glabra 19 Vaccinium corymbosum 12 Magnolia virginiana 12
Ilex coriaceae 12 Cyrilla racemiflora 10 Persea Palustris 7
Liquidambar styraciflua 7 Clethra alnifolia 5 Lyonia lucida 5
Gordonia lasianthus 4 Pinus palustris 4 Acer rubrum 1
Myrica heterophylla 1 Quercus nigra 1 Rhus copallina 2
Baccharis halimifolia 1 Sassafras albidum Sympiocus tinctoria
Myrica cerifera -- Pinus taeda
Low Shrubs, Seedlings, and Herbs (S 4.5 ft tall) (presence)
Acer rubrum Aristida stricta Arundinaria gigantea Carex sp.
Clethra alnifolia Gaylussacia dumosa Ilex coriaceae Ilex glabra
Ilex opaca Itea virginica Liquidambar styraciflua Lyonia tucida
Magnolia virginiana Myrica cerifera Osmunda cinnamomea Persea palustris
Pinus serotina Pteridium aquilinum Rhododendron nudiflorum Sassafras albidum
Smilax glauca Smilax rotundifolia Smilax bona-nox Symplocus tinctoria
Toxicodendron radicans Vaccinium corymbosum
J-8
?J
TABLE
INTERSTREAM DIVIDE MINERAL SOIL FLATS AND ORGANIC SOIL DEPRESSIONS
Reference Standard Species Composition and Importance Values
OSD Pine Forest
4.3 OSD Pine Forest
Species Rel.
Import
Value Species Re[
Import
Value Species Re[
Import
Value
Trees (Z 4 in DBH)
Pinus serotina 38 Gordonia lasianthus 58 Acer rubrum 2
Persea palustris I Magnolia virginiana I
Shrubs and Saplings (5 4 in DBH; 2 4.5 ft tall)
Gordonia lasianthus Acer rubrum Persea palustris
Magnolia virginiana Ilex coriaceae Vaccinium corymbosum
Low Shrubs, Seedlings, and Herbs (S 4.5 ft tall) (Order of Importance - top to bottom)
Gordonia lasianthus Lyonia lucida Pinus serotina Ilex coriaceae
Osmunda cinnamomea Arundinaria gigantea Vaccinium corymbosum Acer rubrum
Osmunda regalis Woodwardia virginica Ilex glabra Itea virginica
Magnolia virginiana
J-9

1

5.0 V,,oobg: CONTIGUOUS VEGETATION COVER AND/OR CORRIDORS
BETWEEN WETLAND AND UPLAND AND BETWEEN WETLAND CLASSES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Vegetation cover and corridors similar to the 1.0
walking the area and visually reference standard.
assessing the presence of
contiguous vegetation cover Reference Standard: Vegetation cover present
between wetlands, uplands, and within the interstream wetland site, along abutting,
wetland classes. Aerial uplands, slope wetlands, or riverine wetlands adjacent
photography, soil mapping, and to a stream channel. The stream channel also
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) represents a forested corridor into the upper or lower
topographic mapping supplements watershed.
the field investigation.
Vegetation cover and corridors substantially reduced
0.5
relative to the reference standard.
Vegetation cover and corridors considered absent 0.1
relative to the reference standard. The site is isolated
from other forests by alternative land uses, restoration
or enhancement of connectivity possible.
Vegetation cover and corridors considered absent 0
relative to the reference standard. The site is isolated
from other forests by alternative land uses, restoration
or enhancement of connectivity not possible.
6.0 VM,d: COARSE WOODY DEBRIS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The frequency of woody stems Density of coarse woody debris 2:75% and s 125% of 1.0
greater than 4 in DBH is measured the reference standard. Forest canopy remains.
within random sample plots. The
frequency is calculated on a per ac Reference Standard:
basis. MSF Hardwood Forest: 42/ac (frequent)
MSF Pine Forest: 8/ac (moderate)
The frequency of coarse woody OSD Pine Forest: 31/ac (frequent)
debris is also visually estimated as
1) frequent (reference standard:
Density of coarse woody debris between 25%-75% or
0.5
MSF Hardwood Forest and OSD 125%-175% of the reference standard.
Pine Forest); 2) moderate (reference
standard: MSF Pine Forest); 3) few; Density of coarse woody debris between 0% and 25% 0.1
and 4) none. or z 175% of the reference standard, natural
vegetation remains on the site.
No woody debris present, natural vegetation 0
permanently removed.
J-10
7.0 Vdita: PRESENCE OF DITCHES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The variable is measured by Reference Standard: Ditches absent both within or near 1.0
walking the area and the site.
recording/mapping ditch
observations on or nearby to the
site. Ditches considered "on-site" Ditches absent within the site but present nearby. 0.5
are generally required to be 300 ft
from the observation point. Ditches
considered "nearby" are generally Ditches present within the site, manipulations to prevent 0.1
required to be within 1000 ft (MSF drainage possible.
subclasses) or 600 ft (OSD
The size or
lasses) of the site
b
.
su
c
arrangement of ditches may also be Ditches present within the site, manipulations to prevent 0
considered in extenuating drainage not possible.
circumstances.
8.0 Vdtree: TREE DENSITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Measurement is undertaken within The measured density of tree stems is z 75% and less 1.0
random sample plots on the site. than 125% of the reference standard.
Tree density is calculated on a per
ac basis and compared to the Reference Standard:
reference standard. MSF Hardwood Forest: 204 trees/ac
MSF Pine Forest: 104 trees/ac
OSD Pine Forest: 320 trees/ac (110 pine stems/ ac;
210 bay stems/ac)
The measured density of tree stems is between 25% 0.5
and 75% or between 125% and 200% of the reference
standard.
The measured density of tree stems is between 0% 0.1
and 25% or greater than 200% of the reference
standard with restoration possible.
No trees are present, restoration not possible. 0
J-1 I

L

A

1

1
9.0 V«: - EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (EfD RATES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Evapotranspiration (EfD rates are Estimated E/T similar to the reference standard. 1.0
dependent upon the stage of
succession and the type of Reference Standard:
community present. MSF Hardwood Forest: steady-state
MSF Pine Forest: steady-state
This variable is measured by OSD Pine Forest: steady-state
identifying the stage of succession
or level of disturbance to MSF Hardwood Forest: mid-successional 0.75
vegetation. For forested systems. MSF Pine Forest: mid-successional
successional stages are classified as: OSD Pine Forest: mid-successional
1) cut-over, 2) early successional; MSF Hardwood Forest: transitional 0.5
3) transitional; 4) mid-successional; MSF Pine Forest: transitional
or 5) steady-state (reference OSD Pine Forest: transitional
standard).

MSF Hardwood Forest: early successional or cut 0.25
over
MSF Pine Forest: early successional or cut over
OSD Pine Forest: early successional or cut over
MSF Hardwood Forest: cleared 0.1
MSF Pine Forest: cleared
OSD Pine Forest: cleared
restoration possible.
MSF Hardwood Forest: cleared 0
MSF Pine Forest: cleared
OSD Pine Forest: cleared
restoration not possible.
J-12
10.0 V : PRESENCE OF CANOPY GAPS DUE TO TREE FALL
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: 1.0
walking the site and determining MSF Hardwood Forest: Canopy gaps due to tree
the presence of canopy gaps due to fall present or gap management (food plots) have
tree fall. The site is classified as 1) been established within the forested system.
characteristic canopy gaps present; MSF Pine Forest: Canopy gaps due to tree fall
2) canopy gaps relatively lacking present or gap management (food plots) have been
but forest structure may be - . . established within the forested system.
available to promote or manage for OSD Pine Forest: Canopy gaps due to tree fall
the feature; and 3) canopy gaps due present or gap management (food plots) have been
to tree fall absent with no potential established within the forested system.
for short term gap management.
Small food plots in managed forest
Tree fall gaps or gap management absent but forest
0.5
are considered to mimic tree fall structure is available to promote or manage the
gap functions in the habitat feature.
lex
com
.
p
Tree fall gaps absent with no potential for gap 0.1
management, natural vegetation remains on the site.
Tree fall gaps absent with no potential for gap 0
management, natural vegetation has been removed
from the site.
J-13

t

n
11

t

11.0 V -c,vit,: ABUNDANCE OF NEAR-GROUND NESTING CAVITIES IN TREES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
For hardwood forest systems, the Abundance of near-ground cavities in trees similar to 1.0
variable is measured by walking the the reference standard (MSF hardwood forest only).
site and visually assessing the
abundance of near-ground cavities Reference Standard:
in trees. If the lower bole or butt- MSF Hardwood Forest: Near ground cavities
swell contains deep fissures, relatively abundant and well developed in trees
hollows, or attached decaying throughout the wetland.
hollows, a cavity is presumed.
Abundance of near-ground cavities in trees 0.5
For pine forest classes, the variable substantially less than the reference standard, or trees
is removed from the functional are beginning to develop fissures and small hollows
indices. Near ground cavities in that will support cavities in the future, or trees 12 in
trees may occur infrequently in DBH or greater present on the site.
scattered hardwood stems (canopy No near ground cavities present and trees 12 in DBH 0.1
or subcanopy). However, the or greater not present on the site, natural vegetation
frequency and size of hardwood
i
stems varies widely within rema
ns.
reference standard sites. Therefore,
the variable is considered unreliable
within pine dominated systems.
No trees on the site, vegetation removed.
0
12.0 V,, ,,P: DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HERPTILES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Sightings and indications of herptiles similar to the 1.0
walking the site and visually reference standard.
sighting or identifying indications
of herptiie activity. Indications Reference Standard: Indication of three or more
may include calls, larval forms, species present. During spring and early summer,
skins, egg masses, tracks, and sightings, calls, and larval forms are common. Egg
skeletons. masses and tadpoles are typically throughout
depressional pools. During summer and early fall,
This variable is difficult to evaluate calls, larval forms, and occasional sightings are
during the winter months. If typical within reference standard sites.
evaluations are performed in the
winter or time does not allow Sightings and indications of herptiles substantially 0.5
prolonged site analysis, this reduced relative to the reference standard. Limited or
variable is removed from the degraded habitat typically appears available.
model.
Sightings and indications of herptiles absent relative
0.1
to the reference standard, natural vegetation remains
on the site.
Sightings and indications of herptiles absent relative 0
to the reference standard, natural vegetation has been
removed
J-14
13.0 Vhyd..: SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE HYDRAULIC CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN THE INTERSTREAM FLAT WETLAND, SLOPE WETLANDS,
RIPARIAN AREAS, AND/OR STREAM CHANNELS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Hydrologic pathways similar to the reference 1.0
walking the area and visually standard.
assessing the presence/absence of
ditches, constructed outlets, Reference Standard: Constructed outlets and
channe&ed streams, or intensive ditching is not present on or nearby to the interstream
land uses which may have altered wetland site. Natural streams channels occur in
the character and connectivity of downslope areas away from the wetland classes.
hydrologic pathways. Aerial Forested slope wetlands, riverine wetlands, or
photography, soil mapping, and forested uplands typically reside between the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) interstream wetland site and the natural first order
topographic mapping supplements stream.

the field investigation.
Hydrologic pathways have been altered somewhat
0.5
relative to the reference standard. Ditches occur near
the site, or outlets have been constructed between the
wetland edge and the stream channel, or the
downslope stream has been channelized. A
combination of these features typically occurs around
interstream divide wetlands isolated by agricultural
land uses.
Hydrologic pathways have been substantially altered 0.1
relative to the reference standard. Outlets have been
constructed and connected to parallel ditch networks
on or nearby to the site and the downslope stream has
been channelized, restoration or enhancement of
connectivity possible.
Hydrologic pathways have been substantially altered 0
relative to the reference standard. Outlets have been
constructed and connected to parallel ditch networks
on or nearby to the site and the downslope stream has
been channelized, restoration or enhancement of
connectivity not possible.
J-15

1

n

1

1

11
1
t

e

14.0 Vlitter' THICKNESS OF THE LITTER LAYER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Measurements are taken randomly Litter layer thickness is 2 75% of the reference 1.0
across the site by scraping back the standard
litter to the soil surface and
recording the thickness. An Reference Standard:
average thickness is calculated from MSF Hardwood Forest: 2 in
20 or more measurements. MSF Pine Forest: 4 in
OSD Pine Forest: 6 in
Litter layer thickness is between 50% and 75% of the 0.75
reference standard
Litter layer thickness is between 25% and 50% of the 0.5
reference standard.
Litter layer thickness is between 0% and 25% of the 0.1
reference standard.
Litter layer not present, native vegetation removed 0
115.0 VI. g,: STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION OF COARSE WOODY DEBRIS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The assessment site is walked and Stages of decomposition equivalent to the reference 1.0
visually evaluated for the presence/ standard.
absence of decomposition stages
relative to the reference standard. Reference Standard:
Coarse woody debris is classified MSF Hardwood Forest: Four distinct stages of
into four stages of decomposition: decomposition present including exposed and buried
1) Recently fallen with bark coarse woody stems.
attached. MSF Pine Forest: Four stages of decomposition
2) Partially decomposed, bark present with stages 3 and 4 partially to fully buried
falling off-or can be pulled off. under leaf litter.
3) Heavily decomposed with no OSD Pine Forest: Four distinct stages of
bark cover. decomposition present with stages 3 and 4 partially to
4) Elliptical cross-sections of logs fully buried under leaf litter.
or indications of former coarse
woody debris (most commonly
One stage of decomposition is absent
.75
elliptical cross-sections buried
under leaf litter).

Two stages of decomposition are absent 0.50
Three stages of decomposition are absent 0.1
Coarse woody debris is not present, natural 0.0
vegetation permanently removed.
J-16
16.0 Vmamma1: DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF MAMMALS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This. variable is measured by Sightings and indications of diagnostic rnammals 1.0
walking the site and visually similar to the reference standard.
sighting or identifying indications
of diagnostic mammal species Reference Standard:
(following table). Supplemental MSF Hardwood Forest: Two or more
information may also be applied to identifications listed in the following table.
infer presence of diagnostic MSF Pine Forest: Two or more. identifications listed
mammals. in the following table.
OSD Pine Forest: Two or more identifications listed
in the following table.
Activity patterns vary seasonally. Primary
indications of diagnostic species include paths, tracks,
browse patterns, scratches, and scat.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammal 0.5
species substantially reduced relative to the reference
standard. Limited or degraded habitat typically
appears available.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammal 0.1
species absent, natural vegetation remains on the site.
Sightings and indications of diagnostic mammal 0
species absent, natural vegetation has been removed
from the site.
I 16.1 INTDIAGN MAMMAL SPECIES
ERSTOREAM DIVIDE WETLANDS 11
Black bear (Ursus americanus)
Bobcat (Fells ruf is)
Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)
Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata)
Marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)
J-17

117.0 V..,.,: PRESENCE OF VERY MATURE TREES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The variable is measured within by Reference Standard: 1.0
walking the site and assessing the MSF Hardwood Forest: very mature trees greater
presence/absence of very mature than 20 in DBH are_occasional to frequent.
trees greater than 20 in DBH. MSF Pine Forest: very mature trees greater than 16
in DBH are frequent.
OSD Pine Forest: very mature trees greater than 16
in DBH are frequent.
Very mature trees are rare or absent with DBH 0.5
classes greater than 12 in present.
Very mature trees and 12+ DBH classes absent, 0.1
natural vegetation remains.
No very mature trees, natural vegetation removed 0
J-18
18.0 Vmicro' MICROTOPOGRAPHIC COMPLEXITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The measurement is performed by The frequency of microtopographic change per ac is 1.0
the plot sample method and by z 75% of the reference standard.
"Visual comparison with the
reference standard. Transect plots Reference Standard: Complex microtopography
are randomly placed on the site and with no indication of past clearing/windrowing
each topographic change is counted activities, antecedent farming, or other surface
into a 4-8 in class, an 8-12 in class, disturbance (or);
and a greater than 12 in class. The MSF Hardwood Forests:
frequency is calculated within each 4-8 inch class: 440 features/ac, (10 x 10 ft avg)
size class on a per ac basis. The 8-12 inch class: 110 features/ac (20 x 20 ft avg)
average distance between 12+ inch class: 90 features/ac (22 x 22 ft avg)
microtopographic features is also MSF Pine Forests:
calculated for visual assessment 4-8 inch class: 220 features/ac (14 x 14 ft avg)
purposes. 8-12 inch class: 40 features/ac (32 x 32 ft avg)
12+ inch class: 40 features/ac (32 x 32 ft avg)
The visual estimate, for OSD Pine Forests:
comparative purposes, rates the site 4-8 inch class: 320 features/ac (12 x 12 ft avg)
to the reference standard. on a scale 8-12 inch class: 160 features/ac (17 x 17 ft avg)
of 0 to 1 with a score of 1 12+ inch class: 110 features/ac (20 x 20 ft avg)
representing similarity to the
reference standard. A score of 0.5 The frequency of microtopographic change is 0.75
denotes a site with roughly half the between 50% and 75% of the reference standard; or,
microtopographic complexity based on visual estimates, the site supports
observed at the reference standard. moderately reduced microtopographic complexity
A value of 0.1 or 0 denotes a site due to past logging, some loss of tree induced
where microtography is negligible hummocks, and reduced topographic variations due
with restoration possible, or not to decreased buried, decaying woody material. Site
possible. preparation for tree plantation is not evident.

The frequency of microtopographic change is 0.5
between 25% and 50% of the reference standard; or,
based on visual estimates, the site supports half the
microtopographic complexity of the reference
standard. Past site prep or disturbances evident.
The frequency of microtopographic change is 0.1
between 0% and 25% of the reference standard; or,
based upon visual estimates, surface microtopography
is negligible; or active farm land, restoration possible.
The frequency of microtopographic change is 0
between 0% and 25% of the reference standard,
restoration not possible.

1

J-19

t

t

1
1
a
1
F

19.0 Vm0": MOSS COVER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The measurement is performed by Percent or area moss cover is 2 75% of the reference 1.0
the plot sample method and by standard.
visual estimation of cover.
Transects are randomly placed on Reference Standard:
the site and each area of moss cover MSF Hardwood Forest: (8% cover)
measured. The coverage is MSF Pine Forest: (3% cover)
calculated as percent of area and OSD Pine Forest: (15% cover)

compared to the reference standard.
Percent or area moss cover is between 25% and 75%
0.5
of the reference standard.
Percent or area moss cover is between 0% and 25% 0.1
of the reference standard, restoration possible.
Percent or area moss cover is between 0% and 25% 0
of the reference standard, restoration not possible.
120.0' Vrg.w -THICKNESS AND STRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIC SOIL LAYER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The thickness of the organic layer is Reference Standard: (OSD Pine Forest Only) 1.0
measured and the content of The organic soil layer extends to a depth below 30 in
undecomposed woody debris with undecomposed woody debris present

evaluated. Sites which contain
greater than 30 in of organic soil Organic soil layer somewhat depleted or altered 0.5
surface with undecomposed woody relative to the reference standard.
debris common receive a score of
1.0. Evidence of subsidence, Organic soil layer severely depleted or altered relative 0.1
windrowing, or other disturbance to the reference standard. Restoration possible.
which has resulted in substantial
decreases in organic soil stocks

receive a lower value relative to the Organic soil layer severely depleted or altered relative 0
reference standard. to the reference standard. Restoration not possible.
J-20
21.0 Vontlea• WETLAND OUTLETS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: Constructed outlets do not 1.0
walking the area and visually occur (see following figure). First order streams
assessing the presence/absence of typically occur in downslope areas away from the
constructed outlets, perpendicular interstream wetland classes. Forested slope wetlands,
to the site, which extend to the riverine wetlands or forested uplands reside between
wetland edge (see following the interstream classes and the natural first order
figure). Aerial photography, soil stream.
mapping, and U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic
Outlets have been constructed to the wetland edge.
0.5
mapping supplements the field These outlets are not interconnected with parallel
investigation. ditches intended to drain portions of the interstream
wetland. Wetland hydrology remains on the site.
Outlets have been constructed and connect to parallel 0.1
ditch networks on or nearby to the site, restoration
possible.
Outlets have been constructed and connect to parallel 0
ditch networks on or nearby to the site, restoration not
possible.
J-21

11

(I
A

a
1
a
0
U
Q
0
iz:
0
E5
W

Interstream Flat
? 1 S J• Y j
/F
W
tla
d Gl
e
'
-
e
{
n
ass
s
orest
d)
'.? !. «4 SRI .f'F ?•(? i. Y{'rk` ?. 5i S 4t' Kv l f?')

Vditch a ?, .A Y

Ditches ?••

- - - - '•
Agricultural ?•.
,
•. Land
.__. / Constructed •,
.. ?- Outlets --_ _? •,
voutlet --..? : ?•
Channelized
1st Order
'
Streams
.

, . i 2nd Order Stream . • `' . _`
/

FIGURE:
North Carolina
Depiction of the Difference Between
Global TransPark V
d V
,,,,, an
im,
Interstream Flats Wetland Classes
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DATE:
22.0 V a,,fi: VEGETATION PATCHINESS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The variable is measured by the Vegetation patchiness similar to the reference 1.0
linear transect method and by standard or measures z 75% similarity in the
review of vegetation mapping, frequency of vegetation change relative to the
aerial photography, or community reference standard.
patterns observed in the field.
Random transects are placed on the Reference Standard:
site and the frequency and character MSF Hardwood Forest: 0.020/ft (50 ft patch avg)
of vegetation change recorded. MSF Pine Forest: 0.009/ft (110 ft patch avg)
OSD Pine Forest: 0.014/ft (70 ft patch avg)
Landscape heterogeneity in
vegetation gradients is also Vegetation patchiness somewhat less than the 0.5
evaluated through visual reference standard or measures between 25% and
comparison with the reference 75% similarity in the frequency of vegetation change
standard. The visual estimate of relative to the reference standard.
vegetation patchiness, for
comparative purposes, rates the site
to the reference standard on a scale
of 0 to 1 with a score of I Vegetation patchiness substantially less than the 0.1
representing similarity to the reference standard or measures between 0% and 25%
reference standard. A score of 0.5 similarity in the frequency of vegetation change
denoted a site with approximately relative to the reference standard, restoration possible.
half the vegetation patchiness
observed at the reference standard

sites. A value of 0.1 or 0 denotes a
site where vegetation patchiness is Vegetation patchiness absent, restoration not possible. 0
negligible, with restoration
possible, or not possible.
J-23

1
A
1

1

r

123.0 V p.,,: PRESENCE OF EPHEMERAL POOLS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Ephemeral pools or indications of relatively large 1.0
walking the site and determining unvegetated depressions are evident on the site,
the presence of depressions which relative to indications in the reference standard.
support or may support ephemeral
pools of standing water. During Reference Standard:
summer or fall months when pools MSF Hardwood Forest: Ephemeral pools occur
are dry, the variable can be assessed intermittently and contain egg masses or tadpoles
by evaluating the presence of during early spring. Green heron (Butorides striatus)
relatively large unvegetated and possibly other diagnostic species appear to
depressions (V, nv,.,) with indications frequent these pools during spring months.
of stained leaf litter, amphibian MSF Pine Forest: Ephemeral pools are rare and
reproduction, and periodic standing support relatively small grass and sedge dominated
water. inclusions within the characteristic shrub dominated
understory.
OSD Pine Forest: Ephemeral ponding is common to
intermittent within microtopographic lows scattered
throughout the sites. Small depressions contain egg
masses or tadpoles during early spring. Green heron
(Butorides striatus) and possibly other diagnostic
species appear to frequent these pools during spring
months.
Evidence of ephemeral pools or unvegetated 0.5
depressions substantially less than the reference
standard. Disturbance noted.
No evidence of ephemeral pools or unvegetated 0.1
depressions present. Disturbance noted. Restoration
possible.
No evidence of ephemeral pools or unvegetated 0
depressions present. Disturbance noted. Restoration
not possible.
J-24
124.0 V ore• SOIL POROSITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Texture or permeability of the defined control section 1.0
collecting random soil samples and similar to the reference standard (following table).
identifying texture of the control
section at various locations. The Reference Standard:
control section is generally assumed MSF Hardwood Forest: 0.0443 in/hr (sandy clay
at 24 in depth. NRCS soil mapping to silt loam)
and soil series texture may be MSF Pine Forest: 0.3-9.4 in/hr (sandy clay loam to
referenced to supplement the field sand)
investigation. The NRCS soil OSD Pine Forest: 0.06-0.2 in/hr (muck)
survey mapping should be

confirmed in the field when
utilizing soil series descriptions for
texture determination. Subsurface texture or permeability somewhat
dissimilar to the reference standard. 0.5
Subsurface texture or permeability substantially 0.1
different to the reference standard, restoration
possible.
Subsurface texture is substantially different to the 0
reference standard, restoration not possible.
J-25

11

r
1
1
1
1
1
F
f
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE
MINERAL/ORGANIC SOIL FLATS AND DEPRESSIONS
Subsurface Texture and Assumed Permeability Rates by Texture Class and Soil Series
Within the Reference Wetland Data Set
24.1 Permeability Estimate by Soil Sample
Soil Surface Texture r Soil Surface Permeability
(in/hr)
Sand x 9.4
Loamy Sand 2.4
Sandy Loam 0.9
Loam 0.5
Silt Loam 0.3
Sandy Clay Loam 0.1
Clay Loam 0.08
Silty Clay Loam 0.08
Sandy Clay
x 0.04
Silty Clay 0.04
Clay 0.04
Muck 0.04
Permeability Estimate By Soil Series Designation
Soil Series USDA Taxonomy B-Horizon Texture B-Horizon Permeability
(in/hr)
Leon Aeric Haplaquods Loamy Sand 2.0-6.0
Murville Typic Haplaquods Loamy Fine Sand 2.0-6.0
Woodington Typic Paleaquults Sandy Loam 2.0-6.0
Torhunta Typic Humaquepts Sandy Loam 2.0-6.0
Rains Typic Paleaquults Sandy Clay Loam 0.6-2.0
Pantego Umbric Paleaquults Sandy Clay Loam 0.6-2.0
Deloss Typic Umbraquults Sandy Clay Loam 0.6-2.0
Coxville Typic Paleaquults Clay Loam 0.2-0.6
Bayboro Umbric Paleaquults Sandy Clay 0.06-0.2
Byars Umbric Paleaquults Silty Clay 0.06-0.2
Roanoke Typic Ochraquults Clay, Clay Loam 0.06-0.2
Leaf Typic Albaquults Clay Loam 0.06-0.2
Croatan Terric Medisaprists Muck 0.06-0.2 (O horizon to 28 in)
J-26
25.0 Vredox• SOIL REDOXYMORPHIC FEATURES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Soil redoxymorphic features (mottling, organic 1.0
collecting random soil samples and matter, oxidized root channels [rhizospheres]) similar
comparing the samples to reference. to the reference standard.
In most instances, the presence of
bright mottles, concretions, Reference Standard:
rhizosphere oxidations, or organic MSF Hardwood Forest: Soil redoxymorphic
matter accumulation is assigned a features present include oxidized rhizospheres, bright
value of 1.0. The absence of ' mottles, and/or concretions.
redoxymorphic features is assigned MSF Pine Forest: Soil redoxymorphic features
a value of 0. 1, if there is potential present include oxidized rhizospheres, bright mottles,
for recovery. and/or concretions.
OSD Pine Forest: Thick organic matter
accumulations containing undecomposed woody
debris, no evidence of subsidence.
Soil redoxymorphic features less evident or altered 0.5
relative to the reference standard.
Soil redoxymorphic features absent, restoration 0.1
possible.
Soil redoxymorphic features absent, restoration not 0
possible.
26.0 Vregen: SPECIES REGENERATION FROM SEEDLINGS,
SAPLINGS, AND CLONAL SHOOTS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This measurement is performed by z75% of the reference standard forest canopy is 1.0
a visual assessment of propagule supported by propagules.
presence/absence. Regenerative
stems of the reference standard Reference standard: The reference standard forest
canopy species are listed under canopy species for MSF Hardwood Forest, MSF Pine
V., (Species Composition). Forest, and OSD Pine Forest variants are listed under
V,OmP (Species Composition).
Between 25% and 75% of the reference standard 0.5
forest canopy is supported by propagules.
Between 1% and 25% of the reference standard forest 0.1
canopy is supported by propagules.
Seedlings, saplings, and clonal shoots are absent or 0
non-native.
3-27
t

i

I
1

I

11

27.0 Vs„a : FREQUENCY OF STANDING DEAD TREES
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The frequency of standing dead Density of standing dead trees is 05% and s 125% 1.0
trees (z 4 in DBH) is measured of the reference standard (similar in frequency to the
within random sample plots. The standard).
frequency is calculated on a per ac
basis. Reference Standard:
MSF Hardwood Forest: 32 snags/ac (frequent)
The frequency of standing dead MSF Pine Forest: 8 snags/ac (moderate)
trees is also visually estimated as 0) OSD Pine Forest: 16 snags/ac (moderate) '

extensive (pronounced mortality) 1)
frequent; 2) moderate; 3) few; and
Density of standing dead trees is between 25% and
0.5
4) none, for general assessment 75% or 125% and 175% of the reference standard.
methods.
Density of standing dead trees is between 0% and 0.1
25% or z 175% of the reference standard; restoration
possible.
Trees not present on site; restoration not possible. 0
128.0 Vs,r.,.: NUMBER AND ATTRIBUTES OF VERTICAL STRATA
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
Sites are visually evaluated and Number and relative density of vertical strata is 1.0
compared to the reference standard similar to reference forest standard
for the presence and relative density
of each strata. Mature, nonriverine Reference Standard:
forested wetlands are considered to MSF Hardwood Forest: MSF Pine Forest:
have five vertical strata of forest canopy: 80% canopy: 60%
vegetation present for variable subcanopy: 20% subcanopy: 10%
measurement. midstory: 20% midstory: 10%
1) canopy shrub layer: 15% shrub layer: 30%
2) subcanopy (z 30 ft) groundcover: 60% groundcover: 70%
3) midstory (10-30 ft) OSD Pine Forest:
4) shrub layer (3-10 ft) canopy: 80% subcanopy: 10%;
5) groundcover (s 3 ft) midstory: 10% shrub layer: 40%
groundcover: 20%
One stratum is absent or severely diminished relative 0.75
to the reference stratum.
Two strata are absent or severely diminished relative 0.5
to the reference standard.
Three strata are absent or severely diminished relative 0.25
to the reference standard.
Four or more strata are absent or severely diminished 0.1
relative to the reference standard.
Native vegetation has been removed or severely 0
depleted. 1 11
J-28
129.0 Vs„,.f r„,: SOIL SURFACE PERMEABILITY
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Permeability of the soil surface similar to the 1.0
collecting random soil samples and reference standard (following table).
identifying texture of the soil
surface. NRCS soil mapping and Reference Standard (from texture class):
soil series descriptions are MSF Hardwood Forest: 0.3-0.9 in/hr (silt loam to
referenced to supplement the field sandy loam)
investigation. The NRCS soil MSF Pine Forest: 0.9-9.4 in/hr (sandy loam to sand)
survey mapping should be OSD Pine Forest: 0.04-0.2 in/hr (muck)
confirmed in the field when
utilizing soil series descriptions for Soil surface permeability is somewhat dissimilar to 0.5
texture determination. the reference standard.
Soil surface permeability is substantially different to 0.1
the reference standard or otherwise compacted,
paved, etc., restoration possible.
Soil surface permeability is substantially different to 0
the reference standard or otherwise compacted,
paved, etc., restoration not possible.
J-29
L.J

r
t
t
t
TABLE
MINERAL/ORGANICSOIL FLATS AND DEPRESSIONS
Surface Texture and Assumed Surface Permeability Rates by Texture Class and Soil Series
Within the Reference Wetland Data Set
29.1 Permeability Estimate by Soil Sample
Soil Surface Texture Soil Surface Permeability
(ice)
Sand 9.4
Loamy Sand 2.4
Sandy Loam 0.9
Loam 0.5
Silt Loam 0.3
Sandy Clay Loam 0.1
Clay Loam 0.08
Silty Clay Loam
ri. 0.08
Sandy Clay rf 0.04
Silty Clay 0.04
Clay 0.04
Muck 0.04
Permeability Estimate By Soil Series Designation
Soil Series USDA Taxonomy A-Horizon Texture A-Horizon Permeability
(in/hr)
Leon Aeric Haplaquods Sand 6.0-20
Murviile Typic Haplaquods Fine Sand 6.0-20
Woodington Typic Paleaquults Loamy Sand 6.0-20
Rains Typic Paleaquults Sandy Loam 2.0-6.0
Pantego Umbric Paleaquults Sandy Loam 2.0-6.0
Deloss Typic Umbraquults Fine Sandy Loam 2.0-6.0
Torhunta Typic Humaquepts Loam 2.0-6.0
Coxville Typic Paleaquults Loam 0.6-2.0
Bayboro Umbric Paleaquults Loam 0.6-2.0
Byars Umbric Paleaquults Loam 0.6-2.0
Roanoke Typic Ochraquults Silt Loam 0.6-2.0
Leaf Typic Albaquults Loam 0.06-0.20
Croatan Terric Medisaprists Muck 0.06-0.20
J-30
30.0 V?; : PRESENCE OF TIP MOUNDS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
This variable is measured by Reference Standard: Tip mounds with exposed soil 1.0
walking the site and visually surfaces present intermittently. Grass or fern cover
assessing the presence of tip may dominate the exposed areas.
d
ith
d
il
f
moun
s w
expose
so
sur
aces
as a micro-habitat component on No tip mounds present, trees 12 in DBH or greater 0.5
the site. The presence of any tip present on the site.
mounds the site is considered an
indication n of sustainable provision No tip mounds present, no trees 12 in DBH or greater 0.1
of the micro-habitat. on the site, restoration possible.
Nees present on the site, restoration not possible. 0
31.0 Vunveg: COVER OF UNVEGETATED OR GRASS/SEDGE
DOMINATED DEPRESSIONS
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The measurement is performed by Percent or area cover of unvegetated and grass/sedge 1.0
the plot sample method and by dominated depression is z 75% of the reference
visual estimation of cover. standard.
Transects are randomly placed on
the site and each area of Reference Standard:
unvegetated or grass/sedge MSF Hardwood Forest: (24% cover)
depression (MSF Pine Forest) MSF Pine Forest: (4% cover),
measured. The coverage is OSD Pine Forest: (32% cover)
l
l
d
ca
cu
ate
on a percent cover basis
and compared to the reference Percent or area cover of unvegetated depression is 0.5
standard. between 25% and 75% of the reference standard.
Percent or area cover of unvegetated depression is 0.1
between 0% and 25% of the reference standard,
restoration possible.
Percent or area cover of unvegetated depression is 0
between 0% and 25%0 of the reference standard,
restoration not possible.
J-31

L

0
R
1

32.0 Vwater• COVER OF STANDING WATER
Method Of Measurement Measure Relative To Reference Standard Index
The measurement is performed by
the plot sample method and by a Percent or area cover of standing water is 2 75% of
the reference standard. 1.0
visual estimate of % cover.
Transects are placed on the site and Reference Standard:
the area of standing water measured
and visually estimated. The
coverage is calculated on a percent
basis and compared to the reference
standard MSF Hardwood Forest: (19% cover)
MSF Pine Forest: (7% cover)
OSD Pine Forest:. (38% cover)
Time of Measurement: March 15-April 15
.

The actual cover of standing water Percent cover of standing water is between 25% and
75% of the reference standard. 0.5
varies by season and by recent
rainfall patterns. Therefore, The
measurements must be performed
in the reference
t
d
d
d
s
an
ar
an
assessment areas during the same
time period (preferably February,
March, or April). If coincident Percent cover of standing water is between 0% and
25% of the reference standard, restoration possible 0.1
measurement is not possible, the
variable should be removed.
S
ummer measurements may
indicate 0 %cover.
Percent cover of standing water is between 0% and
25% of the reference standard, restoration not
0
possible
J-32

APPENDIX K

REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
INDICATOR VARIABLE SCORES AND FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY INDEX SCORES
BY IMPACT AND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TYPE
RIVERINE, LOW ORDER BLACKWATER STREAMS, HARDWOOD FOREST
I?

1

t
m
Q
U
t0
Q
_E
(D
C
R
U
Q.
0)
U
Z

t
1
1 CD, t0 t1Y r r t0 t0 r t0 r N t0 O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

CJ

O

O

O
t0
O
r
O
r
O
t0
O
t0
C.
O
r
l0
O

r
r
O C?
O
r C)
t0
Co
t0
O
r
O
t0
O
l0
O
t0
o
to
o
to
O
t0
O
O
r
to
O
t0
O
O
r
r
O
an
co

O
r
O
O
V

O
r N
to
C
ca
L
U
Co
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 co
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 -Cl
0 Cl
0 0
0 Co
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
00 0
v 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 o o 0 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0
v
o
N y
O
a
0
to 0
to 0
r 0
r 0
to 0
to 0
r 0
to 0
r to
N o
to C.
to 0
r 0
r 0
to 0
o 0
O 0
o o
O o
r 0
O 0
to 0
t0 0
r o
to 0
l0 0
t0 0
l0 0
to 0
to 0
O Co
1IR 0 0
O 0
r 0
to 0
sn 0
r
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O o o r o r o r o 0 0 o 0 0 o O C - 0 o r O O C O
tt
O 1
m
`
a
o
.= to
6 to
o o
r tc?
6 r
6 o
r tn
o o
r n
o tn
o a
o to
o to
o o
r tr>
o tn
o tn
o o
.= o
.= tq
0 to
Cl «?
C tn
. tn
C?
C4 o
0 o o o o ui
C to
o0 o
- tn
C> a
= to
c tr?
o
co to

of

c l
m
t
U
0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
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 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 C.
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
00 0 co 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
C7 co
o
N tT
N
O
a
0
O 0
to 0
t0 o
O 0
to 0
r 0
O 0
O o
o to
pl? o
t0 0
t0 0
t0 0
t0 0
O 0
t0 0
t0 0
t0 0
o 0
q 0
O 0
t0 0
t0 0
t0 0
t0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
O O
O o
O 0
t0 0
t0 0
O 0
to 0
Co 0
to 0
to
o
.=
o
o
-
o
o
-
o
.=
o
o
o
o
o
?
o
C
C)
0
0
p
o
o
r
r
o
o
o
o

o)
d
a

° C>
t0
O
O
o
to
O
r
O
'V
O
O
O
O
r
to
o
10
O
to
C)*
[f
O
O
r
l0
O 40
r
o
t0
o
V:
O ca
(T
o C,
t0
o
O
r
t0
o
C)
O
l0
O
'V:
O
r
O
l0
o C)
l0
o
O
r
t0
O
O
r

O
O
O
10
o
st
O
O
r 4D
l0
o
t0
C)
o C?

O
t0
C
v

ri c
rn
N c
cQ
U
Cl
O 0
t0 0
0 Cl
0 0
r 0
r 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
r 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
to 0
r 0
r Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
r 0
o 0
r 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 Co
0 0
0. 0
r 0
r 0
0 0
r 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
r 0
Co
00 0
v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C5 6 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0
o n
N I
N N 1
O
CL
0
to 0
to 0
to 0
r 0
to 0
`' 0
o 0
to C.
0 0
to 0
to 0
o 0
to 0
r 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
to 0
O 0
to 0
o 0
to 0
0 0
r 0
to 0
in 0
o 0
t0 0
o 0
O 0
o 0
t0 0
t0 0
o 0
t0 0
t0 0
t0 0
t0
0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 a - Cl o r C. r C. r o r C. 0 0 0 o r Co r 0 r o Co r 0 o 0 o
v,
N
N l
N
a

O
t0
O
O
O
r
O
r
O 0
t0
O
r
!12
O
r
O o
t0
O
r
O U,
N
O
t0
O
O
r
r
O
r
O
0
r
t0
O
O
r
t0
O
t0
O
r
O
0
C:)
r
t0
O
tt')
O
r
O
t0
O
l0
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
tl'!
O
t0
O
O
r
r
O
N
O
t0
O
r
O
t0 N
tp C
N
L
U
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O Cl
O O
O O
O Cl
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O Cl
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
C
O
. O
t0 O 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 o Co 0 o 0
O
N to
N
O
a
0
t0 0
t0 0
?- 0
r Co
t0 o
r o
r o
t0 o
r to
N o
t0 o
O o
r o
r 0
O 0
10 0
O 0
t0 0
!0 0
r 0
0 0
t0 a
t0 0
r 0
O 0
t0 0
O 0
t0 0
O 0
t0 o
O 0
t0 o
t0 0
O 0
r to
N o
O o
r
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o o r Cl r o 0 o r O 0 Co O O r O r O r O O r O C O G
t0
t0
N
a
w
n.
_
w
? w
z
U
w
2
U
U
w of
U
¢
Q T
CL
Q
E "
O/
E
pt
'
a
tp
EL
O
T
O
E
2
n
E
M
X
c
E
a
O
C
R `

a

s N

o O O .

v -.

m N

w N () j

c !

a> O O

0 l6

3 c0 M
(0
U
U
O7
?/
O
a
O
a
m

0

0

>
>
>
> o
> a
>
> a
>
>
>
> w
> rn
> rn
> s
> t
> 1-
> 1
> =
>
>
> E
> E
> E
> E
> E
> o
> o
> co
> n.
> m
> m
> w
>
> m
> in
>
> '
>
U,
a
c
U
m
t0
O
co
U
c

A

I

t
1
m
m
Q co
U N
Co O
Q
E co
N ?
C ?
'C p3
d)
U
a
?--' C
U
Z
lt7
Co to
0 r
0 r
0 tp
0 r
0 tp
Co r
0 r
Cl N
0 r
Cl r
0 r
o r
O in
o r CD
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
o r
o
d to
cl,
0 r
o
o
O
o 17
0 r
0 tq
0 to
0 r
0 0,
to
0 C?
tp
0 r
0 N
0 r
0
0
O
n CD
c j
l6
L
U
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
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
0 o
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
o ° O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o
M
N
N
O
a
0
tp 0
to 0
r 0
r o
M o
r o
o o
r o
r tn
N o
r o
r o
r o
r o
W 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
to 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
to o
0 o
r o
to o
to o
r tn
N o
r o
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M
n
m
`
a
w
a
? _
m
z
U
w Q

W Q
CO w
w a
¢
Q
c
2
m T
°c
E
c
o
v m
°
m
v
a w
n
L1 c
v
c
>,
m
to
v w
E m
3
v
E
o
m
o
m
E
a
rn
«°
c
.Q U U
l U 'O 'O N w = ?/ C/ L L C M O 3 E E E v
E O O a m N ;a
O 2
N d Q'
> > > > > 3 > :? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CL > a
j
> > M J to

rI
t
I

r

I

t
(6 to
N ?
Q 0
0 fn
Q
X
E -5
C
> C
((6
a) U
U _
Ur U
U ?
Z U-
i

1
f

tO n
M tO
tO 0
to (O
M N
tY v
v CO
V: O
M O
IT O
N O
to O
to to
v
O O O O O O o O O O O O O O o
O 0

O N

c
m
L
U
Cl
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
Co 0
C. 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 O
o C.
O 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0
00 p
`t O O O o O o o o O CS O O O O o
v
0 0
r
N H
O
.I

iO to
ti r-
M 0
tO 0
to 0
M N
Nt It
V
_ w
st O
M O
v O
N O
to O
tO to
Nt
p o 0 0 0 0 - o O O o 0 0 0 o O O

O
r
fD
a
to
to v
to f.-
(O to
I-- 0
to 0
CO 1-
t0 w
tO f-
(O rn
(O M
o 01
(O h
M fn
(O M
(O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
0
o rn
? c
L

0
0 0
0 o
0 O
0 p
0 0
0 o
0 p
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
00 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O
(7 cq
o
N O
y
O
CL
,
tO
p v
to rl-
O o
n O
to O
m t-
to Op
t0 1?
(O O
O Cl)
OR to
co f-
Cl) r-
(O Cl)
M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cq
of
m
a
?
(D M
f* O
(O v
N m
V to
(O O
to v
to v
(D M
M O
n O OO
M O
M v
to
p o O O O C) O O O O O O O Co C> O
v N
C
N Of
c
t6
L
U
Cl)
O (O
O
O (o
O f--
O O
O tO
O LO
O N
O M
O O
O O
O t-
O 1-
M
O
00 p
v O O 0 o O C, 0 O O 0 O 0 o O O
(V
O
N
N N
O
CL
o
f' to
n
(O O
(O O
U,) tO
O LO
tO O
to r-
(D O
V; o
I` to
v to
v ?
co O
(D
p o co o 0 o o 0 o o o o O o 0 0
v,

N
n
N

v
(O O
1` N
v tO
tO O
un
N
4: lA
'V' N
tO O
M M
N M
N LO
It n
(O (O
It
p o 0 o O o O O C5 O o 0 o O o o
tO N
r
tO O
?
L
U
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
q 0
O 0
p 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 Co
0 0
0 0
0
O p
tO C) 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0
o
N to
y
O

V
(O O>
r-? N
v LO
to O
tO
N
v to
v N
to O
m M
Cl OO t
N o
v n
co co
v
p o O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O
to
tO
m
`
a

W

LL

L

L.

L

L U t

U V

U
LL

>
W
L U
L
L
U
L
r
a
Et
E
t
f
m
i
Z a ° N E U O E L c o
W U
Q o
m m U d
m o
U U o
m y t01 m
Q L L 3
p U
LL a
c
U o
o c
co
of
is v
c Q
w LLi
a . t y o
3 f6L L
U W a o C m
_
Q H
-
O
4)
V
W
co
CL
U
U
U
U
C
0
p ?` p C C C C C
' O J W I n E w a 2 0 M M 2 2 2 Q
M

1
1

N N
L L
o
0 CO)
Q X
Ea
c
N
? Q
N U
C
U
U ?
Z LL
V'
CO m
M p
h r-
'V'
t0 M
st O
M CO
'V: O
V' M
U? LO
M M
V' CO
M to
U0 co
Nt
O
- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a N
O

W C
N

W tt ?-
O N
O O
0 N
0 N
0 O
0
0
0
O
O O
O O
O N
O O N
O
O O O O Co O O C. Co O O O O O O C)
Q ?

O
w N
F r,
V (D
Iq F-
"t rn
vi r-
4 O
tq ?}
t0 to
M co
It M
M N
"It v
f° O
Nt
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 Cl 0 Cl
Fa-
O

et O rn N O n m m m 0 ti 0 0 6)
`' _ r N r N r r ?- t0 r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M m
C
°
r
U
O
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Co
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 o
0 O
0 o
0
00 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Uj M
O
N 1-
y
O
a
V O O O O h M M M O ti v O O O
_ ?'- N r- _ N .- N r r r tL> r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 0
M

m
4.

M M
n rr
Cl to
t° O
"y W
Cl N
Nt v
tt co
st O
M O
st O
N o
O O
"? M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0
O
v

O m
0I
c
co
L
U
w

}Q

L

-

U

E

u
U
U
LL
2 U
LL = a
E Q tL >
Z o N E U o E t E o
W
W U
¢ °
h °
m
U
t6 °
U LL U °
m
y o
U °

co j Q
a5
3 u- ? 3 U
u ?
c
U o
Q c
°
0
m v
c - Q
o
U) J `°

3 t ° o
3 to "-
U x a 0 y m c
t3
to
Cl)
a
N
Q
O
c E
N
.
c
L
L _
N
O
Q N E ? ? rn O W o V U U o 0
C
v
J N a V E O C C C C G W
w u) Ei r e 0 2 2 ? ? 2

a?

r
1

Q
c 0
0 2
cu 0
N
c ?
NN?
LL
O
U
H
C7
U
Z

1

Il

o
v
o
O
o
v Ok
o
0
0
0
0
0
0 cm)
0
0
0
0
0
o
v
o
o
v
0
0 C:>
0 C>
0 C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 C>
0 C>
0 Ol
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o
0
o ?
rn rn
CS
L
U
O C> O_ O_ O_ iC, O O O_ O_ _O O_ 0 0 O _O _O _O O
r O
t0 O
r O_ O
to O
r O_ O O O_ O
r O
O O
O O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O C O O O O O O O r ?-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
q O
O Qj
N - N
O
IL
0 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0 _o 0 0 _o 0 0 0 0
r 0
o 0
r 0 0 0 _o

0 _0

":C) 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0
r 0

0 0
o o
r O o 0 _o 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- O O C 6 0
o o
O
O
C
O
=
- 6 0, 0 0 0 0 0
0
of
r "
N

O O to O O p 0 t0 O O to O i0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 c!
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O C O O O O 0 O O O O O O C O 0 O O O O O O 0
O m
t0 O
tt N i
j_-
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
C! 0
U.) 0 0 0
n 0
o 0
o 0
n 0
to 0
o
00 O
O r O r r r r r r r r r O r r O r r r O r
(O
O d
N N
O
o
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Un 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
t0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
c? 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
O 0
t0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
t0 0
o 0
O Cl
O 0
O 0
o 0
o 0
t0 0
0
O .- r O r 0 O .- 0 r O r O O O r .- O r 0 O .- .- r O ?-
0
co l

a
to o rn rn U? v Ig Ig U? tn tq o tn tn o o o o o o tn o tn rn o o o o o o o uD v tr? rn tn o rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 Cl 0 C Cl co C O 0 0 o C o

r tp
L
U
0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
t0 0
0 0
Cl 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 Cl
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
t0 0
0 0
0 o
to 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
t0 0
O
O O r r r O r r r r !- r r r r - r r r
r
r
r

r O

r

r

O

r

r

r

O

r

O t-
N r N
O
a
0
Un 0
p 0
r Co
r 0
tc? 0
r 0
t. 0
9 Cl
Lg 0
Lg 0
tn (D
o 0
tr) 0
vi 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
o C.
tn 0
o 0
tr? 0
r 0
o 0
tn 0
O O
O o
o 0
tn 0
o 0
tn 0
r 0
tg 0
7 0
9 0
ul 0
7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 .- - - - o - o o r o r ?- 0 .= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
LO
n
r m
CL
C>
tr C>
Un
rn
rn
rn
v
rn
tO CD
Gi LO C?
ui C>
q
: a
cn CD
'o C3 C> CD
Un C>
Un 0
rn C>
o CD
o C>
tO a
rn CD
tO CD
rn
o C>
tn C:>
o ?u
o C>
o 0
rn C3
o C>
rn C>
rn w
n C>
v C3
rn
o O O o 0 0 0 0 C 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 0 0 0 0 0
C! m
,- rn
N cc
L
U
0
O 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
O 0
LO 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
o 0
to 0

o 0

o 0

o 0

o 0

o 0

0 O

o o

o 0

o 0

o 0

tO 0

O 0

O 0

tn 0

o 0

o 0

tO Co

O 0

O 0

O 0

UO Cl

o
O O r r O r r r O r r r O r r
r
O
r
r
O
r
r
O
r
r
r
O
r
O O
O
N
N N
O
a
0
r 0
p 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
t0 0
r Un
N o
t0 0
10 0
r 0
r o
O O
r o
l0 0
l0 0
l0 0
r 0
0 0
t0 0
t0 0
r 0
t0 0
r 0
to 0
t0 0
O 0
t0 0
O 0
r 0
t0 0
r 0
r UO
C4 o
": 0
r
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O r o O O O O r co O O co O O O r O r O Co O O O Co 0
O
N 1
N
a
w
a _
w
E- w
z 0
W U

to Q
W
co
Q Q
Y
d
0
O.
0
0

'
>
co
U
'p
m m m
O
O a
O s
d
O
M
X
c
E
w
C
w '8 ? cp

O
,
O
z
O
-0

N

?

:t-
o
N
0

C
Co
V

C
o

G1

>+

3

O

O

O
3

N

f0

M

V

V
'o

O
0
'O

O

"O

R

N
L L
> D
> U
>
> 'O
> 'O
> N
> u
-
> .?-
> 1 O
l Cf L L C
5 _N
> _
> O _ E
> E E
> E
> 0
> 0 Q, CL
>
m > N N tll
> N
> N
vl-
(Sf
N
Q
c rn
O
(B O
0) U
Cl)
N ?
C
O
U
? c
C9
U
Z
o tg 0) 0) to V cm)
to v O t? v 0 rn (3) to v 0 q 0) C) v C)
'r to rn V V o C)
v o 0 o w o tg a1 r` v C? co;
rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 o c o 0 0
°o m
to I
to
L
U
0

to 0

o 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

to 0

o 0

to Co

o 0

o C.

tg 0

-: 0

0 0

0 Co

0 Cl

Iq 0

-: 0

.- 0

o 0

o 0

Ui 0

to 0

0 o

o O

to o

to 0

.- 0

"q 0

- 0

tg 0

to 0

o 0

to 0

0 (D

0 0

o Cl

q
0

o
0 0 - .= o n o .- .= o CD - - - o o o ? .= o o .= o o o o o o o .= o - - - Cl =
0
ri 0

o

.-
N
co

N I
O
a
0
U) 0
10 O
•- O ED _O O_ N O_ O O_ O_ c) O_ O_ 0 0 0
O_ 0
_O O_ 0 ( 0
r 0
.- 0
r- 0
r 0 0
tq 0
Ug 0 0
to 0
to 0
r LO
N O O_

O 6 6 o O o o O O O o o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
O
(q
m

'V.
0 to
C. to
0 to
0 O
0 v
0 tg
0 O
0 to
0 O
C. v
0 O
0 to
0 to
0 to
0 v
0 O
0 O)
0 to
0 tg
0 c!
0 v,
0 to
0 tq
0 V'
0 Co
0 V'
0 to
0 v
0 V•
0 to
0 to
0 v
0 to
0 to
0 N
0 it
0 to
0
00 m
c
m
L
U
Cl
tn 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
tn 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
o 0
tn 0
o 0
o 0
o co
o 0
tn 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
to 0
0 0
o 0
tn 0
0 0
tn 0
0 0
tn 0
t.) 0
c 0 0 0 0
o 0
o 0
tn 0
o
o
O
0 c .- r r .-- O .- O o .-- O r' O O .-- r O r r r O r

N 0
N CO
0
a
0
.- 0
to Cl
Ug 0
Ig 0
7 0
7 0
Lg 0
7 0
Un 0
q 0
7 0
-: 0
tg 0
tg 0
- 0
. o
-: 0
-: o
W o
W? 0
-: o
.- 0
tn 0
tn 0
.- 0
- o
- o
r- co
- o
- : 0
-: 0
q 0
" 0
tu o
to to
r 0
.- 0
tn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o co 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o
0
0
0
m
L
a

O O
O tq
O to
O c,
O to
O O
O N
O O
O O
O O
O V•
o O
o tq
o O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O N
O O
O O
O to
O to
O q
O tp
O O
6 to
6 0
O 0
O 0
O to
O O
O O
O to
O O
O v
O O
O
O m
0
? of
C
m
L
U
0
o 0
o Cl
o 0
o 0
o 0
tg 0
o 0
o 0
0 o
o O
tg o
o 0
o 0
o 0
o Cl
tn 0
o 0
tg 0
o 0
o 0
0 0
0 Co
0 0
0 0
0 Cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
tn 0
o o
o O
tn O
o Co
o 0
o 0
tn 0
o
00 0
0 .= - - - C l 0 - - - - - - C>
tsi
N ?
O
a
a
o 0
tq o
to 0
o o
tq o
to 0
n Co
o 0
0 0
0
F o
0 0
0 0
O 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
tg 0
o tn
r- 0
o 0
o 0
to 0
to 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
to 0
o 0
tg 0
to 0
o 0
tq 0
0 0
r- 0
R
O c- 0 o ? o 0 0 - - Co C, .- o n o .= o .= o o ? o ? o ? o .= o o
0
ai
`- I
m
`
a
w
a _
? w
Z
U
w Q
?
w
U)
w it
ri)
co

Q Q

Y

"

m

T
CL
0

Q

f
:+

m

O

m

Z,

N

C

U

a

N

O

m

2

0

L

0

Q

m

6

N

X

)

L

d

C
C a N (C?
U pCp N ..-. m U Q
co e'
IV 'a 3 > m
' Ol O (6 N f6 U U O o 08 a
0) "a f6 (?6 .Q
O

L
U
U
'O
m
w
..L..
l7/
tT

L

L

C_

m

-

_O

5 3

E

O

O
1

Q
1

Q

ai

N

tq

to m

.
N

1
u

N (q
Q
C O
O U
CO)
O ?
C U

{n C
ya_. v
0
U LL
I z

ri

O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O v
O O
O O
O M
O O
O n
O M
O r`
N .IT
p
O O O O Co O O O O O O O O O 0
O
O 4)
O Of
C
N
L
U
o o o co o v co o M o n M M n rn
_ _ ?- _ _ _ _ N (O .-
0 p O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 . o O o
0 O
0 Of
N 0

O O O (D O O CO O O O O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
p o o O C O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0
O
r
N
CL
N O ~ N O B r
+
- 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N
O
Cf O
N

.r-
10
O o 0 o M 0 I- 'IT O O O M O IT
O O O (A aR O co CO 0 0 0 0 CO O O)
00 p
co - - 0 0 r- 0 0 0 r- O .- O
0
O t6
N W
O
LL
M N M O O O N (D M O M r` M r-
r` O) 00 r` O O) CO C0 0D co O CO CO 00 h
O O O O O O O O O O O - O O O O
O
CO
m
ll
,r Cd O M r` IT 00 LO 0D (O O r- co
m N M M M O M M CO M U) M M
0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
0 N
ui cy)
c" l6
L
U
O Cl O O M O th O o O M 0 st
O O O W co O 00 aO m q O O w O c?
00 O O o a-- 0 0 0 - o - 0
CU
o to
r-
N N
O
ll
(D O N O O m O r- 0 tt) N V M M w
(D r: w w to t t0 a r` M CO "t to CO t0
00 O o O O O o O O O 0 0 O O O O
ui
r`

n.
W O N to O m (O (o to O n r` W) M
co
O N (O M '7 r• O ? t() 0 r` r` IT M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0
O N
fA
N ?
L
U
O
O N
O
(3! O
O) M
p O
O h
0O
CO -It
O a
O O
O O
O LO
r` O
O M
O)
O
9 p
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o

O CV
N h
O
LL
st CM N to r` 00 O) O CM CM O r` h
CO M to co
N
M
M
M
N
N
M
CO
M
p O O o o o o O o co o o 0 0 o 0
O
N
d
a
U U
w
CL

LL

U-
LL LL
CL}
F-
N

0

m

U
w

d

E

L

a

L

?-.
LL
O
LL

U E

O
E

w

C o
Z
? U
Q O
y y
m
U N
: A
3 O
v IL O
m
N O
v O
Q
U) m 3 .
l U U o c
m d -

W W
Of
3
t d
N
0
3 R
? n
w
a
U n
y m
y 0
m
_
N (!) O V w CL (..) U U 0 Q

a O "a U E
O
"
' C C C c c w
- w 0 E W W x 0 2 2. 2 m
m
tO
N ?
Q ?
O
O U
tB X
? N
2 C
m ?
N ?
> Co
? U
C
O
? U
U U-
Z
O
O N
M O
? M
M (D
N N
M N
V' V'
M M
N
N to
to v
M tO
V' n
N N
N N
M
? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N
C
W t
0 U
9 O N N W CO v to n v tO v CD W CO
W O
'ct o!
O 0i
O lA
O M
O n
O O
O OR
O n
C. (R
O rn
O Of
O (A
O n
O
O
(') tp
O

Q N

W in
i 0- 1 1

W O
O O
CD M
n CD
to O
co v
v N
to n
'l: n
v (0
Co O
Cl)
(D O
It O)
v (D
n CD
LO
0 0 0 0 O O co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
J N
H
0 m
?- a
V'
M M
N OD
V:
M O
y n
M M
y v
M O
OR O
CA n
n M
M 0
to ?-
to
0 o O o 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0
O d
m ZT
C
W
L
U
(O
v M
M N
CD 0
CD 0
to 0
O (D
to W)
tO
t0 O
O O
O to
OO m
v Cl
q w
CD
0 0 0 0 0 0 ?- 0 0 0 - 0 0 .- o
0
(h O
O
r
N (D
?
O
a
O_ V' to
N O
N O O
N O
?- N_ O O
to P-
r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o
O
tD
N
`
a
to
(D m
n to
to N
to n
to to
It to
to v
to O
(D O
co O
tO to
v n
to M
O
Wi
Co Cl 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0
OO 0
co rn
c
0
t
U
u)
ao M
co co
n O
ao n
(o O
O M
n m
Pl: 0)
ao O
O O
0 v
rn n
0 0
O to
ao
00 0 0 0 o o o ? 0 0 0 ? .= o CD ? o
CV 0.

N CO
N

a
(D O_ In
N 00
N _O tD CA N too v O ani N
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
OO
N
a
O .N- O N N (O') n- M N N M
O o o O O O o O O O o o O O o 0
O m
0
r Of
c
O3
L
U
co
ao N
rn V
rn O
ao n
(D 0
O n
n to
n M
ao 0
O 0
O 0
O n
0 0
0 t-
ao
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 .= 0 0 0 .- 0 - 0
rn
N ? N
O
a
V'
n W
ao N
ao N
n O
v to
n n
v
(o W
w M
to W
n M
n O
tO n
0 W
co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0
O
Di
to
`
a
U U

? W U
LL m U
U t o. E
E LL u- >
~ w

" o
.
N

E

v

o

E

t

c

o
ui ? 0
(n
U
ist
? 0
U m

y

U

?

co
Q
a; co tL 3 cU v
c
V o c
m v Q
,
w
?
3. 3
t
•°
o LL
=
10
u" Q
x m a)
9 c
y a
Co
co Q 3 y 2 Ei -E E `a (O m N W
Q )7 U E 4) a
W Q U U c
U o c o
-6 O C C C C C W
v W to E W of O 2 2 2 m Q
It
1

1 APPENDIX L
REFERENCE STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
INDICATOR VARIABLE SCORES AND FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY INDEX SCORES
BY IMPACT AND MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TYPE
INTERSTREAM DIVIDE, MINERAL SOIL FLAT HARDWOOD FOREST,
MINERAL SOIL FLAT PINE FOREST, AND ORGANIC SOIL DEPRESSION
PINE FOREST
I

1

1
1

1
c?
Q
U CO)
t0 i.
Q
C? ?
C a)
(a -0
a) cu
c:
L
Q?
c o
.4+ U
? C
U
Z
O O
to O
tq O
tq O
to O
r O
to O
to O
O O
to O
w O
r O
to O
?- O
O O
to O
tq O
tq O
O O
tq O
r O
tq o
tq O
O O
to O
to O
to O
tq O
O o O
tq O W
w
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0

? U
U

to
° 0
a z
0
n 0
o 0
tq 0
o 0
o
= 0
to 0
tq 0
w 0
to 0
to 0 0
.- 0
o 0
to °
a 0
o 0
o 0
tq 0
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
° 0
o 0
o 0
to 0
tq 0
o co
.- 0
o 0 =
o U
? o o . o o o o o o o ? o o o o .- C . a
N it
E 0
to ro U
Q. co
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !n Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o to 0 0 0 o V
O W) to r to tq r N O eq q to tq - 0 0 to O b q O O N O .- tq to

co
rn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
-
0
0
0
O
O
r-
O
O
.-
O
O w
O--3
ZF 0
N
E
a
°
CL
0 0 0 0 Co 0 C. 0 o to Co 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 o 4
0 0 0 o tq to o to o n to o o to o o to 0 o to tq q to 0 0 o tq o 0 o a to 0
m o o .- o - o o C) mo o .- .= 0 0 - o .- . o oo
L
H W

E I of

o D
w
a
O
M 0
in 0
r 0
o 0
tq 0
tq 0
to 0
to 0
to 0
ui 0
r 0
q 0
tq 0
O 0
to 0
t0 0
- 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
to 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
to Co
tp 0
O 0
a- Co
O 0
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 tj t? r 0 0 0 ?- O
CL
to m

E 0
UJ
° a D
.-
0
N 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
tq 0
O 0
to 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O o
tq O
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
tq 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 0 CO
O Q
? a- r - O r O r - -
CL W
y
E Q
O m
a w
w
w
0
U

U
w
FT 0

m
E
V
T
'
C
f6
0
co

H
a

"
cx
Q-
?
>
O
O
N y
N
L
X
C Q/
qi
0
W m a N ('
? pp
U p
U N N
--- tT W lO V 0 3 N O O
CL 'a O C 3
0) d C J
Q Q > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?! > > > > Q

J

t
1
C1,

i
1

'?' III
i

1

i
t
i
Cl)
ca
N (q
¢ N
C.) 0
.? O
t0 (/}
E a)
E
U
M
a) N
c U
N C
(n O
iL C
LL
U
Z

t
° n 1-0 O O
R
ti
en
to °
o
v
to w
I - r
((Oo
v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
F
O
V' O
1- O
t0 M
to O
M O
(O co
to f-
(D O
't m
N O
to N
to
N
M o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
y

co
a w
t° ° 0 `
-' ° N O
° F.: 0rn - t
o m 1
- 1
- v ? o I
-
cv
CO o 0 0 0 o 6 o 0 o .= o 0
co
N -
`
W
E Z
d
a =
O
6> to
I- 0
(- 0
(0 0
to m
M m
't m
en N
N m
to i-
(0 -4r
to
V
co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 o w
R'
E oU
O (n

? U
1 ° ° `' ? `? (
°
o t
O C
o ao t
n rn m a
o ao c
o c
o r- W
co 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co 0 0 o 0
(O
to
E a

i
o a u
1 0-
0 to O to O N co 1- O O 1` N O
M h 0) 1- to Un "? (O It to co (0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o w
to M
=_
cli
°
a
O to O aD to O O O M I- M I-
N I- O OR 1- 0 0 0 0) (0 O (o 0
(0 0 0 0 0 .= .- 0 0 0 0 1-
a ? U
E w
° a a
i
U

U
LL w
U- LL U
E
a> 1
y Q U
tt U
tt LL U
LL u-
r W

= r_ 4)
E LL E
(n J c a
i E O C C (_
d N ° W °
U ED
N U
Lij
Q. y w
m =3 U Q '
-
~
v
? m
C?
a Co
O v
m
a

c
m
w
?

? t

?

a

(a

Z

to`

to

m Co
_

w

F-

N U
¢ 3
cn 3
(n .
3
(n L
U
m L
U L
U 0.
tn y
= h
o C7
g ?
a
m R ? ? ? C T C C C C C Q
w
6
¢ ¢ 5, to to 2 ¢ ¢
N
N
LiS
a?
a
C
O to
.Q
? O
N
L
? L
= O
y U
? C
a
V
V
Z
Cl 0 0 0 o p Co 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 Co 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o rn rn a) rn rn a) rn rn O rnC! O rn rn ?n m m m v rn rn O rn rn cn rn UO rn rn rn
0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 o o 0 o o. o 0 ,
0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 0)
O
G
t0
t
U
0 Cl o o 0 o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl o p o o ?O 0 0 0 0 0 0 )O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o - -- 0 - - a- e- a- s-
r N
N
O
a
0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0

0
0
0
O _ r r r _ r r r _ _ _ r r r )O r r r 7 r r O r _ _ r l0 -
: r r
N O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl O O o o O o r o 0 0 0 o O o 0

m
`
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl
O 0 0 0 0 t0 O O O N O 0 0 'c7' 0 0 0 0 0 0 et 0 0 0 0 0 t0 O O O O O
cM o O o 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O O o o O o 0 0 0
M
r m
rn
G
03
L
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O
O M r O r r O r
M
H
O
a
0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 o 0 Cl
0 0 0 0 0 u? 0 0 o r o 0 o r Cl 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 0 UO 0 0 0 0 0
V) - 0 r - o r - o r a- o r o r e- a-
0
m
a
0 0 0 0 p C, 0 0 0
O O tU0 0 0 tU0 O LO O N W) ") O V O O ? Wi to 'It ? 0 t
0 O O V O IR
00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o
C14 m
O 1
G
(
6
L
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 Co Co 0
0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 IQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
of m -- - - - o r r r r 0
O
r N
r
O
O
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0
0 0 to 0 0 to o tO o l- UO tO o r o o 'O UO O tO r o WO o 0 0 WO o q UO p of
C,> r o r r 0 .= O r 0 0 0 r O r .= o o r o o o r r r o r r o o
N
0)
Q.
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In O O O O
o UO O) rn LO UO IO O rn n a) rn o v o LO LO rn p o v, o 0 p o p rn rl: o a) o o
0 Co 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 C 6 0 0 c 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o C o c o 0 0 0
co
c
m
L
U
O O O O Cl O O O Cl O O O O Cl O O Cl O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t0 O O O O O O O O O O O
co co r r r r r r r r o r r r r r r O r r r r r r r r r - r
O M
r N

0
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0
O t0 r r 10 41 t0 O r N r r O r O O t0 r O O r 0 0 0 0 0 r N O r 0 0
06 o 0 0 0 0 o r O o 0 o r 0 r 0 0 a - - o r r r r r O O r O r r
00
N
0)
`
a
m
n
H

C _
N
0) N

a
CL C
0
O

E

H

m

N

O

m

O)

:a

n
N N C E C N`
"'
Y fl. ?'
T M
D)
l6
05
U
0
7
0n j
to w O O 06 N c6 O O C 3 n
Q Q > > > > > > > 7 >
r
1

Q
C
o co
tr- a)
)
_N
ti3 fly
C ?
U
(5 C
a
U
Z

t

C. O O O C. O O o o to O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl O O O O t0 O O O N UC U1 O •t 0 0 0 IQ O O 't q O O o 0 to 0 0 0 0 0
N O C. O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N
C
N
L
U
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O o O O O tC) O o o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m cm a - •- O r r O r r- e- .- - - - r- .- .-
N

N
O
a
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 Co Cl
0 o o o o tn o o o t? tr? tn o ? o o o tn o o .- o O O O O to o o O O o
cli ? o - - - C> o o ? o ? .= o .= .= 0
Ce)
N
O
`
a
0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 to 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0
O O Uq 0 0 LO to rn O N to to 0 v q O to to O to v q tp O 'R 0 to R R 9 to to
of o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 O O Cl 0
<n N
O
C I I 1
C6
L
U .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0
0 0 0 0 9 o o o o O o O O O Un O R O O O O tn o 0 O O O O O O O O O
CV .- - O - C; r - r r .- s- .- .-
t0

O
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o to o o O O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o tr> o o tn tn .- o r, tn tn o ? o o tn tR o a .- o 9 o o o tn o o to tn tn
ai mo o .- 0 0 0 C > 0 o o o ? o o .= 0 .= 0 ? .= 0 0 0

a?
`
a
a?
a
H
C
m In
a O O a L m N i
-- E O O N N
tA Q to w its U O m O O C ? to
7
m O .
-. d C
Q Q > > > > > : > > > > > > > > >
N
1
rn
N
a?
Q m
C p
O U
(?6 Cf)
0) X
c
ca
a) U
Q
N (6
.-• U
_C .
a? c
fn U
d c
LL
U
Z
O O O O O O O O O Cl) n Cl)
o n rn rn 0 rn rn rn rn n n ao

N O O O O O O O O 0 O O
tD
tT
c
R
L
U
O O O O O t0 O O O O Cl) 0 co
O O O O O n 0 0 0 0 M 0 0

N
O
a
0 ? .O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) ce)
0 N
C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m
a
O O
O O: N O O Cl) 0 0
Cl) O 0 O Cl O O O O O O O
U)
r m
tT
C
R
L
U
Cl C. 0 0 0 to O O O O Cl) O (o
0 0 0 0 0 n o 0 0 0 0 0 rn
o Ce) e- o - - o .= o

N
0
IL
O O O V' LO O O M V' m O I -
Co 0 0 0 to O O co m U') O N
M r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?-- O
t
N
a
o to 0 rn 0 0 O n c0 o n to
O N M V' N O r M (1 r N

Cl) O O O O O O O O O O O
r N
rn
c
co
L
U
0 Cl 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 o Cl) o co
0 0 0 0 0 r-: 0 0 0 o ao o rn
c)) r r O r r O r O
N
0
0
a
0 n 0 C> 0 'It M M
o t
l co g CR 0 c
O C
O tn CR
ri o 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0
N
d
`
a
O O O to O o n N O M V
O O O N to to V' n M M M
co O O O O O O O O O O O
N m

c
ca
L
U
O O O Cl O to O O O O m 0 co
O Co O O O n 0 0 0 0 cq O O
c6 436 r O r e- Cl
.-
O

r N
N
O
a
O O O W O M M W (M n N
O O O OO to M V' to N t0 O (O
co 0 0 0 0 0 0 t7 0 0

N
m
l1

L =
O ~ > R LL
E
R
'
O
J o) ?i E O w N v
N N J W O co
C
7
a
m U

c ' V
E 0 Q
co
c c
m
R
N
t3

R
rn
N
' R
L= ' R
L=
L
R ?
Z
R
R
R
ay _
W

E
W
to
Q

t
:3
o
nt
)
nt
7
n
L
U

?
L
U
L
U(

n
N
o

?
o ca
m
m
m
C
T
C
C
C
G
C
N
to N O O O U.. W

Q
Q
c
o
fn (
/)
T2 >
Q

1
m?
n
L

11
J
I
O
N
Q
0
O C1
Rf co
0) N
C
N
N U
N . ?
?U
C _
QJ C
Cl)
U
CL C
rnF- :3
if LL
U
Z
1

I

1
O N N N N N
c7 7 M . N
O O O O O O O C. O O O
m
O
c
Lr1 ca
U U

O O O O to O O O O M O w

ILI O O O O f- O O O O m O m
n e- O r .- r O +- O
Q O
a
w in

2 d
0 N co O ? to 0 (3) N V N
W rn co 0 v m r? n to to CO F*-:
C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J
H

O N
`
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 o n to o o
O O O O N O N M O r
M O O O O O O O O O O O
N
0)
C

L
U
O O O O O to O O o O M 0 co
O O 0 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0 co 0 0
m ? e- O r - O .- O
N
N
O
a
O Cl O V to Cl O cM to M O to
0 C o rn to rn 0 ao n to o O
M r 0 0 0 0 0 c C
N
m
`
a
O to O O to to co to O M
O V O) O) co N O N 'tT M r q
0) O O O O O O O O O O O
tf)
m
O
C
tQ
L
U
0 0 o 0 0 to 0 0 0 o M o co
0 0 0 0 0 r? 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn

0
CL
0 ? 0 0 0 rn
0 f-: t*-: Lq Lq (10 U?
CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lf)
d
O.
o c 3 m > w
L O O E E 2 U O
co J C 7 y O - N a
m m J V) W n co c ?
T U
c
' U Q
w;
cu E c
m m CO v
?- m C7 D O is co
m
rn t m
t O m Z c6 N t4 ` W

m
N
C
C
C ci.
N m T C C C
Q Q C
C Q
14'
(6
Q
0?
W
CY) 0
?0
? U
L
C
Ts
L
m
L
Q
I

C

-t

J

11

ca
o cn
U
O
fu U
m m
C Z
L
2
a)
Q
L

1

I

N
(D
N
Q
C
O co)
(a L-
0)0
:_.
C Q
c U
L
L
? N
C ca
co
>
`m
0
0
0 0
to 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 C. 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 Co 00
u) o 0 0 O v st ?f o 0 o v°° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o °
v r o 0 0 OR
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 o 0 o 00 o 66 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
rn
c
m
L
U
ot°nt°°ao°OO?ooaooooo0000000ooo+nooo_o
N n r r r r O O r r r r r r r r r r r to r N r r r
r O O O r O O O O O r r O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 o I.C.
O O O o 0 O
O 00 O_ _O O
`- O
? O
?' O_ O _O _O Op 00 O
r O
r O
r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

r

O

O

O

r

O

O

O

O

Co

r

r

O

O

O
r
O
r
O
r
O
r
0
r
O
r
O _ _ _

6 _

6 _ _ _ _ _
O O 6 O O O Cl co
N
a
O
o O
rn O
rn Cl
a? O
rn O
rn O
rn O
rn 0
rn O
rn 0
rn O
o Cl
m O
m 0
m 0 O
m O
m O
to O
u. O O O O O O
c
o O
C
. O
O
O

to
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O rn
O ?n
O o
O o
O rn
O rn
O rn
O o
O rn
O rn
O ?n
O
?
c
m
L
O

O O

O O

O O

O co

O O

O O

O co

O
O
O

O
O

O
O

O
O

O
O

O
O

O
O

0
O

p
O

0
O

0
O

0
O

O
O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

a

a

O

O

O

N
O
r O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r r r
N
N
O
a
0

i 0

; o

r a

r 0

r 0

r 0

r 0

r 0

r 0 _0 0

r 0

0 0

r 0 0

r 0

tn 0

r 0

r 0

to 0

tn 0

r 0

r 0

tn 0

0 0

0 0 0

C, 0 0

C> 0
0
0
'X
N 0
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .= x. 0 0 0 .= 0 0 0

m
a
0
O 0
O °
to Cl
to o
p O
0 o
0 0
fA 0
to 0
0 0
Up 0
x 0
0 0
0 0
0 °
0 °
to o
Cl 0
0 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
O.
O
O to
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
O to
O tq
O O
6 Lo
6 0
6 p
6
r m
O
C
N
L
U

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
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
0
°
0

N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

r r r r r r r
r
r
r
O
d
O
0 C.
0 O
O O
to O
to O
O 0
O O
to O
r O
to O
to O
to O
O Co
r O
O O
O O
O O
tO O
O O
O U)
ti O O O a O O O O O C. O O

N
":
o
o
r
r
o
0
o
0
o
r
O
r
r
r
0
r
r
O 7
o O
r O
r O
r O
r O
r to
O to
O O
r to
O to
O p
r
m
- - -

m
C3L - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

?
m m
E O
t6
'
N T
C
t
C
0
C C m
E
w
O
m O

U U

U m L
'
a
N

O

76

N

m

m

m
<1 I > > > > > > >1 >1 L
> >1 5 > > > > > O
> d
> Q
> > - > > m
> > o
> a
> 7
> >
M
1

1
u
ca
2? CO)
O
O U
(p (j)
X
? U
Q
U
a) C)
c m
m o
in
U
> !1
O

1
1

1
17
,It
1
c?
m
Q U)
o`
O U
CA X
C
? V
F Q
L cu
N U
c m
c
o
? U
? C
N
O
0
LO

t2 M v O tp O O tp w .M-- a
N CM N M sr N tt N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w c 0
C?
N
W U
Q o 0 000 ao ao rn o o to
0) to co
o rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
r _L
p C C C o o C C C C o C
F- M
r =
a
w M tp tY O M O t10
co
t` tp CD tp t0 O n Goo top
Q O O O O O O O O O O O
~
O O
a
O 0 0 0 0 r O O N O O tp
O O O O O r tt O O O O O
C O C O O C O O C c C
to
C
N
L
1
U
O O D O O O N 1p O?2 0 0
N ti N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' N
O
a
00 O O O co _O O O O O O N
0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
(D
N N
r LN
C 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? O
O V o IT rn rn rn oo rn rn o rn v co
16 (f) ai C o o C o C C C C o C
N
m x rn
N c
? N
L
-cc
U
E 0 0 0 0 0 0
cu C, C? 0 00 00 0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w LL N
N
L Co
d? U o
OC 00 10 O O O N 0 0 tp O M C.
N
M 17
(n C O O O O O C O 0 0 0
?. C N
O LL
a.
r 00 O O O O tM O O O OM 0
O n
0 a) pf rn M v
Go O O O t7 N N O O -6 C O O O
N
O
C
l6
L
OO C> 0 O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
N co
O
a
C) ?ooor?
O O O O O M
to n r` m o to
co co000000000.=0
r
a
V U U
U. w LL
E ELD N U 0LL LL
?- F E W LL
m W
w N N
t! O N ca
- c f- U >
to J O E_ V O
" c 3 w E °_ m a
m N 4; J W O m c
In f w U ya a
m Q
U
a a
a co
r E
co ` ZC-m' m m w
7 3 ? L L L {], 41
? Q U U U U v U U U? p
Q )w
d d d= c c
?` c c c
ID M to
Q Q co fA m Q
1
co
1

APPENDIX M
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROPOSED NEST BOX AND ROAD-SIDE PULLOVER LOCATIOONS

1

w ?w wi ww w? ?w . w ? w? ww ww w -w , w? .w -w rw ?w
ER95007.4\Wildlife\WMP3-2,dwg
Ewa @fmoomff)
C?flOCJ?JO QP?J(n??3p?G'?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
VAUXJf M"CISENT PLAN
NORTH CAROLINA GLOB& TRANBPAW
LE" COUNTY, NORTH CAROLNA
FIGURE:
M
DATE: JAN 97