20040325 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_19970401

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BARRA FARMS/HARRISON CREEK WETLANDS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION SITE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Prepared by:
Environmental Services, Inc.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
April 1997
i
CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BARRA FARMS / HARRISON CREEK WETLANDS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION SITE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Rd.
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Prepared by:
Environmental Services, Inc.
1 100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
APRIL 1997
i
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1
2.0 METHODS ..................................................4
3.0 POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS .................................. 6
4.0 MITIGATION SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................ 9
4.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ....................... . 9
4.2 Soils ................................................. 10
4.3 Plant Communities ....................................... 12
4.4 Hydrology ............................................. 15
4.4.1 Stream Hydrology .................................. 17
4.4.2 Groundwater Hydrology .............................. 17
4.4.3 Influent Surface Waters .............................. 21
4.5 Water Quality .......................................... 21
4.6 Hazardous Materials ...................................... 22
4.7 Cultural Resources ....................................... 24
4.8 Protected Species ....................................... 24
5.0 PRELIMINARY WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS .................. 25
5.1 Wetland Functions under Existing Conditions .................... 25
5.2 Projected Wetland Functions Under Post-Restoration Conditions ....... 27
5.3 Implementation Schedule .................................. 28
6.0 PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ................ 29
6.1 Wetland Hydrology Restoration .............................. 29
6.2 Wetland Community Restoration ............................. 32
6.2.1 Planting Plan ...................................... 34
6.3 Wetland Soil Restoration ................................... 34
7.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 36
7.1 Hydrology Monitoring ..................................... 36
7.2 Hydrology Success Criteria ................................. 36
7.3 Vegetation ............................................36
7.4 Vegetation Success Criteria ................................ 37
7.5 Report Submittal ........................................ 37
7.6 Contingency ...........................................38

' 8.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY ................................... 39
' 9.0 PRELIMINARY MITIGATION CREDIT POTENTIAL ....................... 40
10.0 CONCEPTUAL REGIONAL MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY ................ 42
11.0 REFERENCES ................................................ 43

ii

i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location ............................................ 2
Figure 2: 1997 Aerial Photograph .................................... 5
Figure 3: Soil Survey and Hydric/Nonhydric Soil Boundaries ................. 11
Figure 4: Existing Plant Communities ................................. 13
Figure 5: Hydrology and Drainage Area ............................... 16
Figure 6: Preliminary DRAINMOD Wetland Hydrology Simulations ............. 19
Figure 7: Preliminary Mitigation Design Units and Implementation Phases ....... 26
Figure 8: Phase 1 Conceptual Wetland Hydrology and Soil Restoration Plan ...... 30
Figure 9: Conceptual Model of Target Community Patterns ................. 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Potential Nonriverine Wetland Impacts by Project .................. 6
Table 2: Ditch Radii of Influence on Wetland Hydroperiods ................. 20
Table 3: Preliminary Assessment of Phase 1 Mitigation Credit Potential ........ 42
0
CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
' BARRA FARMS / HARRISON CREEK WETLANDS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION SITE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I I

ECOBANK, a private sector mitigation banking company, has investigated available wetland
mitigation sites within the Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina.
This region is expected to sustain unavoidable wetland impacts associated with projected
population growth, infrastructural development, and construction of highway projects planned
in the Cape Fear River Basin. Specific highway related wetland mitigation needs associated
with pending North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects as defined in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been a major impetus for investigating
mitigation sites in this region. The Department has identified NC 24 improvements in
Cumberland, Sampson, and Duplin Counties (R-2303); NC 87 widening and bypasses in
Cumberland and Bladen Counties (R-2562 and R-522); and NC 24 improvements around
Fayetteville (X-2) as immediate and in potential need of compensatory wetland mitigation
(NCDOT letter; Appendix A).
' This search resulted in the identification of the Barra Farms property along upper reaches of
Harrison Creek in Cumberland County (Figure 1). This site is strategically located in the same
drainage basin as the proposed highway projects previously mentioned. In addition, the site
' is positioned within the Interstate 95 (1-95) development corridor and in an area subject to
continual residential, commercial, and industrial outgrowth around Fayetteville.

1

I,II'

The Barra Farms/Harrison Creek site is composed of 2247 acres (ac) of interstream flats,
former Carolina Bays, and historic stream origins which have been ditched and drained to
support agricultural and silvicultural activities. This site offers opportunities for nonriverine and
riverine (stream) wetland restoration and enhancement which can be phased in over a period
of time.
This conceptual regional mitigation plan outlines restoration and enhancement procedures for
the entire wetland ecosystem located within Barra Farms. However, the initial phase of up-
front wetland restoration is anticipated to compensate for specific highway related projects.
Decision for use of this mitigation will be made by NCDOT. However, the NC 24 improvement
project in Cumberland, Sampson, and Duplin Counties (R-2303) is the most likely mitigation
candidate for Barra Farms Phase I mitigation credits. Additional up-front restoration phases
at Barra Farms will be implemented as unavoidable wetland impacts are quantified within the
region. A mitigation banking instrument will be formulated during later phases of site
restoration for non-project specific usage.
1

' The benefits of such a regional mitigation plan are numerous. Mitigation will be performed up-
front prior to permit submittal and construction of a specific highway project. This will allow
' resource and regulatory agencies to evaluate the success of proposed mitigation efforts early
in the planning process for a particular project. Mitigation will be in-kind and within basin,
thereby replacing lost wetland functions and acreage for impacted wetland losses. Private
t sector mitigation relieves NCDOT of the responsibility for site selection, acquisition,
implementation, monitoring, and long term management. In addition, scheduling delays for
highway construction can be eliminated by having mitigation in place and approved early in the
' planning process. The long term success of this private sector mitigation project will be
ensured through financial assurances (trust funds) in accordance with State and Federal
guidelines established for monitoring, long term management, contingency, and remedial
' actions.
The primary goal for this conceptual mitigation plan is to demonstrate the suitability of Barra
Farms as a potential mitigation site. The secondary goal is to receive consensus from various
resource and regulatory agencies regarding the acceptability of this site as mitigation for
' specific highway projects currently being proposed by NCDOT.
Therefore, this document will: 1) briefly evaluate potentially impacted wetlands associated
' with highway improvement projects in the area; 2) describe existing conditions at the entire
2247-ac mitigation site; 3) present a conceptual mitigation plan for restoring wetlands in a
phased approach; and 4) describe methods for monitoring and management of restoration
' efforts. If this site is considered acceptable for mitigation use, detailed mitigation plans will be
implemented at Barra Farms in an expedited manner to ensure project completion in advance
of targeted wetland impacts.

3

0
n

F
C
0

2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information for the Barra Farms / Harrison Creek site was obtained from
available sources. U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping and Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys (USDA 1984) were utilized for base mapping and
to evaluate existing landscape and soil information prior to on-site inspection. Current (1994)
aerial photography (Figure 2) was obtained and evaluated to determine primary hydrologic
features and to map relevant environmental features on USGS base mapping.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data bases were evaluated for the presence
of protected species and designated natural areas which may serve as reference (relatively
undisturbed) wetlands for restoration design. Regional management areas administered by The
Nature Conservancy were also evaluated for reference use. Identified sites were evaluated to
provide baseline information on target (post-restoration) wetland condition. Characteristic and
target natural community patterns were classified according to constructs outlined in Schafale
and Weakley's, Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (1990).
Field investigations were performed in March 1997, including preliminary hazardous materials
review, hydrological evaluations, natural community assessments, and classification of soil and
landscape features. Existing plant communities, surface water flow, and soil disturbances
were delineated, mapped, and described by structure and composition.
To characterize existing hydrologic conditions, conceptual mitigation planning included the
following activities: 1) installation of a series of soil borings strategically placed throughout the
site and conversion of these borings into piezometers (6); 2) performance of in situ hydraulic
conductivity tests (slug tests); and 3) a general evaluation of potential groundwater flow
gradients on the site. General groundwater conditions were conceptually modeled using
DRAINMOD, a computer model for simulating relatively shallow soils with high water tables.
Field survey information was platted and compiled within Geographic Information System (GIS)
base mapping and analyzed to develop conceptual wetland restoration plans. Based on
wetland component analyses, the site was divided into appropriate mitigation phases.
Mitigation phases are designed to maximize wetland functional replacement benefits and to
facilitate success in restoration of a contiguous wetland ecosystem. Phase 1 of proposed
mitigation at Barra Farms was designed to provide suitable nonriverine wetland replacement
for potential roadway projects in the region, such as NC 24 improvements (R-2303).
4
u

I
I lisp

t
arr 1s`??rr-.. kZ " a rK d? rk` T , 71 1-4, 1 ^ 7,` t IF ? lv dF B t ! F ` w i ?, t a! ''?
fi??rn ar{ ,Y ?yw? Farm Outbuildings 3
1 % sr > ? 1
41-
7}5 !"?t >r :;?yj,?{.' x^ : 6d'4•. fir,-`""S,.f`w v ,:: ? t ? ? ,% .wv.
r - E ^ U ;F'. 9 ?'' r L 1f Y. tK R? ?+..+?J r? r / n? n1 i .4
i;t w 4;,;?r. +: ,7?i!?, r -,?, ..F_ ":•rr: ' i.• 4 °r^'-, .^'`.,:,?x r air
vr?
a iJ I W
1
t
' ?-?€,: - ? sl `irk ?A. .?..:.- ?+f,` lr -' \ h•::, ???? .? ?1`ta ? tr
?• ;?t., M1 J ,rt ?,, } a s,: -1 ? t V?. i. ?^ ? '? ?' "fir Ii1 [+', ?` ?}}p,..
?rw
r ^ Y
r? y
4 ` 4l,.r S': '' rn i ht
W'
1

it
f
4t,
F
?t 4
R
w7
1
4 ; rr ,ti l

1
{ ?F '
t t

r
dry ti _ A J.e
ae. e' w V try{ ^ ':i ?",? ^ }:. s.? A!1 ?.x?!
I
0 1000 2000 feet
0 500 meters
Source: Weyerhaeuser Photography, 1994
Environmental
Services, Inc.
1994 Aerial Photograph
Barra Farms/Harrison Creek Wetlands
Cumberland County, North Carolina

Figure: 2
Project: ER97010
Date: April 1997

t 3.0 POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS
The initial phase of this up-front mitigation project will serve to mitigate for highway related
projects in the region. Project specific mitigation needs include NC 24 improvements in
Cumberland, Sampson, and Duplin Counties (R-2303); NC 87 improvements in Cumberland,
' Bladen, and Columbus Counties (R-2561 and R-2562); and NC 24 improvements around
Fayetteville (X-2). Therefore, a general description of unavoidable wetland impacts potentially
resulting from these projects is provided to orient restoration planning, to compare up-front
restoration plans to potential impacts, and to facilitate successful initiation of Phase 1 of this
mitigation plan.
' For the purposes of this assessment, wetland types associated with the above referenced
highway projects are grouped into riverine/bottomland wetlands and nonriverine/interstream
' wetlands for descriptive purposes. Riverine wetlands are defined as wetland corridors which
surround a stream channel and support, or historically supported, overbank flooding, fluvial
sediment deposition, and floodplain wetland communities. Nonriverine wetlands are defined
' as precipitation and groundwater driven systems occurring along interstream divides.
Nonriverine wetlands do not contain streams and associated floodplains, although streams may
originate within headwater storage areas (groundwater discharge zones) associated with the
' nonriverine wetland.
This wetland impact assessment and up-front compensatory mitigation plan has been designed
' to compensate primarily for nonriverine wetland impacts. However, the plan is expected to
provide additional opportunities for riverine (stream) wetland mitigation as well. Table 1
depicts a conservative estimate of nonriverine wetlands potentially impacted by targeted
' highway improvement projects.

TABLE 1: Potential Nonriverine Wetland Impacts by Proiect
NCDOT TIP: X-2 TIP: R-2561 and 2562 TIP: R-2303
Traffic NC 24 Improvements NC 87 Improvements NC 24 Improvements
Improvement Cumberland County Cumberland, Bladen, Cumberland, TOTAL
Project (TIP) and Columbus Sampson, and Duplin
Counties Counties
Area (acres) 25 40 210 275
' More than 250 ac of nonriverine wetlands are expected to be impacted by roadway
improvements projects, dependent upon final project alignments. Nonriverine pine/hardwood
forested wetlands represent a large majority of wetland impacts potentially associated with
' improvements of NC 24/87. These wetlands are positioned along the center of interstream
tracts which are temporarily saturated or inundated during early portions of the growing
season. Interstream wetlands in proximity to alternative road alignments are typically
' fragmented within farmed landscapes or road networks and exhibit negligible forest
connectivity with riverine/bottomland corridors. Interstream wetlands exhibit indications of

6

' long-term disturbance such as antecedent farming, affected hydrology, or systematic logging.
Included within this wetland class is nonriverine shrub-scrub wetlands which dominate the
' region. This community represents interstream woodland or pine plantation which has been
clear cut in the last 10-20 years.
' Soil types within potentially impacted interstream wetlands include series such as Rains (Typic
Paleaquults), Pantego (Umbric Paleaquults), Cape Fear (Typic Umbraquults), Portsmouth (Typic
' Umbraquults), Torhunta (Typic Humaquepts), and Croatan (Terric Medisaprists) (USDA 1984,
USDA 1990, USDA 1985, USDA 1954). These soils are nearly level, poorly drained, with the
seasonal high water table at or near the surface. Silty clays or organic matter of limited
' permeability lie a few inches to a few feet below the ground surface is some potential impact
areas. Relatively low permeability of subsoils may contribute to the presence of wetland
hydrology in these areas. When drained, these soils are generally well suited for agriculture.
' Interstream communities traditionally support trees such as water oak (Quercus nigra), pond
pine (Pious serotina), willow oak (Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxiil,
' laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa biflora),
and loblolly pine (Pious taeda). Swamp red bay (Persea palustris), sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) are common
' understory/shrub components. Characteristic ground cover species may include partridge berry
(Mitchella repens), switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), netted chain fern (Woodwardia
areolata), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris).
' Nonriverine forested wetland functions may include long-term water storage during periods of
' groundwater drawdown, moderation of groundwater flow/movement within the watershed,
and attenuation of surface runoff into streams and agricultural (slope) areas of lower landscape
position (Adamus et al. 1991). Because these wetland functions occur primarily below ground
' surface, indirect visual observations of functional performance are required. The ability of
potentially impacted, interstream wetland resources to perform physical wetland functions
appears to be degraded by adjacent land use practices. Extensive ditching and fragmentation
' in farm fields surrounding interstream wetlands has accelerated the transport of stored water
and rainfall from these interstream flats, through inter-field ditches, and into area streams.
Ditching has also lowered the seasonal high water table to marginal wetland levels in some
areas. Evidence of above-ground hydrology within these systems is limited to isolated, small
pockets which fill with water during winter and early spring.
' Habitat value of interstream wetlands, when interspersed and connected with bottomland
systems, is considered important to maintenance of characteristic wildlife guilds (USFWS
1981). No net loss of interstream wetland function and connectivity for wildlife in the region
should assist in maintaining species distributions and abundance. However, field evaluations
suggest that the potentially impacted, nonriverine wetlands in the general area of NC 24 and
NC 87 proposed corridors exhibit relatively low value for wildlife. These areas exhibit
negligible connectivity with riverine corridors and have sustained long-term degradation from

7

' human activity. In addition, the early successional stage generated by systematic clear-cutting
in these systems is considered common habitat throughout eastern North Carolina.
Compensatory mitigation strategies which consolidate fragmented nonriverine wetland impacts
into contiguous watershed reserves are expected to replace wetland functions potentially lost
as a result of NC 24/87 improvements. The mitigation should provide for functional
replacement of impacted nonriverine wetlands within the same river basin (Cape Fear) and the
same physiographic province (Coastal Plain) (DWQ 1996). In addition, the mitigation proposal
' should provide for the spatial replacement of wetland acres lost due to proposed highway
improvements at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio up to a 2:1 ratio, through restoration, prior to
' utilizing enhancement or preservation to satisfy the mitigation requirements. The mitigation
site should also exhibit direct connectivity to riparian (bottomland) ecosystems after
reforestation is completed. These primary objectives for mitigating impacts from highway
' projects in the region are achievable through up-front wetland restoration at the Barra Farms
/ Harrison Creek regional mitigation site.

n

u
P
8

R
4.0 MITIGATION SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS
' The Barra Farms / Harrison Creek site comprises approximately 2247 ac situated 4 miles south
of NC 24, 7 mi east of NC 87, and 10 mi southeast of Fayetteville (Figure 1). The site,
situated 3 mi east of the Cape Fear River, represents a broad coastal plain interstream divide
' which supports the NC 210 highway corridor immediately north of the mitigation site. The site
contains several relict Carolina Bays and stream origins with a majority of these
hydrogeomorphic features converted for agricultural land use. The site receives drainage from
' elevated sand (Carolina Bay) terraces which support the NC 210 corridor, several state roads,
and discharges these influent waters into Harrison Creek, a tributary of the Cape Fear River.
' 4.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The mitigation site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of North
' Carolina within the Inner Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear
Basin extends from the Piedmont/Coastal Plain boundary (Fall Line) near Fayetteville southeast
to the City of Wilmington (Hydrologic Unit #03030005 and #03030006 [USGS 1974]). The
' mitigation site is located approximately 15 mi southeast of the Fall Line and approximately 95
mi northwest of the coast.
' The site is situated along a Coastal Plain interstream divide which contains the historic stream
origin of Harrison Creek. Adjacent, elevated sandy terraces cover approximately 300 ac of
land with groundwater and surface water discharging from these terraces towards the
' mitigation site. Elevations within upper reaches of the watershed extend to approximately 140
ft above mean sea level (MSL) along these sandy terraces. Conversely, elevations within the
mitigation site range from approximately 125 ft above MSL at the upper mitigation site
boundary, to approximately 120 ft above MSL at the mitigation site out-fall. Therefore,
historic wetlands along the interstream divide were most likely complex, influenced by radial
' groundwater and surface water (stream) flow in lower reaches of the site as well as
precipitation and vertical groundwater fluctuations in interior wetland areas.
A majority of the site has been cleared, ditched, drained, and removed from jurisdictional
wetland status. The original drainage system was installed to facilitate agricultural production
and to convey drainage from upslope areas through the site. Subsequently, additional drainage
' systems and a dirt road network were constructed periodically over the last several decades.
These expanded canals, ditches, and culverts appear to have been installed in response to
changing agricultural land uses and additional drainage requirements. The patchwork of
antecedent ditch networks and current drainage structures includes approximately 250,000
linear feet of ditches/canals distributed systematically throughout the mitigation site.
A number of farm outbuildings and structures reside within the historic wetland area.
Structures include maintenance sheds and grain storage bins located along the eastern site
' periphery (Figure 2). In addition, electric power lines and irrigation wells are distributed
systematically throughout the agricultural land use area.

9
r

As a result of extensive ditching and canalization, spoil ridges and piles occur systematically
throughout the site. Much of the excavated spoil material was used to build and elevate dirt
roads adjacent to canals. However, substantial spoil ridges persist along isolated ditch
segments and range from 1 ft to 6 ft in height above the adjacent soil surface. If wetland
hydrology is restored to the site, these spoil ridges and elevated dirt roads would require
removal and/or grading to re-expose wetland soil surfaces.
The site is located approximately 2 mi north of the Bushy Lake State Natural Area. This
natural area currently encompasses approximately 2570 ac with an estimated additional 800
ac to be added in 1997 through acquisition by The Nature Conservancy. The Bushy Lake
State Natural Area is managed by the North Carolina Park and Recreation Service out of the
Jones Lake State Park Office. Adjacent to the State Natural Area, several NCNHP designated
Priority Areas occur, including Horseshoe Lake, Marshy Bay, Suggs Mill Pond, Big Gallberry
Bay and Little Singletary Lake. These sites have been listed by NCNHP as Priority Areas
because they exhibit a unique array of ecosystems in the State and Nation which may warrant
future protection from disturbance. In addition, these systems contain a significant assemblage
of threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The Barra Farms mitigation site may
serve to enlarge the area of management associated with the Bushy Lake State Natural Area
and adjacent NCNHP Priority Areas. Restored wetlands at Barra Farms will diversify
opportunities for management of wildlife and unique natural communities in the region.
4.2 SOILS
The mitigation area occurs along a landscape-soil gradient characterized as the Lakeland-
Torhunta-Croatan-Johnston catena (Figure 3). Carolina Bay sand rims along a majority of the
site periphery consist of excessively drained, sandy sediments (Lakeland, Autryville map units)
while interior portions of the site are dominated by very poorly drained, organic soils
associated with the Torhunta and Croatan series. However, southern portions of the historic
' wetland comprise a complex of organic material, coarse marine deposits, and fine alluvial
surficial sediments that have been mixed and reworked by fluvial actions. Soil patterns
suggest that southern portions of the site, including the Johnston soil map unit (Figure 3)
historically consisted of a complex supporting groundwater recharge areas and groundwater
(headwater) discharge areas serving as sources for intermittent, ephemeral, and permanent
streams.
' 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 1987). Hydric
' soils comprise 97 percent (approximately 2180 ac) of the 2247-ac mitigation area. Hydric
series present include the Cape Fear, Torhunta, Johnston, Woodington, and Rains soil map
units. Organic matter within these series potentially ranges from a minimum of 1 percent in
I the Rains series to 60 percent in the Croatan series. However, reductions in organic matter
at the site are anticipated as a result of long term drainage, tillage, and harvest.

10

i
NC
SR2
023
C,
U
?O
VSO
_. / CT

on
p 0)
r• m
L_
W •?
QQ
to
'm 0
if
o
n g b
LO
N
3 m II
S. a
m v
u v
v o
U UI
Q
Z
J -?
I O
W01
3Q
U
>- W2
W I-
?UO
V)zZ
JOB
OXZ
?QO
U?U
Z?Z
J
Q rK
?W
Qm
QU
m
Mitigation site boundary AuA Bn ,
,:. I Le
® NONHYDRIC SOILS (67 acres) pR
Le Leon BuA Butters t
AuA Autryville LaB Lakeland St
Pa Pactolus KuB Kureb Le u
St Stallings CaB Candor
HYDRIC SOILS (2180 acres) Tr d
S?
CT Croatan 10 ?,
TR Torhunto St w
Ra Rains SR20 2
Wo Woodington 4
JT Johnston <q X
I
' Construction of large canals and feeder ditches has drained most of the mitigation site to the
extent that hydric conditions in the upper soil horizons are currently limited. In addition,
' artificial drainage and agricultural production most likely promoted a reduction in organic matter
content through accelerated decomposition and harvesting. To effectively re-establish wetland
hydrology within hydric soil areas, drainage canals require modification to recreate surface and
' subsurface drainage patterns. Organic matter relations in the soil profile are expected to return
to relict condition over time after restoration of wetland hydrology.
' Non-hydric series present include the Autryville, Pactolus, Leon, and Stallings map units.
These series comprise approximately 67 ac of the mitigation site. These soils are primarily
' non-hydric but may contain hydric inclusions of the Torhunta or Woodington series. The non-
hydric series generally occupy elevated sandy terraces and exhibit drainage classes ranging
from somewhat poorly drained to excessively drained. These soils lack wetland hydrology but
' are included in the mitigation landscape to provide the potential for restoration of
upland/wetland ecotones. These ecotones are among the most diverse and productive
environments for wildlife (Brinson et al. 1981).

L

Soil surfaces have been levelled, graded, and compacted as a result of agricultural practices.
Surface microtopography represents an important component of nonriverine wetlands as water
storage functions and micro-habitat complexity are provided by hummocks and swales across
the wetland landscape. Reintroduction of microtopographic complexity across soil surfaces
represents an important component of wetland restoration in converted cropland.
4.3 PLANT COMMUNITIES
Plant communities at Barra Farms are influenced primarily by hydrogeomorphic conditions and
past/current land use practices. The site is located primarily within intermittent rims of several
Carolina Bays. Site preparation, drainage, and continued maintenance over the years have
substantially altered the natural plant communities. Seven plant communities have been
identified for descriptive purposes, including: 1) Active Cropland; 2) Fallow Cropland; 3) Early
Successional Scrub; 4) Pond Pine Woodland/Bay Forest; 5) Nonriverine Swamp Forest; 6)
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood/Swamp Forest; and 7) Commercial/Disturbed Land (Figure 4).
Active and Fallow Cropland
Approximately 48% (1082 ac) of the 2247-ac area consists of active or fallow cropland.
These areas include farm-fields which have been planted during the current season (active
cropland) and farm-fields which have been planted within the last 3 years (fallow cropland).
Agricultural production for wheat and corn are concurrent on farmed portions of the site. In
fallow fields, disturbance adapted species indicative of moderately well drained conditions are
currently recolonizing the area. Species composition and vegetation height differ at several
locations depending on time since last cultivation, site fertility, and hydrology. Characteristic
pioneer species include broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), asters (Aster spp.), geranium
(Geranium caroiinianum), goldenrod (Sofidago spp.), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), young
red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pious taeda), and groundsel-tree (Baccharis haiimifoiia).
12

?c
SR2023 D
i.-
0C21
IV
..,, ..,.
SR2033
....................................... .
s ++
tit` ? - + +
_____- __ ± ++++' + +
_ ----------_ + + + +
- - - - - - - - - - - -
+ + + +
------ --- -----
----------------- -
----------- + + + + +
- -___ + + + + +
Ile) +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ + ---
+ _-_--
_-
Mitigation site boundary ::':•':;:;':;;;'.,'.''``',.'`.'•?: "_ ,
Area (acres)
® RIVERINE BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD/ 18
SWAMP FOREST ::::•::::::::::::.:,:::.,:::::::::::
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL SCRUB 417
POND PINE WOODLAND/BAY FOREST 683
® NONRIVERINE SWAMP FOREST 19
(STEADY STATE REFERENCE) s? O
0 ACTIVE CROPLAND 667 BOO
Q FALLOW CROPLAND 415 2
® COMMERCIAL/DISTURBED LAND 28 SR2442
TOTAL 2247

o ?
o rn
? rn
rn
U_
?Wa
U
U N
d o
N
? O
O
J 3
N
9 S', II
m
m Q)
3 U v
N
o` U W
oQ
Z
z
Q
?O
V3 Li Of
W?Q
1- U
ZW2
QUO
Z
O Z
U Or
?V?
Q ?
-IQO
a-
Z?Z
<J
Q
XLL.X
WQM LLJ
<U
Q
/y
W
a
00
r?

' A number of inclusions support dense, young sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Scattered
loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), and laurel-leaf greenbrier
' (Smilax laurifolia) are also present.
Numerous inter-field ditches support hydrophytic plants such as soft rush (Juncus effusus),
' woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), cattail (Typha latifolia), seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), yellow-
eyed grass (Xyris sp.), and beak rush (Rhynchospora sp.). Inter-field dirt road berms are
invaded by various upland and invasive species such as blackberry (Rubus spp.), broomsedge,
' asters (Aster spp.), and numerous annual and perennial grasses and herbs. Characteristic
wetland forest vegetation is absent from fallow and active cropland portions the site.

0

I I

Early Successional Scrub
Early successional scrub communities are currently recolonizing portions of the site that have
been heavily logged or not farmed within 3-5 years or more. These sites, comprising
approximately 417 ac, contain decreasing populations of broomsedge but increasing
greenbrier, winged sumac, loblolly pine, red maple, and evergreen shrubs such as bitter
gallberry (flex glabra), sweet gallberry (/Hex coriacea), and fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida).
Pond Pine Woodland/Bay Forest
Northwestern and southeastern reaches of the site maintain pond pine woodland/bay forest
communities (683 ac) which have sustained degradation from past logging and construction
of intermittent road and ditch networks. The disturbed forest canopy consists of character
species such as red maple, loblolly bay, pond pine (Pious serotina), and occasional swamp
tupelo gum or black gum (Nyssa biflora, Nyssa sylvatica). Red maple dominates most of the
area with scattered pond pine and loblolly bay present. The shrub layer is tall and dense with
characteristic species including bitter gallberry, sweet gallberry, fetter-bush, sweet pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), sheepkill (Kalmia angustifolia),
laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), and occasional swamp bay (Persea palustris). More
recently disturbed areas contain sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and
yellow jessamine. Some of this forest has been logged, removing much of the pine so that red
maple and loblolly bay typically dominate the canopy. Along the eastern boundary, the trees
are intermittent and the shrub layer is more dense, possibly as the result of intense fire or
logging.
Nonriverine Swamp Forest
Within the northwestern periphery of the site, an inclusion of relatively undisturbed, steady
state nonriverine swamp forest persists within the complex. This community, comprising
approximately 19 ac, is a remnant of what was probably a more extensive system before
logging in the present bay took place. The canopy is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), red maple, swamp tupelo gum
(Nyssa biflora) and intermittent pond pine. Scattered red bay and sweet bay are found in the
understory, and sweet pepperbush, titi, and fetterbush are found in the shrub layer. This
community represents a steady state, reference forest ecosystem utilized to orient wetland
14

restoration planning. After restoration activities are implemented, this site will be used to
establish monitoring plan parameters and to evaluate achievement of wetland mitigation
' success criteria.
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood/Swamp Forest
Within south-central portions of the site, a bottomland hardwood/swamp forest community
persists along a potentially degraded floodplain and relict stream channel. This mid-
successional community, covering approximately 18 ac, appears to have been affected by
reductions in surface hydrodynamics, reductions in hydroperiod, and periodic timber harvest.
The canopy is dominated by disturbance adapted tree species such as red maple, sweet gum,
loblolly bay, and pond pine. However, relict stems of swamp tupelo, overcup oak (Quercus
/yrata), and laurel oak (Quercus /aurifo/ia) were noted within subcanopy and shrub layers.
Organic soil subsidence has exposed root collars on many of the remaining tree stems.

Commercial/Disturbed Land
This classification, comprising approximately 28 ac, designates man-dominated areas such as
buildings, developed areas, maintenance yards, and machinery parking areas. These map areas
are concentrated in northeastern portions of the mitigation site and include what appears to
represent an old runway on compacted fill material. Characteristic plant species within these
disturbed lands include lawn grasses, wild grasses, and opportunistic herbs.
4.4 HYDROLOGY
Hydrology at Barra Farms is driven by precipitation inputs and primarily vertical to semi-radial
fluctuations in the groundwater table (Figure 5). However, lateral groundwater flow and
surface flow may have represented a significant component of wetland hydrodynamics under
historic conditions. Topographically, the site is generally expressed as a complex of broad flats
and depressions (Carolina Bays) with lands at higher elevations occurring on sand terraces to
the north, east, and west. Under historic conditions, a majority of the interior wetlands most
likely served as an above headwater storage area for Harrison Creek. Precipitation inputs and
episodic radial groundwater flow most likely migrated from interior wetland areas towards
south-central portions of the site. Conversely, lateral groundwater and surface flow is
expected to have dominated wetland hydrodynamics in south-central portions of the site as
above-ground discharge assisted in development of a historic floodplain. The floodplain
appears to have surrounded a number of intermittent stream channels which coalesced into
a primary channel denoting the origin of Harrison Creek. The Harrison Creek segment evident
immediately below farm-field ditches appears to represent a first or second order stream
(Outlet #1, Figure 5) (Strahler 1964).
Currently, semi-radial and lateral groundwater migration has been intercepted by a network of
interior canals and interfield ditches which effectively drains farmed portions of the mitigation
area. Approximately 250,000 linear feet of ditches and canals have been constructed and
range from approximately 1 ft deep in interfield ditches to 10 ft deep at the site out-fall.
15

r
R20

0 ?3ET

Mitigation site boundary
PROJECTED GROUNDWATER AND STREAM
FLOW UNDER HISTORIC CONDITIONS
3
O
J
a
a
a
a
m
0
0
m
a
w
DITCHES AND CANALS
> DIRECTION OF FLOW UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS
INLET
OUTLET
#2 ?P
?O
?O
e
fayFR 04
14
CR?Ek
INLET
#l
o r
o rn
? rn
rn
a
N w r
a
00 o
i- a o
a ? b
0
04
N
II
3 in
m v
C Y Qj
U
? U U7
0
oQ
zz
Ld w0
Q?U
LLI
(D LLJ
QWI=-
QUO
z
oo}
QQo
}2U
O V)
0x<
J
0U"W
Ca
?D
QU
a]
,;
da
ov
WA

Groundwater migration has been redirected away from the historic floodplain and diverted into
the Central, East-West Canal (Figure 5). The discharge is directed to the west in this canal and
' discharged from the mitigation site in a, constructed canal denoted as Outlet #2 in Figure 5.
Drainage redirection and lowering of the water table has effectively eliminated wetland
hydrodynamics in farmed areas and potentially degraded the Harrison Creek bottomland
' ecosystem. This unprotected drainage network connects site discharge within the interstream
divide to tributaries of the Cape Fear River.
4.4.1 Stream Hydrology
The potentially degraded segment of riverine wetlands along Harrison Creek includes
' approximately 1800 linear ft or more of lost primary stream channel on the mitigation site and
approximately 4600 linear ft of degraded or lost stream channel below the mitigation site.
Based on NRCS soil mapping (Johnston map unit, USDA 1984), The floodplain associated with
' this degraded or lost stream system ranges from approximately 300 ft in width near stream
origin to approximately 800 ft in width at confluence with the constructed drainage canal and
Harrison Creek. Relict riverine wetland floodplains within the mitigation site encompasses up
to 18 ac of land area.
Field surveys of the floodplain indicate that the primary channel consists of relict stream
segments and stream segments effectively obliterated by organic debris accumulation, past
logging activity, and ditch construction. Subsidence of organic material due to drainage is also
apparent within the riverine system. Under historic conditions, the stream channel may have
' supported riverine aquatic habitat and the floodplains may have sustained periodic overbank
flooding, groundwater discharge, and riverine wetland function.
4.4.2 Groundwater Hydrolo
Based upon soil borings and piezometer samples collected on-site, groundwater was
' encountered as part of a shallow, unconfined surficial aquifer within 0 ft to 6 ft of the ground
surface. The highest groundwater elevations were measured in northwestern portions of the
site where isolated forest wetlands persist within the agricultural landscape. Water table
elevations decrease (i.e. depth to groundwater increases) along drainage gradients extending
up to approximately 6 ft below ground surface adjacent to the major drainage canals.
' Under existing conditions, groundwater generally flows towards the central canal and
westward to a constructed canal which extends south below the mitigation site. Historically,
groundwater flows within central portions of the site are expected to have flowed south into
the origin of Harrison Creek. Drainage networks have effectively re-routed groundwater flows
away from the Harrison Creek floodplain and into a confined drainage canal. Restoration of
wetland hydrology may redirect groundwater and downstream flows towards potentially more
' stable, historic conditions. In addition, riverine wetland functions along the approximately
6,400-ft downstream segment of Harrison Creek may be restored as a result of mitigation.

17

i

Groundwater modeling was performed to characterize the water table under current drainage
conditions. The model was applied to evaluate wetland restoration alternatives and to predict
wetland mitigation potential (hydrological restoration, enhancement, or protection). The
groundwater modeling software selected as most appropriate for simulating shallow subsurface
conditions and groundwater behavior at the site is DRAINMOD. This model was developed
by R.W. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E., of North Carolina State University (NCSU) to simulate the
performance of water table management systems. The model was originally developed to
simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and water table control systems on sites with
shallow water table conditions. DRAINMOD was subsequently modified for application to
wetland studies by adding a counter that accumulates the number of events wherein the water
table rises above a specified depth (12 in) and remains above that threshold depth for a given
duration during the growing season. Model results are analyzed to determine if wetland criteria
are satisfied during the growing season for more than half of the years modeled. Required
model inputs include: 1) precipitation data; 2) soils data; 3) drain data; 4) the threshold water
table depth (12 in); 5) the required duration of high water tables (ex: 28 days); and 6)
beginning and ending dates of the growing season.
Output from the DRAINMOD model was applied to determine which areas would not achieve
wetland hydrology criteria under existing conditions. Wetland hydrology is defined in the
model as groundwater within 12 inches of the surface for 31 consecutive days during the
growing season (12.5 percent of the growing season). For the purpose of this study, the
growing season was defined as the period between 21 March and 19 November (USDA 1984).
For the development phase of this conceptual mitigation plan, additional modeling was
performed to predict the maximum radius of influence on wetland hydrology caused by the
ditches and canals. The maximum radius of influence was utilized to provide an indication of
preliminary potential for wetland hydrological enhancement resulting from mitigation.
DRAINMOD simulations were conducted for the range of ditch/canal depths and distances of
a midpoint to the ditch or canal. The simulation evaluated the Croatan soil; the primary
wetland soil type at Barra Farms. Based on the model, wetland hydrology has been eliminated
at distances ranging from 66 ft to 174 ft from on-site ditches (Table 2). The pre-restoration
DRAINMOD simulations indicate that wetland hydrology has been removed from approximately
1018 ac of PC cropland as a result of ditching and soil surface modifications (levelling,
compaction, removal of microtopography) (Figure 6).
Wetland hydrology has been significantly degraded within early successional and forested
' areas as a result of ditching. The model indicates that the annual occurrence of wetland
hydrology has been reduced to 24 out of 31 years at distances ranging from 131 ft to 231 ft
from drainage ditches (Table 2). Based on the model, enhancement of wetland hydrology may
' be realized within approximately 626 ac of degraded wetland forest in northwestern and
southeastern portions of the site.

0
18

I

1

fl

I?
WETLAND HYDROLOGY DEGRADED 626
WETLAND HYDROLOGY UNAFFECTED 535
WETLAND HYDROLOGY REMOVED 1018
NONHYDRIC (UPLAND) SOILS 68
TOTAL 2247
SR2042
o n
0 rn
rn
w
Q
i d
W
a` o°
N
a o
J L0
3 a
?+ II
5 m x
m ?
M-e
0
z
O
Z
O?
UZQ
?QJ
3a
WYU
W?
IOC
cnUO
OZZ
1=0}
?
J _
rY Z
?QO
N\U
Z
Q
J
0 L'W
m
=Q?
om
O
2
z
Q
0
g?
C?

C

H

n
N
W
J
m
Q
F--
N
N 10
O O
O 'O
i
E
? = N
C
E
r c
O O N
N V ,i
t+ = IC
N
(n
C? C E
(D ?- 0 U-
N _
cv
•R °a i
E m
c Q
c)--
4) C_ N M
U
> N

C

H
?
w
d O O
•
-
L +
'
N
m y -
U
-
?
N
U
r m>_
L p
p
_ 'O U m
N
°
>'
M
M
M
M
M
O
U T O = p
j
N O O O O O
C C > a) E
c C 7= O U
L O a It
N It
N V
N it
N
N
N
X
j m 7
p U Q m Z>
=
d c m E m
a7 '
N 0
C _ U
o >
O p y > N
cm 0
O o Q
)
0
,
`
p o >-
O w-a E w w
j N L A n
co
N E m O y a) U
O) U C M C
D
r O
N M
N
m
m N y
CD >
0 3 >

a c

o N C O
I y
?
a
=
c +
_
a)
: aa) m
3 3
6 0 U
°>
°? Cl) Cl) M M M M M
0 M
0
m
)
03 ° •
c v
Q7 0
(D 0 0 0 0
co co
o
m .
0
O
E m L2 ?2 t2
a° c z
E??a
p c
O N
W
> N
> cm
m c m m
a)
m
0 o
> °
? > -
0 0 0 7 U O
a
_ -p L n a) '- N
u 'O U
--
vim-
-
w-

•-
V?

w
L

w
CO
C 2 L
m c
C 7 (O N
w a)
U
C M r n
d c c O m ?
•,
-
m L M a) O
N N C a
m
° m

>
m
y p

d
L O
l0 .
m U
' c '
O
>

t
3 U
O
O C C
D
,
C U
O
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
U m
O U > N
"L w
O w
O w
O w
O -
O -
O w
O -
O
C
p a)
in N a C U (D LO M M
O p?
a
E m O It m m
c
0 °
z?=
E
- o
()
c ?
m m
0=
p

p °+

Im m O)
m
>
7 O m .C V O
O U)
O) a U •- N
U
-O
w
-
-
w
w
w

'O

=>.C:
>• C y
3 c
U
LU N
(D
N
1l

O
LO

N
00

Cl)
N r
O
M
C Im c (D co
3 m C7 a)
(DY a
C L
N C
L .-
a y m
Q) m m n
ai w
C m y?j w w vY-. .= ? d
0 c -O N M a' m (p UL M It
(O
a?N
c UO a
«
CD
=
C L
m

N
>• N
O O
O 3
?' 8 C
C L O
aC7? 'ca
O
N as
O L a) _
L V, O V7
? >
O CT)
r O O
00 N O
U
>
O (0 . L
?, 7 O
U C
y 00 U (0
L N O 7-
L N
o
oO
0
N \ N
` LO M
cc N L j
Q
O >• (n M
U CA ,? .?
O O O
L
CA O ? ?
O
N O
L L +Z Cf'
N O C -0 O
4N f6 O +cvo v m 0
CL 'a
y U O E
.
U
C: Cc
'= O m •N O O
O O L >'00
U - CA
a) CY)
O p .? O
E ` N m O +?
a) > CL O
x -0
L O
O O d7
O O U 00
+ C N E
? -O N
CD E 2
a 3 ? co
c O }
CO
`? E O co
U O •y 7 E (B
C N U N -O U
O t' ca CA
-0 (n - U O
E o
c +J O 'Cu
O O E E
N C L .
C O co U
o °? - CD
E 0)
(L° c 2
a? v ~ o
RS E
> (n L U N U
M E U =o
U N O = C
O
-C c
t- I- S E °
.-- N

n

G
Remaining forested systems situated away from major drainage structures (535 ac) may
maintain wetland hydroperiods approaching historic condition. However, hydrological
fragmentation within these isolated wetland pockets is expected to induce wetland degradation
throughout the mitigation site, with the possible exception of a relatively contiguous forested
system in the northwestern site periphery. Post-restoration drainage impacts on wetland
hydrology will be modeled for various project phases during preparation of detailed restoration
plans. Target wetland hydroperiods after restoration will be redirected towards historic
condition based on the reference (relatively undisturbed) wetland hydroperiods expected in
northwestern portions of the site.
4.4.3 Influent Surface Waters
As depicted in Figure 5, five surface flow inlets have been identified extending from adjacent
uplands into the mitigation site. These inlets consist of ditches which have been constructed
and connected to the on-site drainage network. Due to the size of the mitigation site and
expected slope gradients below in-fall, these influent surface flows appear to maintain base
level elevations that are conducive to on-site storage after interior drainage networks are
removed during wetland restoration activities. Discharge from surface flow inlets along the
site periphery may be potentially accommodated within the wetland restoration area, as
needed, through routing into the origin of Harrison Creek or through routing into constructed
ephemeral pools (stormwater catchments) on the site. These stormwater catchments are
anticipated to represent cypress-gum ponds which will provide additional wetland habitat
diversity. Stormwater drainage and runoff within these cypress-gum ponds will be discharged
as radial to lateral groundwater infiltration. Restoration of water quality functions associated
with this mitigation project may be significantly enhanced by incorporating flows from the
upper watershed before entry into Harrison Creek and the Cape Fear River.
4.5 WATER QUALITY
Harrison Creek and tributaries extending into the site have a best usage classification of C.
Class C uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and secondary
recreation. Secondary recreation refers to activities involving human body contact with water
on an infrequent or incidental basis (DEM 1993).
The mitigation site consists of cropland located adjacent to a network of drainage ditches and
canals. Fertilizers, pesticides, and nutrients associated with farming practices are expected
to have influenced water quality in flows leaving the mitigation site. Vegetated buffers
adjacent to drainage ditches, which may serve as nutrient and chemical filtration strips, do not
exist within the farm-fields. As such, runoff is expected to have entered the drainage network
and transported off-site into Harrison Creek with associated deleterious effects on water
quality. These unprotected drainage networks extend into tributaries of the Cape Fear River.
Drainage structures within the mitigation site service a watershed covering approximately 300
ac of land area. The land area is composed primarily of roads and residential areas intermixed
among cropland and pine plantation. Runoff from this land area effectively bypasses wetland
21

L
' surfaces as drainage canals transport flow directly through the site. Restoration of wetland
hydrology and diversion of influent surface flows onto the site may increase water quality
I functions associated with nutrient removal, particulate retention, and chemical transformation
performed by the mitigation area.
' 4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A limited regulated/hazardous materials review was performed for the Barra Farms / Harrison
Creek mitigation site. This review was conducted for the purpose of identifying potential
' environmental concerns which may affect site utility for wetland restoration. Methods utilized
to complete this review included: 1) limited vehicular reconnaissance and ground truthing; 2)
' an interview with the site manager; and, 3) cursory regulatory database review.
Issues of environmental concern may include: electric transmission lines and pole-mounted
' transformers, abandoned above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), fuel powered irrigation pumps,
and farm outbuildings associated with a maintenance facility.
' An electric transmission line with pole-mounted transformers runs east to west along the
central, east-west canal (Figure 5) and north to south in central portions of the site. In
addition, a pad-mounted transformer was observed in association with an irrigation pump in
' the southwestern corner of the mitigation area. No staining was noted on ground surfaces
beneath the transformers. These power lines and transformers could be removed as part of
wetland restoration activities. The potential for containment of polychlorinated biphenyls
' within these transformers will be evaluated as part of detailed restoration planning in this area.
An abandoned AST was observed near the western terminus of the central, east-west canal.
The AST does not appear to contain petroleum or other hazardous materials at the present
time. No evidence of soil staining was noted in connection with this tank. The site manager
indicated that the AST will be used as a culvert, as needed, under new or improved road/canal
crossings.
' A fuel-powered irrigation pump was observed along central sections of the central, east-west
canal. Limited stained soil and dead vegetation was observed at this location, indicating that
potentially minor spills/leaks have occurred at the pump site. Remediation measures such as
spreading, excavation, and contaminant studies may be required to facilitate wetland
restoration activities in this area.
' Farm outbuildings associated with a maintenance facility are located along the northeastern
site periphery (Figure 2). This approximately 15-ac tract includes a Vehicular Maintenance
Area, a Pesticide Storage Building, a Dump Site, and a Greenhouse Area. In addition, an Air
' Strip Area is located approximately 2000 ft west of the maintenance facility.

22

r

0

Vehicular Maintenance Area
Potential environmental concerns associated with this area include: 1) an above-ground
storage tank (AST) containing approximately 3 inches (in) of petroleum product is laying on
its side outside the building; 2) lubricants and other chemicals are improperly stored inside and
outside the building; 3) stained concrete, soil, and/or dead vegetation was observed in
association with the improperly stored lubricants and chemicals, and several discarded
batteries were observed inside and outside the building; 4) a pile of an unknown chemical was
observed inside the building; 5) an AST which contains a petroleum product is located inside
the building and it appears to have leaked; and, 6) linoleum floor covering inside the building
may include asbestos-containing material. Two water supply wells were also observed at this
location.
Pesticide Storaae Buildina
' Potential concerns observed in association with this building include improper storage of
chemicals. However, access was unavailable to the locked building during preliminary site
surveys. The site manager indicated by phone contact that only spare disc parts are stored
' in the pesticide storage shed. The manager is unaware of any improper storage or releases
of regulated and/or hazardous waste associated with the storage building.
' Air Strip Area
Potential concerns associated with this area include a vent pipe connected to a fuel dispenser,
several ASTs, and areas of stained soils with a petroleum odor near the fuel dispenser. Based
' upon a telephone interview with the site manager, the ASTs were brought in and used as
culverts, and the fuel dispenser located at the air strip was previously connected to an AST
which functioned as a self-contained unit. Remediation measures such as spreading,
oxidation, excavation, and additional contaminant studies may be required within the spill area
to facilitate wetland restoration activities in this area.
I
C?

Dump Site and Greenhouse Area
Potential concerns associated with a dump site and greenhouse area within the maintenance
facility include tires, plastic/vinyl sheeting, piping, pallets, and an abandoned AST. Additional
studies will be required to evaluate the potential for improper storage or releases of regulated
and/or hazardous waste in these dump areas.
Cursory Regulatory Database Review
A cursory regulatory review of standard databases was conducted as part of this project.
Databases reviewed included the National Priorities List, Superfund List, Hazardous Waste
Generators List, Leaking UST List, and UST registrations. The only listing associated with this
site is a current UST registration for an 8,500 gallon diesel fuel UST. The site occupant stated
that a Level I Environmental Assessment was conducted at this site in September 1993.
Reportedly, all USTs had been removed by a previous owner, and, as no evidence of leaking
was documented, the tank removals were therefore exempt from formal NCDEHNR closure
procedures.
23

n

1

r
Conceptually, these sites of potential environmental concern are not expected to affect the
viability of Barra Farms for mitigation use, with the possible exception of the farm maintenance
facility located along the northeastern site periphery. This site, encompassing approximately
15 ac, is depicted in Figure 4 as Commercial/Disturbed land and is identified on aerial
photography in Figure 2. The farm maintenance facility would require detailed analyses as part
of mitigation plan development for the area to evaluate removal of structures, clean-up, or
disturbance-avoidance measures. All or part of the approximately 15-ac maintenance facility
may reside on upland soils or compacted earthen fill material.
4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological records were researched at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the
Barra Farms Mitigation Site and surrounding areas. Although several archeological studies
have been conducted around the mitigation site, no significant information was discovered in
the SHPO records. Installation/maintenance of electrical utilities lines by the South River
Electrical Membership Cooperative required archeological reviews around the Barra Farms in
1993. In addition, development of hog farms one mile east of the mitigation site required
historic surveys to be conducted and submitted to SHPO. These surveys did not reveal
potential for significant archaeological sites in the immediate proximity of Barra Farms.
' 4.8 PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal listed species with Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) status receive protection under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
' Service (FWS) lists the following animal or plant species as federal-Threatened or Endangered
within Cumberland County.

0

G

Endangered or Threatened (E or T)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (E)
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) (E)
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) (E)
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) (E)
American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) (TS/A [similarity of appearance])
Small-whorled pogonia (lsotria medeoloides) (T *)
*: Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) has no documented recordings of threatened or
endangered species at the Barra Farms mitigation site as of 26 March 1997. However, red-
cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and rough-leaved loosestrife populations occur approximately
2 miles south of the mitigation site, within the Bushy Lake State Natural Area. Habitat for
these federal endangered species at Bushy Lake consists primarily of Carolina Bay sand rims
and pine forest interiors which have been lost at Barra Farms due to farming activity. Wetland
mitigation activities would potentially restore and expand habitat for RCW and rough-leaved
loose-strife populations documented in the region. In addition, field surveys for rough-leaved
loosestrife will be performed on relict sand rims at Barra Farms during detailed mitigation
planning activities.
24

H

r:
0
n
5.0 PRELIMINARY WETLAND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS
Mitigation activities at the Barra Farms / Harrison Creek site should be determined based on
wetland functions generated by restoration and enhancement and comparison of restored
functions to potentially impacted wetland resources. Therefore, a preliminary evaluation of
mitigation wetlands at Barra Farms is provided to evaluate site utility for mitigation in the
region. In addition, the evaluation will provide information on the appropriate mitigation area
designated for initial restoration use at Barra Farms.
5.1 WETLAND FUNCTIONS UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS
PC Cropland
Based upon preliminary analyses, the approximately 2247-ac, Barra Farms/Harrison Creek
mitigation site consists of approximately 1058 ac of PC cropland or drained forest fringes on
historic wetlands (Figure 7; nonriverine wetland restoration units). An additional 52 ac of
cropland resides in upland/wetland ecotones (Figure 7; upland/wetland ecotone restoration).
Under agricultural land uses, the entire area exhibits negligible wetland functions.
Hydrodynamic functions have been effectively eliminated due to construction of drainage
networks, soil levelling/compaction, and removal of forest vegetation. Features which depict
performance of hydrodynamic wetland functions, such as surface microtopography, ephemeral
ponding, intermittent stream channels, forest vegetation, and characteristic wetland soil
properties have been eliminated by alternative land uses. Up to 18 ac of riverine wetland
restoration may also be available in forested, south-central portions of the site (Figure 7;
riverine restoration unit).
Reduction or elimination of wetland hydrology and removal of forest vegetation throughout the
site has also negated biogeochemical cycling and biological functions within the complex. PC
croplands typically do not support natural communities adapted to wetlands or the wetland
dependent wildlife characteristic in the region. Wetland restoration potential is available in
these areas.
Significantly Degraded Wetlands
Wetlands which have sustained significant degradation or elimination to vegetation, hydrology,
and/or soil components comprise approximately 734 ac within the mitigation site (Figure 7;
nonriverine wetland enhancement units). Drainage impacts on wetland hydroperiod are evident
based on plant community characteristics, field evaluations, and preliminary groundwater
models. Soil leveling/compaction, organic matter subsidence, and removal of characteristic
vegetation in these areas has significantly reduced or eliminated the capacity of these
wetlands to perform characteristic functions within the watershed (as described above).
Wetland restoration and/or enhancement potential is available in these areas.
25
0
i
i
?e
Mitigation site boundary \
Area (acres)
? NONRIVERINE WETLAND RESTORATION 1058
? RIVERINE WETLAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT 18
UPLAND/WETLAND ECOTONE RESTORATION 67
NONRIVERINE WETLAND PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT 370
? NONRIVERINE WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 734
TOTAL 2247
FUTURE PHASES
S n??
?JOO ??V
SR2042
?O
?O

o ?
o rn
W
a
5
a o
o
a O
N
3 m II
m a
N
? y N
U
N
O U (?
(n
W
Q
I
d
Z
O?
1- O Q
QZZ
ZJJ
W I- O
W?U
?Y
LLJ I
-W
Cl
Q Z
Z
cf) 0 }
?cn FZE z
?QO
Z\U
?cn 0
W:2
?QQ
Z L- W
O Q m
<
QU
?m
J
W
tl
abi q i
v
M
? u, e
0
' Moderately Degraded Wetlands
The northwestern tract and southeastern fringe of the mitigation site contains relict wetland
' forests which have sustained impacts from area-wide drainage, systematic clear-cutting, and
road construction (Figure 7; nonriverine wetland protection and management unit). However,
this approximately 370-ac area may continue to serve as a biological reservoir for expansion
' into adjacent restored and enhanced wetlands at Barra Farms. In addition, protection from
disturbance and long-term (fire, composition) management may enhance wetland functions
' within these forested sites. Wetland enhancement potential is considered available in these
areas.
' 5.2 POTENTIAL WETLAND FUNCTIONS UNDER POST-RESTORATION CONDITIONS
Wetland restoration activities will be designed to restore wetland features and functions
associated with reference wetlands in the region.' Projected performance of wetland functions
' on the mitigation site is inferred from conditions expected after mitigation activities are
completed. This assessment assumes that restoration plans are appropriately implemented
(Section 6.0) and that the wetland is protected from man-induced disturbances in perpetuity.
' Assumptions are most likely achieved if a trust fund is established and the site is dispensed
to a wetland conservation organization that will continue to monitor and manage the site after
wetland restoration success is achieved.
u
u

I
i

Site alterations would be designed to restore near-surface and above-surface hydrodynamics
throughout a large majority of the site. Ephemeral and intermittent streams characteristic of
reference wetlands would be expected to re-establish within south-central portions.
Moderation of groundwater flow and discharge towards downstream areas would be redirected
towards historic wetland conditions. The transformation of cropland adjacent to groundwater
discharge zones into seasonally to semi-permanently saturated wetlands will also maximize
biochemical functions such as retention of particulates, removal of elements and compounds,
and nutrient cycling. Retention features in the restored wetlands result primarily from spatial
elimination of agricultural land immediately adjacent to ephemeral, intermittent, and permanent
stream channels.
Due to the ecological significance of this potential bottomland ecosystem in the mitigation
landscape, the first phase of mitigation activities at Barra Farms should target farm lands
surrounding this stream system (Figure 7: Phase 1 area). These farmlands historically served
as recharge zones for the riverine wetland and potentially provide the greatest benefit to
wetland functional resources in the region. Wetland functions typically associated with water
quality will be potentially replaced within the Cape Fear River basin. Riverine wetland
restoration may also be achievable within up to 18 ac of land area (Johnston soil map unit
(USDA 1984). Detailed mitigation planning would address drainage redirection and stream
reconstruction needs within upper reaches of Harrison Creek.
Upland/wetland ecotones should also be restored within the wetland complex. Integration of
wetland and upland interfaces represents an important component of wetland restoration
27
n

u

u

plans. Restored wetland buffers would provide an ecological gradient from uplands to
wetlands and would establish streamside management zones (SMZs). Without upland
restoration/enhancement and wetland buffer establishment, intrinsic functions in adjacent,
restored wetlands may be diminished or lost in the future. In addition, a number of biological
and physical wetland parameters are also enhanced by the presence of wetland/upland
ecotones on the mitigation site (ESI 1994a, Brinson et al. 1981).
Biotic functions potentially restored in the complex include re-introduction of habitat for certain
terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife guilds. Species populations promoted include those
dependent upon interspersion and connectivity with bottomland areas along with the need for
forest interior habitat. These riparian and non-riparian wetland interactions are considered
degraded throughout a majority of the project region as agricultural lands dominate
intermediate landscape positions (between interstream and riverine wetland habitat). Habitat
value and community maintenance functions will also be improved by creation and
interconnection of five plant community types along the restored environmental gradient.
Cover will be expanded and species diversity may be promoted in proximity to the Bushy Lake
State Natural Area and NCNHP Priority Areas.
5.3 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
' Mitigation activities at Barra Farms will be implemented during several project phases (Figure
7). Phases consist of detailed mitigation plan development, expedited implementation, and
initiation of the monitoring plan in advance of permitted wetland impacts. Based on
conceptual mitigation design, each phase is expected to generate restoration and enhancement
mitigation credit based on modifications to wetland hydrology, soil, and vegetation parameters.
n

1
r

Phase 1 mitigation activities have been specifically designed to replace nonriverine and
possibly riverine wetland functions and acreages potentially lost by roadway development
projects in the region. Phase 1 will entail detailed mitigation planning and implementation of
restoration activities within approximately 623 ac depicted in Figure 7. Phase 1 mitigation
activities, including stream reconstruction and restoration of ephemeral drainageways, will be
concentrated within the groundwater discharge areas surrounding the origin of Harrison Creek.
Future mitigation phases will encompass approximately 1624 ac of land within northwestern,
north-central, and eastern portions of the site (Figure 7). Detailed mitigation planning and up-
front restoration will be completed and mitigation credit allotted in future phases as potential
wetland impacts are quantified in the region.
28
0

C

I
I

L

L?
6.0 PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
The proposed Phase 1 wetland restoration area encompasses approximately 623 ac
encompassing the historic origin of Harrison Creek (Figure 7). This conceptual restoration plan
for the Phase 1 area has been developed according to specifications outlined in the COE/EPA
mitigation banking guidelines (60 FR 12286-12293, 1995) and N.C. Division of Water
Quality's wetland mitigation policy (Administrative Code for 401 Water Quality Certification;
Section: 15A NCAC 2H.0500). Specifically, this mitigation proposal will provide for the
replacement of wetland acres lost due to a proposed activity at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio up
to a maximum 2:1 ratio, through restoration, prior to utilizing enhancement or preservation to
satisfy the mitigation requirements. In addition, mitigation shall replace impacts to nonriverine
wetland types occurring within the same river basin (Cape Fear) and physiographic province
(Coastal Plain) when practical (DWQ 1996).
6.1 WETLAND HYDROLOGY RESTORATION
Site alterations to restore groundwater, surface flow dynamics, and wetland hydrology include:
1) placement of impermeable plugs at systematic intervals along drainage structures; 2)
backfilling of ditches and canals; 3) construction of ephemeral pools along open ditch
segments; 4) diversion of surface inlets onto wetland surfaces; 5) wetland surface
modifications; and 6) stream reconstruction (Figure 8).
Ditch Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed along drainage ditches and canals on-site. The plugs will
consist of low permeability materials, impermeable liners, or hardened structures designed to
be of sufficient strength to withstand the erosive energy of surface flow events across the
site. Each plug should consist of a core of impervious material and be sufficiently wide and
deep to form an imbedded overlap in the existing banks and ditch bed. Ditches will receive
impervious plugs at bends, junctions, and intervals determined by total slope over the ditch
lengths. The plugs will serve to prevent the former ditches and canals from acting as french
drains. Continued drainage in back-filled ditches would be expected to effectively short-circuit
or delay hydrology restoration success in the absence of imbedded, impervious plugs.
Ditch Back-fill
' After impermeable plugs are installed, ditches will be back-filled with available on-site earthen
material from spoil piles, dirt road fill, and spoil ridges adjacent to canals. Where vegetation
has colonized the spoil ridges, trees and rooting debris will be removed, to the maximum
' extent feasible, before re-insertion of earthen fill into the canal. The ditches/canals will be
filled, compacted, and graded to the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetland surface.
' Ephemeral Pool Construction
A deficit of fill material for ditch back-fill purposes is expected on the site. Therefore, a series
' of ephemeral pools (closed depressions) may be constructed along certain confined ditch
segments. Open ditch segments may also serve as stormwater catchment areas for surface
29

i
i
3
0
J
a
a
D
i
a
m
0
0
rn
a
w
\ \

PHASE 1
BOUNDARY

,mom am 'm

r>
Phase 1 boundary
Mitigation site boundary
AREA (acres)
STREAM RECONSTRUCTION 18
? UPLAND REFORESTATION 29
? PRESCRIBED FIRE MANAGEMENT AND 237
SUPPLEMENTAL WETLAND PLANTINGS
SOIL SURFACE SCARIFICATION 325
AND WETLAND REFORESTATION
DITCHES AND CANALS PROJECTED 14
TO REMAIN AFTER RESTORATION
TOTAL 623
-- PLUGGING AND BACKFILLING OF DITCHES AND CANALS
RESTORATION OF INTERMITTENT STREAM CHANNELS
i,
F
ii
i

o r,
0 07
m
W w 'C
a
rn 0 o
li d o
a
J O
C7 00
3 ? II
m
c u
a o
L u
O U n
Z
Q
J
Z
O
Q?
?C) Q
Z
?JZ
w
LLJ
_?U
O
l)wl
ova'
ZUO
Q Z
Z
w
O y.
cf) (-,c?
=0rrz
?OfQo
p=U
?Z
oa Q
J
QLL'w
J m
?
wCh
3 of
J
Qm
a_
w
U
Z
O
U
U
v?
d o,
d
#
WV)

L

I

r

fl

flow inlets onto the mitigation site. Initially, earthen fill material for ditch back-fill use will be
excavated from planned open ditch segments. These shallow excavation areas will be graded
into the former ditch to create closed elliptical or oval depressions. In essence, the ditch will
be converted to a sequence of shallow ephemeral pools adjacent to effectively plugged and
back-filled ditch sections. These pools will be planted with characteristic tree species in an
effort to establish cypress-gum ponds in the landscape.
Stormwater Catchment Basins
Discharge from surface flow inlets along the northern site periphery will be accommodated
within the wetland restoration area, as needed, through drainage routing into the stream origin
or through constructed ephemeral pools on the site. If ephemeral pools are utilized, ditches
along surface flow inlets will be plugged below the in-fall at distances dependent upon channel
invert elevations and ground slope. Below the plug location, the constructed cypress-gum
pond (as described above) will be contoured to a maximum depth of 3 ft and graded to store
a 10-year storm event. Topsoil will be stockpiled and replaced onto the wetland surface after
pool construction. Subsequently, the depression will be planted with wetland species
specifically adapted to vernal ponding.
Stormwater drainage and runoff within these ephemeral cypress-gum ponds will be discharged
as radial to lateral groundwater infiltration across the mitigation site. Restoration of water
quality functions associated with this mitigation project will be significantly enhanced by
incorporating flows from the upper watershed before entry into Harrison Creek and the Cape
Fear River.
Wetland Surface Scarification
Before wetland community restoration is implemented, agricultural fields and graded back-fill
material should be scarified (disked or harrowed) in a randomized cross-hatch pattern. After
scarification, the soil surface should exhibit complex microtopography ranging to 2 ft in vertical
asymmetry across local reaches of the landscape. Restored microtopographic relief is
considered critical to hydrology restoration efforts. Therefore, a harrow plow or deep disking
plow is recommended, including multiple passes, to ensure adequate surface roughing and
surface water storage potential across the site. Subsequently, community restoration will be
initiated on scarified wetland surfaces.
Stream Reconstruction
Stream reconstruction may be considered within south-central portions of the mitigation site.
The reconstructed stream will be designed to restore riverine wetland function and to
accommodate re-directed groundwater flow into the riverine system. Stream reconstruction
would entail removal of accumulated organic debris from blocked channel segments, removal
of fill material from the relict channel (deposited during logging activities and ditch
construction), and construction of several ephemeral channels which induce flow from restored
wetlands into upper reaches of the stream and floodplain. Detailed stream reconstruction
31

I I

I I

design within the Johnston soil map unit will be considered as part of the detailed mitigation
plan.
6.2 WETLAND COMMUNITY RESTORATION
Restoration of wetland forested communities provides habitat for area wildlife and allows for
development and expansion of characteristic wetland dependent species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types developed through a landscape approach to
community restoration contribute to area diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
RFE data, on-site observations, and ecosystem classification will be used to develop the
species associations promoted during community restoration activities. Preliminary community
associations include: 1) nonriverine swamp forest: Atlantic white cedar dominated; 2)
nonriverine swamp forest: hardwood dominated; 3) riverine swamp forest; 4) nonriverine wet
hardwood forest; and 5) upland longleaf pine-scrub oak forest. Figure 9 provides a conceptual
depiction of potential forest communities to be restored across wetland mitigation landscape.
The subdivision of swamp forest restoration areas into two planting regimes (Atlantic white
cedar dominated and hardwood dominated) may be implemented primarily to provide additional
habitat diversity in the wetland. Stems of Atlantic white cedar would be targeted to landscape
areas which contain soils of relatively high organic content and exhibit the potential for
relatively long term soil saturation (Schafale and Weakley 1990; pers. comm. Brownlie,
USFWS Dismal Swamp National Refuge Office). Mineral soil and shallow organic soil areas
of the swamp forest complex may also include intermittent stems of Atlantic white cedar, if
planting sources are available. However, species such as bald cypress, laurel oak, swamp
tupelo, willow oak, and yellow poplar may exhibit higher affinity for these areas.
The restoration of upland forest communities within the wetland complex has also been
proposed. Upland forest restoration plans would be designed to enhance wetland functions
and to restore a wetland/upland forest ecotone that is considered rare in the region. The target
forest community is composed primarily of longleaf pine among intermittent stems of live oak,
turkey oak, dwarf post oak, scarlet oak, blackjack oak, and black gum. For upland restoration
areas, the forest restoration can be modified to allow for maintenance of food plots or other
wildlife management features. Upland restoration efforts would be coordinated with the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other management
contingencies.
Opportunistic species, which typically dominate disturbed swamp forests, will be excluded
from initial community restoration efforts. Opportunistic species include loblolly pine, sweet
gum, and red maple. Efforts to inhibit early site domination by opportunistic species may be
required during the first several years of tree growth to encourage diversity. However, these
species should also be considered important components of steady-state swamp forest
communities where species diversity has not been jeopardized.
32

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COMMUNITY
ASSEMBLAGE
SELECT
VEGETATION
LAND FORM
SOILS
RIVERINE BOTTOMLAND NONRIVERINE
HARDWOOD/ ATLANTIC WHITE
SWAMP FOREST CEDAR FOREST
i
Environmental
Services, Inc.
Bald Cypress
Water Tupelo
Overcup Oak
Yellow Poplar
Laurel Oak
American Elm
American Sycamore
Drainage Swales
(Concave)
Johnston
Very Poorly Drained
Atlantic White Cedar
Pond Pine
Bald Cypress
Water Tupelo
Sweet Bay
Red Bay
NONRIVERINE NONRIVERINE
WET HARDWOOD
SWAMP FOREST FOREST
Bald Cypress Swamp Chestnut Oak
Water Tupelo Laurel Oak
Swamp Tupelo Willow Oak
Cherrybark Oak Water Oak
Overcup Oak Swamp Tupelo
Laurel Oak Yellow Poplar
Willow Oak Cherrybark Oak
Green Ash
LONGLEAF PINE/
SAND RIM
FOREST
Longleaf Pine
Bluejack Oak
Dwarf Post Oak
White Oak
Blackjack Oak
Southern Red Oak
Black Gum
Low Flats Low Flats Broad Ridges
Intermediate Flats
and Depressions and Depressions (Convex)
Torhunta Rains
Croatan Croatan
Very Poorly Drained Poorly to Very Poorly Drained Poorly Drained
Conceptual Model of Target Landscape Ecosystems
Barra Farms/Harrison Creek Wetlands
Cumberland County, North Carolina
Centenary
Autryville
Leon
Well Drained to Excessively Drained
Figure: 9
Project: ER97010
Date: April 1997
' 6.2.1 Planting Plan
A planting plan is proposed for the Phase 1 mitigation areas to reestablish wetland community
' patterns across the landscape. The plan will consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland
species; 2) implementation of proposed surface topography improvements; and 3) planting of
selected species on-site. The COE bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA
1993) will be utilized in developing this plan.
' Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of
435 stems per ac (10-ft centers). Planting will be performed between December 1 and March
15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.
' Evidence indicates that a major cause of mortality in planted seedlings is over-browsing by
deer. Methods to control deer browsing, such as tree shelters, will be considered. The
t presence of dense successional thickets around planted seedlings may also limit deer
browsing. However, in some instances, the substantial decrease in growth rates and the
potential for over-topping by weedy species may reduce the benefits of this option. Regular
' shrub and herb maintenance coupled with selective use of tree shelters will be considered to
encourage higher survival rates and more rapid growth.
' 6.3 WETLAND SOIL RESTORATION
Land use practices have impacted soil characteristics on the mitigation site. Impacts include
' the minimization of hydric conditions in upper soil horizons, the reduction in organic matter
content through accelerated decomposition, the placement of spoil ridges. and the elimination
of surface microtopography by farming activities. The filling of canals and ditches as proposed
' during hydrological restoration should serve to reintroduce hydric soil conditions and halt the
long-term reductions in organic matter content. Further soil remediation tasks in Phase 1 may
include removal of spoil ridges and roadway fill and reestablishment of surface
microtopography.
During wetland hydrology restoration efforts, fill for ditches will be obtained, wherever
' feasible, from elevated roadbeds and spoil ridges adjacent to canals. Any spoil which remains
after wetland hydrology restoration is complete will be removed from the mitigation site. Spoil
areas will be graded to the elevation of the historic surface and landscaped to produce a
' smooth transition across the former spoil ridge and adjacent canal.
' Reference wetlands in the region exhibit complex surface microtopography. Small concavities,
swales, exposed root systems, and hummocks associated with vegetative growth and
hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the system. Large woody debris and partially
' decomposed litter provide additional complexity across the wetland soil surface. As discussed
in the hydrology restoration section, efforts to advance the development of characteristic
surface roughness will be implemented on the mitigation site. Disking and harrowing to be
' implemented during planting activities will promote the formation of hummocks and concavities
that act to increase surface storage and provide micro-habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, and

34
11
1
1 amphibians. Scarification of surface soils between planted trees will further promote surface
microtopography on the mitigation site. Woody debris generated during site preparation will
' be distributed across the wetland mitigation surface before planting.

I

r
n

0
0
35
0

C

7.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan for the Barra Farms / Harrison Creek mitigation site will consist of a direct
comparison between relatively undisturbed (reference wetlands) in the northwestern site
periphery and wetland restoration/enhancement areas within the mitigation site interior. The
wetland restoration and enhancement success criteria will be based upon a comparative
analysis between designated reference wetlands and the wetland mitigation site. Monitoring
of wetland restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success criteria are
fulfilled.
' 7.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
While hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will
be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing
' Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth 24 inches below the soil surface.
' Initially, surficial monitoring wells will be placed within reference wetlands along the
northwestern site periphery. These reference wells will be embedded within vegetation
sampling plots to provide representative coverage within each wetland ecosystem type to be
restored. Ecosystem types are depicted as community restoration map units (Figure 9) which
support similar soils, landform, and target community structure. Subsequently, monitoring
' wells will be placed within wetland mitigation areas at a density providing adequate coverage
for comparison to reference.
' Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the growing season (21 March to 19
November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each
community restoration area (EPA 1990).
n
r

1
7.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent
of the growing season during average climatic conditions. Additional hydrology success
components include hydroperiods redirected towards, and approaching those of reference
wetland ecosystems. Specific target hydroperiods relative to reference will be established
during development of the detailed mitigation plan.
7.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993).
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
36
0

u

I I
u

H

During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between August 1 and September 31
after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, plots will be placed within
each restored ecosystem type. Sample plot distributions will be correlated with hydrological
monitoring locations to provide point-related data on hydrological and vegetation parameters.
In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include average tree height,
species composition, density, and basal area. Visual observations of the percent cover of
shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded.
7.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/ac must be surviving
for at least 3 years after initial planting. Characteristic tree species are those within the
reference ecosystems, elements enumerated in the planting plan, along with natural
recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, American sycamore, and loblolly pine. Loblolly pine
(softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320 stem/acre requirement.
In addition, at least five other character tree species must be present, and no species can
comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total, with the exception of Atlantic
white cedar. Atlantic white cedar may comprise up to 100 percent of the 320 stem/ac total
in swamp forest restoration areas. 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 swamp forest canopy over several
decades and restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and
establishment of desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates
of the percent cover/composition of shrub and herbaceous species and photographic evidence
will be reported for information purposes.
7.5 REPORT SUBMITTAL
An "as built" plan drawing of the area, including initial species compositions by community
type, and sample plot locations, will be provided after completion of planting. A discussion
of the planting design, including what species were planted, the species densities and numbers
planted will also be included. The report will be provided within 90 days of completion of
planting.
37

' Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to appropriate permitting agencies following
each assessment. Submitted reports will document the sample transect locations, along with
' photographs which illustrate site conditions in reference and mitigation wetlands.
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular format. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will also be calculated within each community restoration map unit
and reference ecosystem (Figure 9).
' 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. A visual estimate and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of
understory and groundcover species will be generated.
' 7.6 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For 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 restoration is 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.

u

38

0

8.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
ECOBANK will remain responsible for the mitigation site. The site will be bonded and a trust
fund established for future management and monitoring. After success criteria are fulfilled,
ECOBANK will continue to manage the mitigation area in perpetuity, or entrust the properties
to an appropriate management entity. The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), The
Nature Conservancy, the North Carolina Park and Recreation Service (Jones Lake State Park
Office), and other conservation groups will be contacted concerning potential management
capabilities or land transfer into State or private conservation programs. Perpetual
management programs supported by trust funds appropriated to the mitigation site may 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
WRC.
2) A long-term fire management program will be implemented, as necessary, to facilitate
steady state community development, promote hunting opportunities, and promote
endangered species habitat. Local residents should become involved in long term
management. Several residents have indicated an interest in following the development
of protected wetlands at the site and serving to act as land stewards. Stewardship
opportunities with nearby landowners and adjacent designated gamelands will be
pursued, in consultation with WRC, during detailed mitigation planning for Phase 1 of
this project.
4) Garbage dumping, forest clearing, or other disturbances in mitigation areas will be
regulated, monitored, and alleviated. Road access to the mitigation area, if maintained
after restoration for management use, should be appropriately gated to prevent
dumping activity.
5) Protective covenants on the mitigation land will specify that the land be allowed to
succeed to specified tree densities, composition, and sizes before timber harvest is
considered. After the successional phase, covenants will stipulate that there is to be
no forest clear-cutting and no selective timbering that lowers per-acre stem counts
below a target density of 6 mast producing or Atlantic white cedar (AWC) trees per ac
greater than 20 in. in diameter (within each acre of mitigation area). Managing for the
presence of large hardwood trees or AWC this size is required to provide potential
habitat for species typical of mature growth wetland forests. In addition, densities of
mast producing trees or AWC greater than 10 inches in diameter will be maintained at
or greater than 30 ftz of basal area per ac (for each ac of land) to provide adequate
foraging potential for mast-consuming wildlife (Yoakum et a/. 1980).
6) Dead and dying trees, snags, and logs will be left on-site to provide foraging habitat as
well as to provide cavity formation potential for species such as wood duck, pileated
woodpecker, and barred owl (Yoakum et a/. 1980).
39

9.0 PRELIMINARY MITIGATION CREDIT POTENTIAL
Based on conceptual plans (Figure 7 and Figure 8), Phase 1 at Barra Farms will encompass
approximately 623 ac of land. Restoration may be achieved within up to 325 ac of nonriverine
wetlands, 18 ac of riverine wetlands, and 29 ac of upland buffers. In addition, up to 237 ac
of nonriverine wetlands may be enhanced within the area. Table 3 depicts preliminary
mitigation credit potential exhibited by the mitigation proposal. Preliminary credit potential is
estimated based upon Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines (Page and Wilcher
1990). In summary, a minimum of 232-ac replacement credits are expected to become
available for compensatory mitigation use after Phase 1 restoration.
' Actual mitigation credit generated by restoration activities should be determined based on the
achievement of Success Criteria, completed provisions for site protection in perpetuity, and
' the type and condition of wetlands impacted by a particular project. Restoration and
enhancement strategies are designed to create primarily steady-state nonriverine wetland
ecosystems which support an array of native plant and wildlife communities. Restored steady-
state wetland ecosystems would be expected to generate higher mitigation credit when
compared to the degraded condition of potentially impacted wetlands typical of the project
region. Therefore, above-estimated credit for this mitigation plan should be considered a base-
line for determining appropriate credit on a project-by-project basis.

P
u

40

C
O
°

V N
U ?
c
O y
O
? Y
L
U
M
J C
N O
co

Q
!d .i
a
o
O
' ? N
d E

N LL
h y
y
Q m

'
E

a`

u

°a
(D

++ c G)
r O V
OA Ch
co N
M
Y i to N
CL ?
V
m La
..

O O

++ C d
'++ G1 U
? U 7 ? N a
CO
N N ? ? ? N
d 0
.
a
'
CD UJ 4
:?+ t0
? a
M
N i
00
LO
OA
r?
Q - N

co N co

N
r-
N
CO

c

O

+-+ ?-
c6
C

C c
N
E

C
c O_ O
cn E

N
O
F
,
'
O O
OC U
c Q.
c .
.
m +?
cn
a) m
r- cn
'y
y O
+ O
0= C
O C
LU O
.`f J
N "0 O "O m H
c W
0 c
0 m O
C1 f6 cco c6
C
N c0
C 0 > c

N c c0 c +
z S z
N
m
c0 'O O
O N } CO
'O 7
N C +
C L
N
+1 CD 4-
O X E
E j E
C c 0 a N .` U-
f0 c
O 0 0 U c 0
p N ? cn L p O +, N
m
o a? c
CU CD m L

y N fA
>' a) c 4?
N U
0
+1
E +0
-0 N y ui C C >
p c

c
C`
-0 E L 0
a)

0
u
C
} 0 fD
C O
N .
?p U .
f0
c ?
U .
`

4-
y c E U

+O CL> C
0
N •0 3
'
000

++
ca
?n Q E
L N Q
cn
c p
c p C
ca
cm cm N to .
CL U c
+1 (D E
CEO w
rn 0 +1-
?. fn c c 0
? O O c
C
CO
(D N O O• >•
"fl a)p
c O U
7 L ` C
- 'a
p *' c
a) v- N 0
O O
y O =p
T
c > .
O L
N +, f0 N L O
+? 0)
c
c , CD
r-
> x 0 m
N C C
a) 0 O E O a..' CO
y
N N O U
Q i O
° 0 O a
3
0)
c c- c
0
w >, L +J
?
v

C cn O

t0
U 0 (D

> E co

E
a) N
U, Cc
x 3? m 0 0)-++
y
N 0 0
L L N
c + C O U
p p W
U 'p a• N O 0 N c6 O C
C (p v-

c6 d 0 0
O 0 O
c
to L 0
'a F-
c
y O N
N C E
W C 0
f IV 3 p U > '0 E
•
rn o
a U E cn U y
}.,
E ..
C
O cn
?M y
a)
c)U N 0) C
0 0)>0
wa? cn -
M?-0
m N
N N
C y co
U N
L >
C
f0 .
O
C c
f0 O ?
C N N O cc o
(0
E .
N
U D
N
0 y C ++
O
c N c
a) p
V)
O N
"O L +- E U
O j-0 co O L 0
c0 t0 N O N >• m Q m~ •? Co
`

N N
EM
j 7
m O p cm p

N ++ .c
?- U c0 m O O 'C
.
C 'S
i

U O Q) Y E

m C

c
O

O
(D
c
(0 •c C

c
o
0r oa Q
0 0
0 ;7,
m w
fn -0

c m c 0

0) a) 3
O O
E
0
c: c:
0
f6
N
++ (6
E O c y
d CU cn
D
N
O
CC U E cn O
a. 3 .? -0 >
> O E
N lh d

t 10.0 CONCEPTUAL REGIONAL MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY
Restoration activities have been subdivided into proposed implementation phases with
mitigation credit generated by each phase. Phase 1 of this mitigation proposal, encompassing
the origin of Harrison Creek and farmed, headwater storage areas surrounding the floodplain,
' is expected to generate over 200 acre credits for wetland replacement in the region (Table 3).
Restoration activities will be completed and mitigation credits will be generated in advance of
wetland impacts. Phase 1 mitigation planning is intended to provide up-front compensation
for potential highway related impacts to wetlands in proximity to the mitigation site. This
document is intended to facilitate an indication from resource agencies as to the potential use
of Phase 1 mitigation at Barra Farms for potential highway related impacts, such as NC 24 and
NC 87 roadway improvements. If acceptable, detailed mitigation planning and implementation
of Phase 1 will occur at a efficient pace to ensure up-front riverine and nonriverine wetland
t restoration success.
Subsequent mitigation phases at Barra Farms will be implemented as potential nonriverine
' wetland impacts are quantified in the region. If acceptable, wetland restoration activities will
be completed and mitigation credit generated in advance of wetland functional losses in the
Cape Fear River basin. Because up-front mitigation is a focal point of this project, no net loss
' of the wetland base can be realized within this region by restoration of the Barra Farms/
Harrison Creek wetland complex.

fl

42

11.0 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
1. Critical Review and Evaluation Concepts. Federal Highway Administration Report
' No. FHWA-IP-82-23. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
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. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients.
Wetlands 13(2): 65-74, Special Issue, June 1993. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
' Brinson M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
' Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology and
' status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81 /17
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington District.
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.

II

Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Water Quality Certification Administrative Code
Section: 15A NCAC 2H.0500 as amended October 1, 1996. State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
43

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site 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.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994a; unpublished. Determination of applicable
mitigation credit For restoration of wetland buffers and wetland/upland ecotones: US
64 wetland restoration and conservation management plan, US 64 relocation, Martin
and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina. Provided to the N.C. Department of
Transportation. Raleigh, N.C.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1994b; unpublished. Mitigation Plan: Northeast Florida
' Wetland Mitigation Bank. Technical Report for St. Johns River Water Management
District, Palatka Fla.
' Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI). 1997; unpublished. Detailed Mitigation Plan: North
Carolina Global TransPark. Provided to the N.C. Global TransPark Authority. Raleigh,
N. C.
' Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum
of Agreement Between the EPA and the
' DOE Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC.
' Reinhart, R.D., M.M Brinson, P.M Farley, J.J Russell. 1996 (unpublished). Development of
an Initial Reference Data Set for Functional Assessment of Forested Wetland Flats in
North Carolina. Biology Department: East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
' 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.
Skaggs, R.W., et al., 1993. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology. ASAE meeting
presentation Paper No. 921590. 21 p.
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
Strahler, A.N. 1964. Geology. Part II. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and
channel networks. (in) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. (ed. V.T. Chow), pp. 4-39 to
4-76, McGraw Hill, New York.
44

u

f

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke
Counties, North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1954. Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wild
Turkey. FWS/OBS-82/10.106, August 1985.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. Habitat Evaluation Procedures Workbook.
National Ecology Research Center.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Hydrologic Cataloging Unit Map for the State of North
Carolina.
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.
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.
45

n

C

C
n
0
0
0

Appendix A

r

JAI 14 '97 12: 46PM ECOBAK
e+
STATE Of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVEMOR
Mr. Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Mr. Fickett:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 2520;. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611.5201
December 30, 1996
P.4

GARLAND B. GAMUTT JR.
SECRETARY
Thank you for your letter dated December 18, 1996, summarizing the meeting on mitigation
issues in general, and the Barra Farm property in Cumberland County.
The future highway improvement projects in the coastal region of the Cape Fear River Basin
that could possibly be mitigated from agency approved mitigation bank the Barra Farms
property include:
• X-2 (NC 24 between existing NC 24 and I-95 in Cumberland County)
• R-2561 and R-2562 (NC 87 in Cumberland, Bladen and Columbus Counties)
R-2303 (INC 24 in Cumberland, Sampson and Duplin Counties)
Although the precise wetland impacts of these three projects have not been determined in
both magnitude and habitat type, at this time, combined wetland impacts are currently
estimated to exceed 500 acres. Construction let dates for sections of these projects vary from
May 1998 through October 2003.
Based upon current guidance from the permit review agencies, on-site mitigation
opportunities will have to be explored before we wculd be allowed to consider offering
credits purchased from an off-site mitigation bank, such as Barra Farms. Based upon past
' experience, however, the amount of on-site mitigation is unlikely to provide a significant
portion of the total mitigation needs, so the need for about 500 mitigation credits from the
Barra Farms property over a five-year period is not an unreasonable projection.

PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
+w

JAN 14 '97 12:47PM ECOBAW P.5
Mr. Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
December 30, 1996
Page 2
Of course, all this is contingent upon the Barra Farms being approved as a mitigation bank by
the permit review agencies and the bank service area being defined to include all of the
wetland impact areas of these projects. Until that happens, we must continue to explore other
mitigation opportunities, both on- and off-site, for these and other projects in the same river
basin.
Sincerely,
V t l?-•
Larry R. ode, Ph.D., P.E,
State Highway Administrator
LRG/hfv
cc: Garland B. Garrett, Secretary, Department of Transportation
Calvin W, Leggett, P.E., Director of Planning and Programming
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager of Planning and Environmental

\, ^' b R _ /'', b ? ? q 1& !: ? ELON R ? ' \ J e??1 "1
••__ N G E f ? f _... ea+ ,? '+ •, - \ ctr'm laRxr.Jt\.
J " •lf°? +? rt RdDDaDA _ 1 ?l 'Y4WlaM+ R ? \ I S ... ?? ?.1 _ ? C)
,tZ,^ ? ui s4'p?` MJlportx! t 4MEA
>? `wsa - It ?Z :' i .8
%
__ eus i 1 w? ° _ 1 0\ ?' : o r ! _ 4AN Rdi a _._
. o
• . ,. ? ? Du Q"ft roues ? - - `
A'? O rf •reENxr,. ;? ?".• G N'^Dm ?'_ _ s'+<
'? I S ti 90' ? •tib ! . _^? . Aa'•rR 'raw s ?p ? : a t • \ .. _ f l
d e ?
-x? £i? d',•. t Po •.
24 {oowwna 40 ?;, F 3h \ $ \? ° qo xNx avove w g __:0qq No
CNURCN Rex =` F 6 ?4 1 Irv•WL
4 C LrR A
IIff ° _ ' • ' ?+ ' 4 ? uo N? a ?o ?,'8 ° ? Mf
? ? fJ $u6ele.w _! q° '_.`` ,t !4 ` ? .,\.?r- ?('? Q . Cp P h• '?? ? o
yR \ „ .. •.'g Jai J > p0
\ ?' ? `? ^, 5 ??1 ?4?? T Y , •• - _.l'I? a1pD o 9 , 'OP ? diWA
/7 ? \ iNUn- (($T' `,b?Pa ??1 1
•, t
q MRCS ?• ,?\ 1 \24+' Alr ?; ?' ,` ?4' ° 1 j
NC 24
? 1 l ? ?I?.`. V ADC U ? ! tryvl9 W .. 1 \- _?-\
- 1 1 a,. p?V p°pyW
210
%
it; r
^• r"eQr ^/k 1 ` \ eqy .r; `J V'pvr.P 8 io gr dtlr'?ogA
'"A ,/?4k , 53 +? 1 +R aru RD %
EPA m?
_ P
-No
NC 87
Da
0 ?
RO l°°acE ?? .. r ?P _,•, ,ix?.sot' p
A _J\ , `? w -\? to °4 .? I s I eE??"•-•o -?`? 210 ,p?,y' o ,? °.
1 R? •?uj 1, C•?'... ??.
+vrrso e
o°
at
Q La ,? fq qp / i se
.?a1p b i ! • - . . f ( o ,'',..S
i,' i -- ,. \ '?? .±- ; 5„rYIR. ee1n •. .p _ '- - a. / #Rl
,.LE ft.
-
u? I /? 3 \ \ ? Iuslrrt((xxc 41
ATE,NATUNM. Aq i` • - 1 AF
1 ! f `??_ sw LL Al
' ? owEU? 7+Aingamr+- - rPAA ,•, ` '``?*.:? .?
•t ` i 1. .El4see -6 .9p i/ w :es 1 r? ^_ _ _ 0 4gfq k a t
z- . ' >b wH
- .... _ Jaomn+ -
r _ -
Study Area
-ap - LA DA
r 0 1 2 3 Miles
0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers
Reproduced with permission from the North Caroline - 1 ' •c F ?'(Y?, .? - - _
Atlas and Gazetteer, Delnrma Mapping, 1993
f
? /'.?._. `\X ?`.-. __ l Ra ,?? 1-. ? ? \t. ?\ \±..t SON.. r ??, _ ,-.•.^',i 1.+?.u
Site Location Figure: 1
Environmental Barra Farms/Harrison Creek Wetlands
Services, Inc. Cumberland County, North Carolina Project: ER97010
Date: April 1997