20020253 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20130524

os stem
�n ar ement
PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Kulz, DWQ
FROM: Mac Haupt .,
DATE: May 24, 2013
RE: Closeout Request for the Howell Woods Nutrient Offset Site (EEP IMS #183)
The Howell Woods Nutrient Offset Site is located in Johnston County in the Neuse 01
watershed. The 91" year monitoring for the site concluded in 2010 and the site was formerly
closed out in July of 2010. At the time there was no formal riparian buffer /nutrient offset
closeout process and while the assets were agreed upon at the time, no formal letter was required
or submitted.
Based upon our past review, EEP requests closure of the site with the following nutrient offset
assets:
• 1.0 acre of Nutrient Offset credit (43,560 sq ft)
Perpetual site protection will be maintained by:
Eric Galamb
Stewardship Program
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs, DENR
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
919 -715 -8696
Please find attached a copy of the closeout report, which contains a map detailing the final
enumeration of credits, and a credit /debit ledger. We respectfully request your concurrence to
officially close out the nutrient offset assets of the Howell Woods Site.
CC. Jeff Jurek
Guy Pearce
Jim Stanfill
File
Restoriltq... Ffl.k . ;tac 4.q... Prot-ectu2q Oilfr State d EE
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

Mitigation Project Name Howell Woods
IMS ID #
183
River Basin
NEUSE
Cataloging Unit
03020201
Project Type
Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Comment: The project was funded by the Statewide ILF Program and verified nutrient offset assets were sold to the Nutrient Offset Program.
Applied Credit Ratios: 1.1 1.5 1 2.5.1 5.1 1.1 3:1 2:1 5.1 '.1 3.1 2 1 5 t 1 1 3:1 2 273 1 lbs /ac 146.4lbs /ac
`c w
z°¢
o v
z
o ro
z W
o a
za
m
n U
'" "
p
z
a`
m
1.a
Beginning Balance (square feet)
43,560.00
Utilize Portion of Buffer Restoration as Nutrient Offset Mitigation:
Adjusted Beginning Balance (square feet)
43,560.00
Adjusted Beginning Balance (credits)
2,273.10
0.00
EEP Debits (credits):
ILF ID
Impact Project Name
Municipalit
y
ILF -FME- 2005 -469
University Woods West
Raleigh
126.60
ILF - FME - 2005 -374
Walnut Creek Business Park
Building #3
Raleigh
409.80
ILF -FME- 2005 -462
Leith Auto Park Expansion
Cary
278,59
ILF -FME- 2005 -373
Kotis Property
Raleighl
810.00
ILF -FME- 2005 -537
TKE Fraternity Chapter House
Raleigh
27,09
ILF -FME- 2005 -449
Primrose School
Cary
342.43
Remaining Balance (credits)
278.59
0.00

CLOSE OUT REPORT
HOWELL WOODS
WETLAND RESTORATION
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project Number 183)
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by /Monitoring Performer:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
20 Enterprise St. Suite 7
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Design Firm:
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27592
�tem
l�n �1 f.'IllCII�
Axiom Environmental, Inc. kuoewm
September 2010

Table of Contents
1 0 Introduction
4
20 Project Goals
4
30 Project Structures and Objectives
4
40 Groundwater Wetland Degradation Model
6
50 Vegetation
7
Background Information
7
Success Criteria
7
Results
7
60 Wetlands
9
Background Information
9
Success Criteria
10
Results
10
70 References
13
List of Tables
Table 1
Project Mitigation Structures and Objectives
5
Table 2
Groundwater Model Results
6
Table 3
Preconstruction Ditches (Average Ditch Depths)
6
Table 4
Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
8
Table /Graph 5
11
2007 Onsite
Clunatic Data-vs 30 -year Historic Data
11
Table 6
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for Preconstruction through 2010
12
Attachments
Attachment A Figures
Figure Al
Site Location
Figure A2
Preconstruction Conditions
Figure A3
Revised Mitigation Units
Figure A4
2006/2007 Drought Maps
Attachment B As -built Construction Figures
Figure 5
Wetland Restoration Activities
Figure 8
Planting Areas 2000
Figure 9
Planting Areas 2002
Attachment C Preconstruction
Gauge Location Maps
Figure A
Well Locations (1999)
Figure B
Well Locations (2000)
Figure C
Well Locations (2001)
Figure D
Well Locations (2002)
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
lohnston County, North Carolina page 3

HOWELL WOODS CLOSEOUT REPORT
1.0 Introduction
The Howell Woods Wetland Restoration Site (Site) is located within United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03020201 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasm 03-
04-04) of the Neuse River Basin The Site includes an approximately 140 -acre tract, located 8 5 miles
southeast of the Town of Smithfield in southern Johnston County (Figure A], Attachment A) The Site is
contained within an approxiiately 2000 -acre tract of land managed by Johnston County Community
College as part of the Howell Woods Environmental Learning Center This report summarizes
monitoring of the Site over an eight year period from 2002 to 2009
2.0 Project Goals
The primary goals of the project included the following
Enhance water quality functions in the Gar Gut Creek and Mill Creek watersheds
Reestablish a functioning backwater slough system, which extends through developing
bottomland hardwood forests
Restore riverine wetlands through canal /ditch backfilling/plugging
Create additional wetlands by excavating a littoral shelf
Provide educational opportunities to show the importance of wetlands for water quality
Maximize the area returned to historic wetland function and hydroperiods
3.0 Project Structures and Objectives
Prior to construction activities the Site was characterized by agriculture, fallow fields, and forest
communities located at the outer edge of the primary Neuse River floodplam and its adjacent terrace The
primary restoration feature at the Site consisted of an approximately 5400 - linear foot dredged and
straightened canal, man -made ponds, and five secondary ditches that effectively drained a portion of the
Site and based on DRAINMOD modeling dramatically reduced wetland hydrology within the remainder
of the Site (Figure A2, Attachment A) The canal was dredged along the toe of slope at the outer
floodplain edge This area historically supported a backwater slough, as evidenced by relict channel
reaches within forested sections of the Site situated adjacent to the excavated canal
Land use activities in the drainage area and adjacent tracts are limited due to frequent flooding from the
Neuse River and poorly drained soils Onsite land use was characterized by farming (agricultural row
crops), hunting, and recreational activities associated with the Howell Woods Environmental Learmng
Center
Restoration activities at the Site entailed the following (see Figures 5 and 8 -9 from the As -built
Construction Plan, Attachment B)
1) ditch cleaning prior to backfill,
2) impervious ditch plug construction,
3) ditch/canal backfilling,
4) access road improvements,
5) littoral shelf creation,
6) pond outfall structural upgrades,
7) redirecting stream flows into relict channel reaches in the forested southern portion of the Site,
and
8) restoring surface water flows through the abandoned backwater slough using passive stream
restoration in northern portions of the Site
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina page 4

At the time of project completion, stream restoration projects entailed traditional alterations to channel
dimension, pattern, and profile, as outlined in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen 1996). However,
recent guidance (USACE et al. 2005, 2007) for the restoration of backwater sloughs in low -slope settings
(outer Coastal Plain) indicates that stream restoration may be achieved through the reestablishment of
braided stream morphology through passive measures, including ditch filling and natural progression of
the stream through historic sloughs, braids, and channels. Under this scenario, stream restoration success
criteria may include the successful restoration of hydrology within areas previously drained by ditching or
other hydrology alterations. Using this guidance, approximately 5253 linear feet of backwater slough
stream channel has been enhanced (level II) (at a minimum) within the Site (Figure A3, Attachment A).
Wetland restoration acreages and locations were determined in the October 2001 Detailed Wetland
Restoration Plan. Wetland restoration areas were defined as portions of the Site that were hydrologically
impacted (hydrology below 12 inches of the ground surface for most of the growing season) by drainage
ditch excavation. Wetland restoration areas were determined utilizing DRAINMOD computer
simulations to predict the effect Site drainage features had on adjacent groundwater tables. However, the
abandoned backwater slough channel, which served as an
approximately 2 to 3 foot deep drainage feature prior to 4 s July 7, 2(
restoration activities, was not included in the original Downstream
DRAINMOD model simulations. Utilizing drainage effect Swan Pond.
Site construe
estimates from the October 2001 Detailed Wetland reach was atk
Restoration Plan, the abandoned backwater slough channel The canal
originally re(
drained an additional 10 acres of wetland at the Site prior to stream flows v
restoration activities. These revised acreages are depicted on
Figure A3 (Attachment A) and are described in the following
table (Project Mitigation Structures and Objectives). The
DRAINMOD wetland degradation model is further explained
in the next section of this document.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structures and Objectives
Project Name /Number: Howell Woods (EEP Project Number 183
Segment or
Mitigation
Revised Linear
Mitigation
Comment
Reach ID
Type **
Footage or Acreage
Units
Howell Woods
R (Riparian)
38.6 acres
38.6
Restored forested wetlands to areas effectively
drained by historic ditch /canal
Howell Woods
R (Riparian)
4.8 acres
4.8
Restored freshwater marsh to areas effectively
drained by historic ditch /canal
Enhanced forested wetlands to areas with
Howell Woods
E (Riparian)
71.3 acres
35.7
hydrology effected by ditches /canal, but not
drained below jurisdictional threshold
Howell Woods
I C (Riparian)
3.4 acres
1.1
Littoral shelf excavation
Totals
80.2 WMUs
Swan Pond
Ell
5253 feet*
2101
Passive backwater slough restoration by
redirecting stream flows into the historic channel
Totals
2101 SMUs
Howell Woods Nutrient Offset 1.0 acre
1.0 1 Planting of native forest vegetation.
Totals
1.0 Nutrient Offset MUs
* Linear footage based on down valley distance of the braided stream channel based on inter agency guidance (USACE et. al. 2005, 2007)
* *R = Restoration
E = Enhancement
EII — Enhancement (Level 11)
C = Creation
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County. North Carolina page 5

4.0 Groundwater Wetland Degradation Model
A wetland degradation model was utilized during detailed planning to forecast the maximum zone of
ditch influence based on reference wetland hydroperiods (NCWRP & EcoScience 2001) In Chastain
soils, the model predicted that the reference hydroperiod (30% of the growing season) is expected to be
adversely impacted throughout and beyond the boundaries of the Site Model simulations indicated that
ditches effectively eliminate groundwater driven wetlands at distances ranging from 38 to 132 feet from
onsite ditches (1 to 8 -foot deep ditches)
Based on results of groundwater modeling and data collected from reference gauges it was concluded that
Site canals and ditches effectively drained adjacent land below jurisdictional thresholds Prior to
construction these areas were considered uplands characterized by hydric soils and a lack of hydrology
In addition, modeling results suggested that the drainage influence of Site canals and ditches adversely
impacted the entire Site Therefore, even though areas of the Site were still considered to be Jurisdictional
wetlands they were greatly altered from reference conditions by a dramatically decreased wetland
hydroperiod
Table 2 summarizes results from groundwater modeling completed during the detailed design phase of
this project Table 3 gives the average ditch depths of the channelized main canal (Swan Pond), the
abandoned reach of Swan Pond, and five additional ditches located on the Site prior to construction
(Figure A2, Attachment A)
Table 2. Groundwater Model Results
Project Name /Number: Howell Woods (EEP Protect Number 183)
Ditch
Average Ditch Depth (feet)
Forested Stages (10+ years of restoration)
50
Ditch Depth (feet)
Wetland Hydroperiod (% of growing season)
0 -5%
5 -12.5%
Zone of Influence (feet),
50
1
85
Main Canal (Swan Pond)
38
2
175
58
3
25
75
4
325
90
6
50
115
8
65
132
* The zone of influence is equal to % of the modeled ditch spacing
Table 3. Preconstruction Ditches (Average Ditch Depths)
Project Name /Number: Howell Woods EEP Project Number 183
Ditch
Average Ditch Depth (feet)
1
50
2
40
3
55
4
50
5
10
Main Canal (Swan Pond)
50
Abandoned Reach of Swan Pond
3 0
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County, North Carolina page 6

5.0 Vegetation
Background Information
In the fall of 2001, vegetation monitoring plots were randomly established within the Site Each sample
plot was composed of two- 300 -foot transects extending from a central point, usually a groundwater
monitoring gauge The Site was monitored for the as -built and the 2002 (year 1) growing season utilizing
this methodology with vegetation success achieved
During the 2003 (year 2) monitoring period, North Carolina State University implemented a revised
vegetation monitoring procedure based on the Draft Vegetation Monitoring Plan for NCWRP Riparian
Buffer and Wetland Restoration Projects document (undated) Five -10 meter square plots were
established and permanently marked with pipe The location of each vegetation monitoring plot is
depicted on Figure A3 These plots were surveyed for four monitoring seasons using this methodology
Due to the revised monitoring protocol during the second year of vegetation surveys, no comparisons of
as -built or 2002 (year 1) can be made to the subsequent monitoring years Therefore, planted species
have been based upon previous annual monitoring reports and percent survival is based on a comparison
of 2003 (year 2) totals, where possible The phased vegetation monitoring schedule made it difficult to
determine planted trees from naturally recruited trees, therefore, the number of "planted" species was
based on the experience and judgment of the monitoring team, and counts for planted species may be
influenced by naturally recruited stems
Success Criteria
Success criteria dictated an average density of 320 stems per acre must be surviving in the first three
monitoring years Subsequently, 290 Character Tree Species per acre must be surviving in year 4 and 260
Character Tree Species per acre in year 5 Five vegetation plots had been previously established by North
Carolina State University The plots are 10 meters square and are located randomly within the Site
Results from vegetation surveys exceeded success criteria with 346, 1806, 1401, and 1101 planted stems
per acre present in years 2 through 5, respectively, with an increase in species diversity over the
monitoring period Vegetation surveys were completed in year 5 and no data was collected in subsequent
years
Results
Results from vegetation surveys exceeded success criteria with 346, 1806, 1401, and 1101 planted stems
per acre present in years 2 through 5, respectively with an increase in species diversity over the 5 -year
monitoring period (see the following table, which summarizes results) Vegetation surveys were
completed in year 5 and no data was collected in subsequent monitoring years with the exception of
photographs, photographs for year 8 (2009) follow Vegetation problems were not present after the
eighth monitoring year Based on these results, Site vegetation should be considered successful
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina page 7

Table 4. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Project Name /Number: Howell Woods (EEP Project Number 183)
Species
Year 1
(2002)
Totals,
Year 2
(2003)
Totals
Year 3
(2004)
Totals
Year 4
(2005)
Totals
Year 5
(2006)
Totals
Survival
Cephalanthus occidentals
o
Q
I
p
Z
6
0
0
0
0
Crataegus sp
*
0
0
8
Dios yros vii iniana
*
0
0
2
Fraxtnus pennsylvanica
22
21
28
19
86
Ilex deciduas
*
0
0
1
Platanus occidentahs
4
3
3
5
125
Po ulus hetero hylla
*
0
0
1
Quercus lyrata
0
0
0
1
--
Quercus nigra
l
1
1
0
0
Quercus pagoda
4
5
4
2
50
Quercus phellos
7
7
6
8
114
Quercus sp
0
0
0
2
--
Taxodium distichum
I
1
1
2
200
Ulmus americana
*
0
0
1
Ulmus rubra
*
0
0
4
Ulmus sp
*
185
130
80
Total Stems Per Plot
45*
223
173
136
Stems Per Acre
364
1806
1401
1101
* - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina page 8

Vegetation Plot Photographs
Taken July 2009
6.0 Wetlands
Background Information
Prior to construction ten groundwater monitoring gauges (nine within the Site and one reference) were
maintained and monitored in 1999. Following floods resulting from several hurricanes in the fall of 1999
these gauges were removed and twelve groundwater monitoring gauges were maintained and monitored
prior to construction through 2010. Construction at the Site occurred from June 18 -July 26, 2002;
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County. North Carolina page 9

therefore, data collected from 1999 -2002 was collected prior to construction for comparison to post -
construction data collected from 2003 -2010. In addition, two reference gauges, installed prior to 2002,
are located within the reference wetlands immediately northwest of the Site.
Site wetlands are comprised of Wehadkee- Chastain soils (Typic Fluvaquents) that consist of poorly
drained soils on broad floodplains that are frequently flooded. Wehadkee soils are typically found near
stream channels, are moderately permeable, and comprised of loam to approximately 18 inches. Chastain
soils are typically found at the base of uplands, in slack -water areas, and in sloughs, and are characterized
by slowly permeable soils comprised of a surface layer of silty clay and a subsoil of clay.
Success Criteria
Success criteria based on the 2001 Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Design Plan will be evaluated two
ways.
2)
During years with average rainfall wetland hydrology will require inundation or saturation within
12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period of 12.5 percent (28 days) of the growing
season. The growing season in Johnston County begins March 21 and ends November 4 (229
days). Upper landscape reaches and hummocks within wetland areas that exhibit surface
saturation/inundation between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season can be classified as
wetlands depending upon factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
OR
Alternatively, hydrology success criteria may be evaluated by comparison to DRAINMOD
estimates of growing season saturation and groundwater gauge data between the wetland
restoration areas and the reference wetland. Specifically, DRAINMOD estimates indicate that the
Site is expected to be saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for 30% (68 days) of the
growing season. In addition, reference gauge data indicate saturation within 12 inches of the soil
surface for 23% (53 days) of the growing season. If the Site exceeds 75% of the hydroperiod
exhibited by DRAINMOD and /or references gauges, restoration credit will be requested from
regulatory agencies.
Results
All groundwater gauges have a presence of
hydrophytic wetland vegetation and hydric soils
based on criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987). Groundwater hydrology data is
sparse for 2003 -2005; however, all gauges met
hydrology success criteria in from 2006 -2010 with
the exception of Gauge 2 in 2007 and Gauge 3 in
2006 and 2007.
Gauges 2 and 3 are located within hydric Chastain
soils, which are predominantly comprised of
impermeable clay. These soils are primarily flooded
by surface flooding with subsequent ponding of water. Hydraulic conductivity (slug) tests conducted
within the Site during detailed restoration planning confirmed very slow hydraulic conductivity rates
within Site soils especially along the outer extents of the floodplain as a result of surface and subsurface
clay content. During drought years these soils will be affected to a greater extent due to a lack of surface
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County. North Carolina page 10

flooding and will take longer to recover from extended periods of drought such as the drought
experienced in 2006 -2007.
Onsite rainfall data for the 2006 monitoring season is unavailable; however, the season started off
abnormally dry and remained that way for most of 2006 and 2007 as indicated by the drought maps in
Figure A4 (Attachment A). The 2007 monitoring season was extremely dry with half of the 30 -year
historic normal rainfall. A table and graph of 2007 rainfall data collected from an onsite rain gauge and
30 -year historic rain data collected from a nearly station in Smithfield, North Carolina are included below
(NOAA 2004).
Table /Graph 5.
2007 Onsite Climatic Data
VS.
30 -year Historic Data
6 -4.
Month
2007 Data
Mean 30 -year
Historical
January
3.14
4.24
February
2.52
3.66
March
2.02
4.57
April
1.34
3.24
May
0.76
4.16
June
0.63
4.14
July
2.52
5.14
August
1.07
4.58
Se tmber
3.25
4.54
October
5.51
3.16
Totals
22.76
41.43
Table 6 gives groundwater for the Site prior to construction from 1999 -2002 and after construction from
2003 -2010. Data collected shows an increase in the wetland hydroperiod averaging 25% (ranging from 5-
60% increase) at all gauges with the exception of Gauges 2 and 3. In addition, significant uplift in
wetland enhancement areas resulted from the project as evidenced by increased hydroperiod in areas
outside of the jurisdictional effect of preconstruction ditches. The hydroperiod within enhancement areas
(Gauges 4, 7, 10, and 11) increased from less than 12.5% of the growing season prior to construction to
greater than 20 -30% of the growing season after mitigation activities. Based on all available onsite data
(groundwater gauge data, Reference gauge data, DRAINMOD predictions, and historic rainfall
information), groundwater wetland hydrology at the Site should be considered successful.
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County. North Carolina page 11

Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina page 12
Success Criteria 1 During years with average rainfall wetland hydrology will require inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface
Table 6 Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for Preconstructton through 2010
for a consecutive period of 12 5 percent (28 days) of the Vowing season The growing season in Johnston County begins Much 21 and ends November
4 (229 days) Upper landscape reaches and hummocks within wetland areas that exhibit surface saturationfinundation between 5 and 12 5 percent of the
Project Name/Number Howell Woods EEP Project Number 183
1 ( J )
growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric sods
1 Site construction did not occur until June 18 -July 26 2002 therefore gauge data presented for year 1 (2002) is preconstruction data
OR
2 - Data for most of the end of the growing season was unavailable
Success Cntena 2 Altematnely hydrology success criteria maybe evaluated by comparison to DRAINMOD estimates of Lnowang season saturation
3 -Graph is included in the year 3 (2004) report for one of the Infinmes gauges however it does not indicate which one
and groundwater gauge data between the wetland restoration areas and the reference wetland Spmfically DRAINMOD estimates indicate that the Site
4 Gauges malfunctioned for the first several months of the growing season
is expected to be saturated within 12 inches of the sod surface for 30% (68 days) of the growing season In addition reference gauge data indicate
5 Gauge data was downloaded through August 26 2010
saturation within 12 inches of the sod surface for 23% (53 days) of the growing season If the Site exceeds 75% of the hydroperiod e<lubrted by
` - Historic descriptions are different for 1999 then other years because gauges were Flooded by hurricanes in the fall and were removed from the Site
DRAINMOD and/or references gauges restoration credit will be requested from regulatory agencies
and replaced in different locations in 2000 see figure in Attachment D for gauge locations in 1999 Data presented in this table is from the
beginning of the growing season and disregards hurricanes that occurred in the fall of 1999
" Value was obtained in 1999 and is used for comparison for 2000 and 2001 data
PRECONSTRUCTION GAUGE DATA POSTCONSTRUCTION GAUGE DATA
Historic
Description
Serial
Number
Success Criteria #1 Achieved /Success Criteria 92 Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
C7
1999
2000
2001
2002'
Year 2 (2003)'
Year 3 2004 a
Year 4 2005
\ ear 5 2006
Year 6 2007
Year 7 2008
Year 8 2009
Year 9 (2010)'
Yes/No/
Yes/No/
Yes /Yes/
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes /Yes/
No/No/
Yes/yes/
1
RDSA
1 130CEA4
__
No Data
No Data
No Data
>125%
/ >125%
>125%
34 days 148%
43 days 188%
64 days 279 %)
22 days 96 %)
38 days (166%
2
RDSB
11312826
No/No /<5%
Yes/No/
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
No Data
No Data
Malfunctioned
No /No/
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
RDSF*
/ >125%
/ >125%
>125%
25das(110%
10 days (44% )
II days 5%
28 days 122 %)
21 days 92%
3
RDSC
B651780
No/No/
No/No/
No /No/
No Data
No Data
Malfunctioned'
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
5-125%
5-125%
<5%
8 days 3 9%
8 da s 39%
11 days 5%
22 days 9 6%
17 days 7 4
No/No/
No/No/
No /No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes /Yes/
Yes /Yes/
Yes/Yes/
4
INF6
6651315
--
No Data
No Data
No Data
0%
5-125%
<5%
76 days 33 2%
66 days (28 8% )
80 days (34 9% )
109 days 47 6%
100 days (43 7 %)
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
5
INFS
EBD3BE3
--
No Data
No Data
No Data
<5%
<5%
0%
229 days 100 %
80 days 34 9 %
96 days 41 90/)
217 days 94 8%
111 days 48 5%
6
RDSD
B6B4FB9
_
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
No Data
No Data
Malfunctioned
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
5125%
5125%
<5%
33 days 144%
47days 205 %
35 days 153%
82days 358%
48days 210%
INFI/
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/NA/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
7
EBD85C9
_
No Data
JG6
<5%
<5%
0%
73 days 31 9%
36 days 15 7 %
168 days 73 4 %
68 days (29 7 % )
82 days 35 8%
201 days 87 8%
104 days 45 4%
No/No/
No/No/
No /No/
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
Yes/No/
No/No/
8
INF2
AX095A
__
Malfunctioned
No Data
No Data
5 -125%
0%
0%
19days 83%
15 days 66%
18 days (79% )
35days 153%
28days 124%
No/No/
No/No/
No /No/
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/No/
Yes/No/
9
RUSE
B652374
No Data
No Data
Malfunctioned4
Malfunctioned
5 -125%
5 -125%
<5%
29 days 127%
44 days 192%
37 days 162%
34 days 148%
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
10
INF4
A286A2D
__
No Data
No Data
5-125%
5-125%
<5%
54 days 23 6%)
68 days 29 7 %
43 days 18 8 %
63 days 27 5 %)
40 days 17 5%)
68 days (30 0
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
Yes /Yes/
Yes/No/
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/No/
11
INF3
AB36608
__
No Data
No Data
Malfunctioned
5-125%
5-125%
5-125%
54 days 23 6%
32 days 14 0%
41 days 17 9 %)
51 days 22 3 %)
38 days 16 7%
12
RDSF
6652408
--
No/No/
No/No/
No/No/
No Data
No Data
4
Malfunctioned
Yes/No/
Yes/Yes/
Yes /Yes/
Yes/Yes/
Yes/Yes/
5 -12 5%
5 -12 5%
<5%
52 days 22 7 %
43 days 18 8 %
51 days (22 2 %)
73 days 31 9%
38 days 16 6%
--
RDSA*
S2C9894
No/No /5 -125%
--
--
--
-
--
--
--
--
-
-
--
RDSB*
S2EAD22
No/No /5 -125%
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
--
RDSC*
S2EAD39
No/No /0%
--
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
--
RDSE*
S2EAD39
NoMo /0%
--
--
--
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
RDSG*
S2C9584
No/No / <5
REFERENCE GAUGE DATA
REF
53 days, 23 1 % **
-
-
-
Refl
REF I
A2863C6
>12 5%
70 days 30 6%)
No Data
No Data
34 da 14 8 %
56 days 24 4 %
64 days (27 9 %)
74 days 32 3%)
Malfunctioned
Ret2
I REF2
N3B6AA64
_
>125%
74 da s(32 3 %)
No Data
No Data
72 days 31 4 %)
55 days (24 0 % )
63 days (27 5%)
61 days (26 6 %)
43 days ( 18
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina page 12

7.0 References
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report
Y -87 -1 United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program ( NCWRP) Undated Draft Internal Guidance for
Vegetation Monitoring Plans for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration Projects
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program ( NCWRP) 2001 Compensentory Wetland Mitigation
Design Plan Howell Woods Site, Johnston County North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program ( NCWRP) 2002 Howell Woods Wetland Restoration
Site As -built Construction Report North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) 2010 US Drought Monitor (online) Available
http //drought unl edu/dm /archive html [July 11, 2010]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) 2004 Climatography of the United States
No 20, Monthly Station Climate Summaries, 1971 -2000 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
Rosgen, D 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology (Publisher) Pagosa Springs,
Colorado
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources 2005 Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain
of North Carolina Available
http / /h2o enr state nc us /ncwetlands/ documents/ CoastalPlainSTreamMitigationFinalDraftPohcy
Nov28 doc [October 30, 2006]
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994 Soil Survey of Johnston County, North
Carolina United States Department of Agriculture
Weather Underground 2009 Station at Moore Farm (KNCFOURO2) in Four Oaks, North Carolina
(online) Available http Hwww wunderground com /weatherstation/WXDailyHistory asp'?ID=
KNCFOURO2 [November 10, 2009]
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina page 13

Attachment A
Figures
Figure Al. Site Location
Figure A2. Preconstruction Conditions
Figure A3. Revised Mitigation Units
Figure A4. 2006/2007 Drought Maps
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County, North Carolina Attachments

Legend N
Conservation Easment Boundaries
Open Water = 3.8 acres
_ Jurisdictional Wetland = 65.1 acres
- Uplands = 70.7 acres Axbm Envwwwntor" Inc
�a5
j o Canals /Ditches
Abandoned Reach of Swan Pond Prepared for
Fallow Fields
Roads ,*
it D"k - 2 -foot LIDAR contours F�� l�m
�o /nRodtl [' ;ntialt t,•1txtIt
Note: Groundwater modeling and reference gauges indicated
that Site canals and ditches effectively drained adjacent land
below jurisdictional thresholds. Prior to construction
these areas were considered uplands characterized by hydric
soils and a lack of hydrology. In addition, modeling results
suggested that the drainage influence of Site canals and ditches
adversely impacted the entire Site. Therefore, even though areas
of the Site were considered to be jurisdictional wetlands they
were greatly altered from reference conditions by a
dramatically decreased wetland hydroperiod.
0 500 1,000 2,000 3.000 4,000
Feet
Miles Scale = 1:7200
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Groundwater Model Results
Po.asfN,l.Fr,(I. 41 »,t Project .
tv<n.na u.a.y.daa ( °�. ar km..;ng seakml
Duch Depth (1 —) a5% 5.12.5% HOWELL
r .or1.n�.a «fr WOODS
1 N.$ 1N
2 125 N RESTORATION
a 1zs A' SITE
G 5" 115
k
0 112
•'rhe mnc of innuctice is NwI to Y orate m,,d l,d ditch spacing
Johnston County, NC
Preconstruction Average Ditch Depths Title:
qkh A.'e••M nlah Ikpth (fee(1
I
3
Pre
3
Construction
nlmMxsd k••A of se.a P.N Conditions
Drawn by:
CLF
Date:
AUG 2010
Scale:
1:7201
Project No
Ji FIGURE
A2

January 31, 2006
\t.il ii.l� H�; 1
��
June 13. 2006
:1 ,i�iP ��► +v,
may►
i ..
VO4- 4w1'iz a
Octo2006 ber
AL
Ate"
May 15, 11
September 4, 2007
December 18, 2007
�i °iii � :�1-•`!
r.t.1�at�11r »;
f� \fig �►'i��•���AAt` _
.1+.:."
!� :uiu1M. �°v�
'� d �+y�1 �s
,-5c ±.i►:is_ iV '
2006 July 18,
..P,wV,-
:,Rv 11� j �!r
rr
1p
May 29, 11
P77r,
October 2 2007
rF°.s,,.l
2006 March 28,
August 22, 2006
,. *fir,
r•,l'
March 13, 11
FvIRM \i81 ►�1. R,pt,,
ri
June 12, 11
October 23, 2007
.Q-
April 18, 2006
September 12, 2006
•:9 '7I't•
r,�
April 1 2007
r,►
July 17, 11
Los .44-
November 6, 2007
Intensity
Abnormally Dry D3 Drought - Extreme
D 1 Drought -Moderate . D4 Drought - Exvepticna
4 D2 Drought - Severe
Figure A4. 2006 /2007 Drought Maps
•pin
1,•. �Yyy
May 2, 2006
rr
fj
May 8, 11
i
August 14, 11
ter.,.
E:: ,d
November 20. 2007

Attachment B
As -built Construction Figures
Figure 5. Wetland Restoration Activities
Figure 8. Planting Areas 2000
Figure 9. Planting Areas 2002
Howell Woods Axiom Environmental, Inc. Closeout Report
EEP Project Number 183 September 2010
Johnston County North Carolina Attachments