20081742 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Proposal_20081125

in- 1'14 ?.,
Q['@MO'625 PUBLIC NOTICE
NOV 2 5 2008
DEWR -YVAftQ uALIly Issue Date: November 20, 2008
%WTLMDSAN7STORMWATERBRMCH Comment Deadline: December 20, 2008
Corps Action ID #: SAW-2008-03094
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received a prospectus describing the
establishment of a stream and wetland compensatory mitigation bank, known as Godwin Bay
Mitigation Bank for Federal and State permits as described below:
Bank Sponsor
Restoration Systems, LLC
This public notice does not imply, on the parts of the Corps of Engineers or other agencies, either
favorable or unfavorable opinion of the work to be performed, but it issued to solicit comments
regarding the factors on which final decisions will be based. Specific plans and location
information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This Public Notice and all
attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands. The complete prospectus and mitigation plans are also
available at the Wilmington District, Raleigh Field Office. Please contact 919-554-4884
extension 22, to request a copy.
WATERWAYS AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK: The proposed bank site is
located west of NC Highway 50, approximately 4 miles south of Benson, Johnston County, NC.
The approximate geographic coordinates are 35.3395° north latitude and -78.4888° west
longitude. The site is a Carolina bay with a manmade break in the rim that allows waters to exit
the site through a system of manmade drainage ditches, ultimately flowing through unnamed
tributaries to Mill Creek or Stone Creek in the Neuse River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201. (See attached maps).
PROPOSED WORK AND PURPOSE: The bank sponsor proposes to establish, design,
construct, and operate a wetland compensatory mitigation bank composed of 77 acres located
southeast of Benson, Johnston County, North Carolina.
As stated by the sponsor, the primary goals and objectives of this proposed mitigation bank are
to improve flood attenuation and storage. Specifically, the sponsor plans to restore 65.9 acres of
drained palustrine wetlands. The sponsor states the goals and objectives would be accomplished
by: 1) removing non-point and point sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities,
2) restoring the original hydrology by filling approximately 14,000 linear feet of existing
drainage ditches, 3) reforesting of a native wetland community with subsequent reestablishment
of habitat diversity and functional continuity, 4) permanently protecting the site's full potential
as a wetland. The sponsor states that the proposed bank would be protected in perpetuity by a
conservation easement. The applicant states that upon completion the proposed bank would
offer 65.9 acres of Wetland Mitigation Units.
The proposed 77 acre bank site is currently utilized for agricultural activities associated with the
production of chickens, hogs, and row crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans. A total of
approximately 75.6 acres of the proposed Bank's land area are currently underlain by hydric
soils that have been impacted by ditching, excavation and removal of vegetation. The enclosed
map shows the approximate location of proposed restoration and enhancement sites.
The proposed geographic service area is the 8 digit HUC, 03020201, located within the Neuse
River Basin.
This mitigation bank may be considered one of a number of practicable alternatives available to
applicants to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts associated with permits
issued under the authority of Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act for projects located
within the prescribed geographic service area.
Oversight of this wetland compensatory mitigation bank will be by a group of Federal and State
agency representatives collectively referred to as the Interagency Review Team (IRT). The IRT
shall be chaired by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is comprised of
representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
N.C. Division of Water Quality, and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
The actual approval of the use of this mitigation bank for a specific project is the decision
of the Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The Corps provides no guarantee that any particular individual or
general permit will be granted authorization to use this wetland compensatory mitigation bank to
compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts associated with a proposed permit, even though
mitigation from this bank may be available.
AUTHORITY: A Public Notice regarding proposed mitigation banks is required pursuant to the
rules published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources (33 CFR 332.8(d)(4)).
FEDERAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL: The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments
from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other
interested parties in order to consider and evaluate this proposed mitigation bank. Any
comments received will be considered by the Corps in evaluating this proposal. Comments are
used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,
energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Preliminary review indicates that: 1) An environmental impact statement will not be required; 2)
No species of fish, wildlife, or plant (or their critical habitat) listed as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205) will be affected; and 3) No cultural or

historic resources considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected. Additional information may change any of these preliminary
findings.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Attention: Thomas Brown, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 3331 Heritage Trade Drive,
Suite 105, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587, until 5:00 p.m., December 20, 2008.

'
- •• -
•?
-; ;?- `
. ?? ;- ,.? Action Id: 2008-03094
`` I??' `>` - ??-- =.?(' S heet 1 of 7
i i _? ``?i ?? 11•- j x ?` !. '?T1? 1/i--- ???1 i (?W fti?1""'r^-.4"? \ ti

'?
•?
-
?? • ? ?
• SIN.
1 ?
r? ,
+
? ' X
1
?
,

+
--J i
f
- ,x- d''w ?.'?L
%
, 7
5
.;"?,
?` •Y_j?' _ r r, 4?'"\ ,!?+'r;-
'/'t ?. ? ?? ?.'j _",c ? r ?

' a
?? ?,i - -
`'
-=`-•1 ? s Y •r, •t? ("'Z r j' ? fr, '? • r x ?` tff ? r
`
'
?
"?
?
•
?
t? ?. v ti--
:
? ?, i
.f ?.! 1,
1?, ? ?
?
`_ ? =
/?,/
.Z ;,,,?, y =tom

te i •
e,
? fG?
-'` ?, ? 4 ? _ t \ 111

NXI,

(! i `_' Project Area

,, 1 '1 ?• • / r"'1 ,-? ? i F'y ? IV? s. -.f`+./ t "tom

?;'? f _; ?,?` • t,1 r `f J Ge ?- , sa YRaleigh` --, Overview Map
?- `'`?``? (
f
70
rust .:C:'r: Jr • \. t - :`? 4!
70
`
-1
Directions (F rom Raleigh): T~ ?'
Take Interstate 40 East to Exit 334. Turn right onto NC-96. Travel
?- -, ?
421 `? rl t
.
of
0.7 miles and t urn right onto NC-50. Trave l 1.7 miles to SR1005. Turn
>?
left and go 1.3 miles to Beasley Rd. Turn right and go 0.7 miles to
site entrance.

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
;-
NC 27604
Raleigh Figure 1:

Project
Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank

Johnston County, NC
1:24,000
N
,
t' 1 tel: [phone] Location 0 475 950 1.900 2850 3.800
Feet
Action Id: 2008-03094
Sheet 4 of 7
m
7 0 ?,
t, $
cn O n
s v, o o m
4t- ? N
Cl 3
w rNk O
CD
f j" O
y? ,?? t? ??' CJ7 l)
CD Q
??.pµµp ` fl?a,?,[3qx r, ?? z ) 1 nt Jcu
1 ? 7.?1? `.?.Eqt.>r1?1nS??!3.f3's )3 '? c,? C - t r r c a p = Sx 7 ? v'.?7 ? t`?.?1 khy?,
a ? r Fy 49?,4w'?,+,??.^,..+?t 8 n'? y r k , { ! i 1. ? ?' ? It t k n
n '? r'4rY??e?. ,r.? f < ?r ?y4: 't a t ? z t r ?fj};d Jt'?? ??. r1 ??ry a?Yf?`
wYY 4<ay?,?,
a 1 ! (D r ky& t < c r 4ti} J?'?1 ,nt {??L ??1° ,
La a.ci` o ?? CJ t ., 41 ? ?" t. x? P , 1 F h .a, r,
O Li ,rr>f: tE}-atnzZY+'„uiatit at.., 5l 4sdL° 1,+wD e?;k ?tr.•s?.'
Q ? ? i a+* O1 ? ? ?.. ?c a 63 yr t« ° e {^. #?" ?7 I,?? ? r y D'Y ? R?'!ae d ?c ?iF 1F-?nt'S<h?;;
i ? $ x?F.. ? {.e?o>< LL ,s SF r t c ? s wit 7ha4q? v? >.
l' b*°xd . ?:•'C'? l'3-t .a"?'# 7Cjr.?;h y t r r fDyR i .rt i{ .} l ri`'r 7 c?
'?'. is?ct?'t'?•?'{., ??la,?"-7, N ? ? ,'!?' kntt"?>y" s}S,f 3vr'??, ti. ??;,y1?vf5'.f t J?? .,? {;.'tY ?s? ,?1?{?'?r?l't?".??

W
e?
L
O
Cf)

n O ? 0
.
Z
0 O ?
? ? rn
y O

o T
cn
7
d
`"
Z N
tD D
0
N

j

Li m
N m

c
N

0
o

71
?mm
lV
"r ?'? r r" a FS n Atr v h?n`r?t 'y i t r r L t 7 t?!r 7^.b} r?U ^hvnp- .?D
i ?. F' , ? a r r it 1 '1
- $ FF ord., ?, u yai ti? f ,? ? '1 De ,1 to xi
' 7 raY y ?..?+' . rA"k 6 ?' o ? ?1 "? r " ? F ?s # ?d 5fa }?. fG
it ( r $ r 1
?yHvi?: n X! ;s
I "M
} A ..-n ? ' . 1 d ? 9
r Y' E' ;.? r h OrJ? ?-rt
! C q R T t - Y 4'.
- ? J ZLVt ,? ? T ?4 K
U f
1 tD O
n a Ln Q
LT --h
J _ ¢t g t? 00
I _: J? ? ? fis a _y»•F.'?O/?
l: t ` >J? rt f ?F'A t?s 1 :-?? L \
" t°? '11 `fr•^ 3l r
` r
Action Id: 2008-03094

A-i

r
Sheet 6 of 7
v,
'e
f'I J
+?
t
j? t
'
r-"
i
T
?.•-. ) 1 r-'*_c
?lr
I

?. r ? :?f/'{? "mac ?.? ?F ? •1?" , ?" -.. .1 t 1. ^-?'l?; /f - S ?
1 S - f i 1. y "t, `: C '??irt\ -... -,.nt""'•.?'.` ?-:. :, S % ^" ?( ? ? ?,7,
1 r- , ? v [ t y l ? 1 ti's Y -? ,? - \ 1 •: ? t 41 -. r . ''. s ? ?ft!?-•`?
rte,. ? {• ! t •} f J ' ? Jr r J4 ?. _,r,f'•f . _ ? la i_ .. / ':'> `i:
f Q,
}, w? 1 Project Area
j 4 f ,C
l,0ok00 ? r \ `': •.{ ! fj '_`??. ? ?''^-r. 3
t r l J` Ti. F h. f a ,?
,'?srr. 1 ! ? , Yfi ?•r -` ? ?- ? f . - Usaril tL, ? S. 5 } ? ? . ?- ? < - y, ?,
e
? •y ?a rite '! 'a3 ?? '? ..? ?r?y r / rf {7 _,• T }"'?. J ?, < ,' ? ?',(I ?,y? i}\ w ? ?t? It ....
'. "•`?,-! f'^ { '' r - ?? f y t '? Je as i I ? ? I ?l. ,yfr ?:- <
'C
^F ?l aa• j? R t -..F ? ? [tea ? J .
?` t _„• t - _ 1 k -•?.•. ?? ? ? ?? ? 1? ? 1 cC .F????+ cl. t.va r..?n
't 'z
-r.
.. 'r+a \ s v / *. `w'?,r"e s {# "S ? k ?f _.u I N i
bC 1
:1' i yii i - ?:l• ?n.t 4 l?t 4 l? 't' ?: ;_+( t 4a 'I t
J.• ? "? ? ( I ..•„i. ` l>a7 N,i?- = . . ..
?
•r' ",? S, W Cnn,W1 ?r ?c p s '!'^ ` q;.•rt? r Ir ?O?dd .may, '? r? L'
t y ?J } s ,` i ? S :?.. !,,r,3. r-•? ? t ? ?-?-rr:p.'+y ?•T?` '• 961' ;
? r la t t , < ef\ +A ",ter, t J r i wti v
Y A' r \ / ` r Pu
Reference Site
t ti 0 4r_ '1' -„ t1
f A 5
n.-1 V ti - { _ Srr f \ t .r 1
ff .;
.1z r `r= td,+ In V r'• S' - 5 ro
t ?:.T=^.i^ C ;r T ,
t £ (G r:` \ llmotD 'Q
s
f J
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Figure 6:
Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank 1:100,000
?' 1 1 Raleigh, NC 27604 Reference Johnston County, NC N
tel: [phone] Ecosystem 0 1.950 3,900 7.000 11,700 15.600
Feet
f
,,
01
t
t� ,IF •
Ii
CZt, t�
is
►. a xa ti I + i t( r r ti T �p S d r r •
49
J; t 4V' t f
to
•�♦ C.;, ..,,� to 7 t h4�t�; t ::!C � �.. $ 4!" F { � a�icZ
j• � �JJ' I t '1r`• j•• � � 4 1 ' i � � .0 + L _ OtN
? t
• • r S
• u
r•, r. +• ;
e

i _. t
PROSPECTUS
Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank
Johnston County, North Carolina
The
Catena
Group
-The Sponsor-
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
-Environmental Consultant*
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
September 2008
pr=@WWRE
L;? 19 Dl?
NOV $ 5 1008
V* "-1-ANDS AND STORMWATER BRAN04
Introduction
Section I of the prospectus contains a two part narrative including the Introduction and the
General Provisions. The Introduction is formatted to respond directly to 33 CFR Parts 325 and
332 section 332.8 (d)(2) of the new federal mitigation rule; the General Provisions essentially
convey information in the format of the recommended mitigation banking instrument (MBI)
template found on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) web page (see cover letter).
Section 11 of the prospectus is the Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan provides detailed
information on goals, methods, existing and proposed conditions and other technical information
including preliminary design concepts, regulatory issues, etc. Following the public notice and
receipt of the Initial Evaluation Letter from the District Engineer (DE), the design plans will be
finalized, the mitigation plan will be updated and the combined documentation will be submitted
as the mitigation banking instrument (MBI).
Objectives of the Bank
The primary goals and objectives of the Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank, hereafter cited as
The Bank, or The Site, are focused on restoring approximately 65.9 acres of drained palustrine
habitat to improve flood attenuation and storage. These goals will be met by:
1. The removal of nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with agricultural
practices, including the cessation of the application of fertilizers, pesticides, and other
agricultural chemicals.
2. The restoration of the original wetland hydrology by filling approximately 14,000 linear
feet of existing drainage ditches, thereby promoting flood storage, nutrient cycling, and
aquatic wildlife habitat.
3. The reforestation of a native wetland community with subsequent reestablishment of
habitat diversity and functional continuity.
4. The permanent protection of The Site's full potential as a wetland.
Establishment and Operation of the Bank
The Bank will be established following completion of a series of processes that are
considered to be standard practices in the mitigation banking industry: (green=tasks completed)
• GIS-landscape-level site evaluation
Landowner contact
Technical investigations of:
Soils, site hydrology, drainage features, plant and animal communities. rare species, rare
habitats, etc.
¦ Site restoration/enhancementr'preservation potential
• Land Acquisition
• Development of mitigation plan including conceptual design
• Submit prospectus to DE for review and approval
• Complete design and submit MBI to DE for approval
• Implementation and Monitoring
Operation of The Bank will be managed by Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) throughout pre-
construction, construction and monitoring. RS will be responsible for The Bank's success, for
the sale of credits in accordance with an approved credit release schedule, and for transferring
The Bank's conservation easement to an appropriate entity such as a land conservancy.
Proposed Service Area
The primary Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the Neuse River Basin 8-digit Cataloging
Unit, 03020201; however, a Wilmington District Public Notice on June 3, 2008 affirmed that
..use of The Bank for impacts located outside the GSA may be considered on a case-by-case
basis during the permit evaluation process." RS reserves the right to propose the use of credits
from this bank beyond the boundaries of the primary GSA should circumstances warrant.
Need for and Technical Feasibility of Bank
The Neuse 01 is among the most rapidly developing watersheds in North Carolina.
Accordingly, the need for high quality stream and wetland mitigation sites cannot be overstated.
The service area includes several large metropolitan areas such as Raleigh and Durham, as well
as smaller urban areas including Smithfield, Clayton, Wake Forest, Garner and portions of
Goldsboro. The area is rapidly developing to provide residences and services for an expanding
population. This trend is expected to continue well into the future.
The technical feasibilitv of the bank is considered to be reasonably assured based on several
factors: (1) the absence of fatal flaws such as hydrological trespass, presence of rare species or
habitats and the absence of nationally significant historical or archaeological resources; and (2)
the presence of hydric soils and the identification of how best to restore sufficient hydrology to
these areas. The feasibility was determined from careful site evaluation, including biological,
geotechnical and hydrological assessments. Furthermore, The Site is within a Carolina bay and,
prior to the 1980's, was a functioning wetland.
Sponsor's Qualifications to Successfully Complete Bank
RS has been a preeminent force in the development of successful aquatic mitigation sites in
North Carolina for more than 10 years. RS's qualifications are best illustrated by its track
record in selecting high quality sites and using highly skilled technical designers and experts in
implementation is well-demonstrated. RS has designed and implemented more than 25 wetland,
stream and riparian buffer mitigation sites in Maryland and North Carolina, representing more
than 5,000 acres of wetlands and 25 miles of streams. Furthermore, RS provides financial
surety for every project through every phase of work and each site is inspected by staff at
least quarterly in addition to requisite technical monitoring. Included among the stream and
wetland mitigation projects completed, or in advanced planning by RS are:
MITIGATION PROJECT STATUS
• Bear Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank Years Monitoring
• Sleepy Creek Wetland Mitigation Site 2 Years Monitoring
• Carbonton Dam Removal, Deep Creek 2 Years Monitoring
• Lowell Mill Dam Removal. Little River 2 Years Monitoring
• Lick Creek Stream Mitigation Site 2 Years Monitoring
• Gatlin Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site 2 Years Monitoring
y
• Columbus Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site In Construction
• Brown Marsh Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site In Monitoring
• Haw River Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 4 Years Monitoring
• Causev Farm Stream and Wetland Miti?-,ation Site 4 years Monitoring
• Anderson Swamp Wetland Mitigation Site 2 Years Monitoring
• Salsbury (Md.) Wetland Mitigation Site In Monitoring

• Gray Farm Stream Mitigation Site
• Elk Shoals Stream Mitigation Site
• Cane Creek Stream Mitigation Site
• Three-Mile Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
• Morgan Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
• Jarmans Oak Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
• Lloyd Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
• Farmer Bank Stream Mitigation Bank
• Ratcliffe Cove Stream Mitigation Bank
• Shoal Falls Stream Mitigation Site
• Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
• Bass Mountain Stream Mitigation Site
• Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank
• Angola Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank
• North River Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank
• Eleanor Stream Mitigation Site
• UT to Town Creek Stream Mitigation Site
• The Great Desert Bay Stream Mitigation Site
• Frog Hollow Neuse River Preservation Site
• Buckhorn Creek Dam Removal/Stream Restoration Project
• Barra Farms 11 Mitigation Bank
3 Years Monitoring
4 Years Monitoringg
Post Construction
Under Construction
Under Construction
2 Years Monitoring
2 Years Monitoring
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
In Development
Site's Ecological Suitability to Achieve the Bank's Objectives
The Bank site is characterized as a portion of a Carolina bay, which was converted to
agricultural production in the 1980's by land clearing and draining. The ecological suitabilitv of
The Site is demonstrated by the relatively modest alterations that will be required to result in
measurable ecological gains in aquatic functions and values. Furthermore, agricultural practices
will no longer be permitted within the boundaries of The Site prior to the initiation of restoration
activities. It is difficult to conceive of a site better suited to restoration of wetland functions.
Credit Release Schedule
RS proposes to use the credit release schedule prescribed by the agencies in a Department
of the Army (DA) public notice. dated June 3, 2008; however, RS reserves the right to modify
the credit release schedule in the future should changes be approved by the DA . See Table 1.
Table 1. Proposed Credit Release Schedule
Task Completion Verification
I (Preconstruction)* Execution of MBI
II (Construction) Site Inspection by USACE
III (I" Year Monitoring) ? Monitoring Report

IV (2° Year Monitoring) ?
Monitoring Report
V (3rd
Year Monitoring)
Monitoring Report
VI (4" Year Monitoring)
- Monitoring Report
VII (51
' Year Monitoring) Monitoring, Report
TOTAL
% of Wetland Credit Release
15
15
10
15 i
20
10
15
100 i
Task I includes the execution of the MBL. MBRT approval of the Mitigation Plan. delivery of financial
assurances, recordation of the conservation easement, and delivery of the title option to the MBRT.

General Provisions
The goal of the Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank is to restore and preserve non-riparian
palustrine wetlands including their collective functions and values to compensate for the
loss of similar regulated resources for unspecified, future and unavoidable impacts to
wetlands as authorized by Clean Water Act Section 404 permits in circumstances deemed
appropriate by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District Engineer (DE) after
consultation, through the permit review process, with members of the interagency
Review Team (IRT).
2. Use of credits from The Bank to offset impacts to aquatic resources authorized by Clean
Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing
regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules
and regulations. This agreement has been drafted following the publication of new
federal rules, 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, which became law in June 2008.
3. The IRT shall be chaired by Thomas Brown, hereafter referred to as the DE, the
representative of the USACE, Wilmington District. The IRT shall review monitoring and
accounting reports as described below. In addition, the IRT will review proposals for
remedial actions proposed by the sponsor (RS), or any of the agencies represented on the
IRT. The IRT will work to reach consensus on its actions, but the responsibility for
making determinative decisions rests with the DE.
4. The Corps, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and
type of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland
impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from The Bank is appropriate to offset
those impacts. In the case of permit applications and compensatory mitigation required
solely under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) will determine the amount of credits that can
be withdrawn from The Bank.
The Bank is a +/- 77-acre portion of a larger active farm in southwest Johnston County,
which is utilized for the production of chickens, hogs and row crops. The approximately
77 acre tract, which defines The Bank, has been used for corn, wheat and soybean
production. The Site is regularly fertilized and subjected to pesticide applications, which
collectively represents sources of toxic and eutrophic input to streams. Historical land use
practices, including the ditching of agricultural fields and the application of fertilizers,
pesticides and other chemicals has contributed to sedimentation and degraded water
quality downstream of ditch outfalls. Furthermore, artificial drainage features and
production of agricultural crops has reduced flood-storage capacity and floodwater
attenuation. A more detailed description of the baseline conditions on The Site is
contained in the enclosed Mitigation Plan.
4
6. RS will perform work described on pages 11-16 of the Mitigation Plan, including:
• The restoration of approximately 65.9 acres of non-riparian, forested wetlands by
filling approximately 14,000 linear feet of existing drainage ditches, thereby
promoting the return of wetland hydrological regimes to facilitate flood storage,
nutrient cycling. and aquatic wildlife habitat.
• The restoration of soil structure through appropriate soil treatments such as
grading, scarification, disking, etc.
• The reforestation of a native wetland community with subsequent reestablishment
of habitat diversity and functional continuity.
• The permanent protection of The Site's full potential as a wetland.
7. The purpose of this work, and the objective of The Bank, is:
• The removal of nonpoint and point sources of pollution associated with
agricultural practices, including the cessation of the application of fertilizers,
pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals.
• The restoration of the original wetland hydrology by filling approximately 14,000
linear feet of existing drainage ditches, thereby promoting flood storage, nutrient
cycling, and aquatic wildlife habitat.
• The restoration of soil structure through appropriate soil treatments such as
grading, scarification, disking, etc.
• The reforestation of a native wetland community with subsequent reestablishment
of habitat diversity and functional continuity.
• The permanent protection of The Site's full potential as a wetland through the
execution of a conservation easement.
8. RS will monitor The Bank site as described on pages 14-16 of the Mitigation Plan, until
such time as the DE determines that the success criteria described on pages 14-15 of the
Mitigation Plan have been met.
9. RS is responsible for assuring the success of the Wetland restoration activities and for the
overall operation and management of The Bank.
10. RS will provide annual monitoring reports to the DE not later than December of each
monitoring year. The monitoring report will provide data and analyses addressing
vegetation success within the context of stated success criteria on page 15 of the
Mitigation Plan. In addition, the annual monitoring report will address The Site's
hydrology. based on the collection of groundwater data. These data and analyses will
also be included in the annual report.
11. The DE shall review said reports, and may, at any time, after consultation with RS and
the IRT, direct RS to take remedial action at The Bank. Remedial action required by the
Corps shall be designed to achieve the success criteria specified above. All remedial
actions required under this paragraph shall include a work schedule and monitoring
criteria that will take into account physical and climactic conditions.
12. RS shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
5
13. In the event RS independently determines that remedial action(s) may be necessary to
achieve the required success criteria, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial
action(s) to the DE. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the
DE, in consultation with the IRT.
14. The DE and other members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to The Bank
Property for the purposes of inspection of The Bank and compliance monitoring of the
Mitigation Plan.
15. The Geographical Service Area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to wetlands,
streams or other aquatic resources. The GSA for The Bank shall include the Neuse
River Basin Cataloging Unit 03020201 in North Carolina. Use of The Bank to
compensate for impacts beyond the geographic service area may be considered by the DE
or the NCDWQ on a case-by-case basis. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of
proposed mitigation quantities and their equivalent mitigation units (SMUs).
Table 1. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Quantities
Type of Mitigation Acres Mitigation Credits
Non-Riparian Wetland Restoration 65.9 65.9
16. It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-
kind;" that is, that non-riparian wetland credits will be used to offset non-riparian wetland
impacts, etc.
17. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the DE, after consultation with
the IRT, has determined that wetland mitigation credits from The Bank may be used to
offset wetland impacts authorized by Section 404 permits, for every one acre of impacts,
two credits will be debited from The Bank. One of those credits must be a restoration
credit; the remaining credit will be made up of approved combinations of restoration,
enhancement and preservation credits, as selected by RS and approved by the DE during
its permit authorization process. For streams, application of credits to impacts will be at
1:1 (restoration credit: impact) on a linear foot basis, where 1 linear foot of restored
stream is equal to 1 stream mitigation credit, or I linear foot of enhanced (Level II)
stream is equal to 0.4 stream mitigation credit. Deviations from this compensation ratio
may be authorized by the Corps on a case-by-case basis where justified by considerations
of functions of the wetlands impacted, the severity of the wetland impacts, whether the
compensatory mitigation is in-kind. and the physical proximity of the wetland impacts to
The Bank site, except that in all cases, a minimum of a one-to-one ratio of impact acres
to restoration mitigation credits (acres) must be met.
18. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits
from The Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands. as well as all decisions
concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and water
6
impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations and
guidance, after notice of any proposed use of The Bank to the members of the IRT, and
consultation with the members of the IRT concerning such use. Notice to and
consultation with the members of the IRT shall be through permit review.
19. Credit releases are authorized upon full and satisfactory completion of important
milestones. The first authorized release of credits, Fifteen percent (1%) of The Bank's
total restoration credits, shall be available for sale immediately upon execution of the
MBI, an act preconditioned on completion of the following:
a. Approval of the final mitigation plan;
b. Delivery of the financial assurance described in paragraph 24 of the MBI;
c. Recordation of the preservation mechanism described in paragraph 23 of the MBI,
as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the Corps;
20. Release of the remaining credits will be determined by the successful completion of
specific tasks, as approved by the DE (see Table 1 in Introduction above). The above
schedule applies only if RS documents acceptable survival and growth of planted
vegetation and attainment of acceptable wetland hydrological success (mitigation plan).
21. RS commits to developing accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from The Bank. Such procedures shall include the
generation of a report by RS showing credits used at the time they are debited from The
Bank, which RS shall provide to the DE within 30 days of the debit. In addition, RS
shall prepare an annual report, to be presented to the DE on each anniversary of the date
of execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, and the balance of credits
remaining, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is
otherwise terminated. All reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of
credit (e. g., non-riparian wetland), and shall include for each reported debit the DE's
Action ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized.
22. RS will complete all work necessary to the establishment of a conservation easement, in a
form acceptable to the DE, sufficient to protect The Bank site in perpetuity. The
conservation easement will preserve all natural areas, and prohibits all use of the property
inconsistent with its use as mitigation property, including any activity that would
materially alter the biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands
within The Bank site, consistent with the mitigation plan. The purpose of the
conservation easement is to assure that future use of The Bank site will result in the
restoration, protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland functions described in
the mitigation plan. RS shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the Corps covering the
mitigation property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would
conflict with its use as miti-ation, including, but not limited to, anv liens that have
priority over the recorded preservation mechanism.
23. RS shall provide a performance bond to the DE naming it as the Obligee in the amount of
$250,000 prior to the signing of the Mitigation Banking Instrument to cover all costs
related to the design, construction, and planting of The Site. This includes but is not
limited to: boundary surveys, topographic mapping, sediment and erosion control
measures, earthwork, planting with contingency cost of 50%, installation of monitoring
gauges, control of invasive species, and delivery of As-Built drawings. Upon delivery of
the As-Built drawings, the Performance Bond will be retired and RS shall provide a
Monitoring Bond to the DE naming it as the Obligee for costs related to site monitoring
for a period of five years in the amount of $75,000. This includes but is not limited to:
travel to The Site, downloading monitoring gauges, sampling vegetation plots, and all
other tasks detailed in section 4.8 Monitoring of the mitigation plan.
24. RS shall be responsible for the success of the bank, as defined on pages 15-17 of the
mitigation plan. Success is determined only after completion of the required monitoring
period for which hydrological and vegetation data confirm that the project has met the
required success criteria. RS has full responsibility for management of the Bank property
throughout this period of time. Within 12 months of the "close-out" of the site (sale of all
credits and approval of the bank ledger) RS' site management responsibilities will end.
The conservation easement, which RS will hold will be transferred to an appropriate
entity such as a land conservancy. The conservation easement will provide perpetual
protection for the site. Day-to-day site management responsibilities, which were
assumed by RS during the development and monitoring years (+/- 7 years); will fall to
the new holder of the conservation easement.
25. Any agency participant may terminate its participation in the IRT with notice in writing
to all other parties to this agreement. Termination shall be effective seven (7) days from
placing said notices in the United States mail. Member withdrawal shall not affect any
prior sale of credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce the
terms of this MBI. Except for termination as described above, this agreement may be
modified only with the written agreement of the DE (and the IRT members, if they were
signatories to the instrument at the time of the modification).
26. Any delay or failure of RS shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the extent that
such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond RS's
reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its obligations
hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, drought,
hurricane, storm, flood, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking
by any governmental body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or
permit condition. or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, (iv) any order, judgment,
action or detennination of any federal, state or local court, administrative agency or
government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any permit, license, consent,
authorization or approval. If the performance of RS is affected by any such event, RS
shall give written notice thereof to the DE as soon as is reasonably practicable. If such
event occurs before the final availability of all credits for sale, RS shall take remedial
action to restore the property to its condition prior to such event, in a manner sufficient to
provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior to such delay or failure
8
to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by Department of the
Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by RS only to the extent necessary
and appropriate, as determined by the DE.
27. The establishment of a compensatory mitigation bank results in the availability of
mitigation credits, which are produced in accordance with an approved credit release
schedule. As credits become available, the sponsor sells credits to Section 404 permittees
that, at least partially fulfill permittees' compensatory mitigation obligation under the
Clean Water Act. The purchase of mitigation credits by the permittee obligates the bank
sponsor to ensure the successful implementation, monitoring and perpetual protection of
the ecological restoration that comprises the compensatory mitigation.
9
Mitigation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, L.L.C. (Restoration Systems) is planning to establish a wetland
restoration bank consisting of non-riparian wetlands at a Carolina bay site, named the
Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank (The Bank, or The Site). The Site is located approximately
4 miles south of Benson just west of NC 50 in Johnston County.
The Bank encompasses approximately 77 acres of land that is used for agricultural row
crop production. The Site was cleared of native forest vegetation, ditched for agricultural
purposes, and planted in agricultural row crops in the 1980s. Based on detailed soil
mapping conducted by licensed soil scientists, most of the entire 77 acre parcel (75.6
acres) is underlain by a Class A hydric soil.
The Site is located within the Neuse River Basin in 14-digit USGS Hydrologic Unit
03020201150040 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water
Quality subbasin number 03-04-04). No streams are located within The Site.
This document details existing Site conditions and proposed wetland restoration
procedures at The Site. A 77-acre conservation easement will be established that will
incorporate all planned restoration activities. The Site encompasses approximately 77
acres of drained, hydric soil; of which approximately 65.9 acres are suitable for wetland
restoration. Approximately 1.5 acres of The Site is a non-hydric soil; 9.7 acres of the
Class A hydric soil lies adjacent to a main collector ditch, which cannot be filled because
of likely impacts to the adjacent farm fields beyond the boundaries of The Site.
Wetland restoration activities have been designed to restore wetland functions similar to
those exhibited by a reference wetland, located just 7 miles from The Site in Sampson
County. The reference system chosen has the same hydric soil matrix as that of The
Bank. Site alterations designed to restore characteristic wetland soil features and
groundwater wetland hydrology includes the introduction of microtopograhpic variability,
impervious ditch plug construction, ditch backfilling, and scarification of wetland soil
surfaces. Subsequently, trees and shrubs will be planted throughout the Site to
establish native forest species characteristic of non-riverine swamp forest, bay forest,
pond pine woodland, or intergrades among these communities. Planting of the Site will
provide diversity and secondary benefits, such as enhanced foraging, nesting and refuge
opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.
After implementation, the Site is expected to support 65.9 acres of restored non-riparian
wetlands. Monitoring of Site restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria
are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for wetland components of hydrology and
vegetation.
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Goals ........................................ ....1
2.0 METHODS
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ...3
3.2 Water Quality ........................................ ....4
3.3 Soils ..................................................... ....4
3.4 Plant Communities ................................ ....6
3.5 Hydrology .................................................7
3.6 Jurisdictional Issues ..................................7
3.6.1 Rare and Protected Species ........... .....7
3.6.2 Waters of the U.S . ......................... .....7
3.6.3 Cultural Resources ............................8
4.0 GROUNDWATER MODELING
4.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions ............ .....9
4.1.1 Model Application ......................... .....9
4.2 Groundwater Model Results .......................10
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
5.1 Reference Forest Ecosystems ....................10
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN
6.1 Ditch Cleaning Prior to Backfill ............... ....11
6.2 Shallow Depression Excavation .............. ....12
6.3 Ditch Plugs ........................................... ....12
6.4 Ditch Backfilling .................................... ....12
6.5 Soil Scarification ................................... ....12
6.6 Plant Community Restoration ................. ....13
6.6.1 Planting Plan ................................ ....13
6.6.2 Nuisance Species Management ...... .....14
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
7.1 Hydrology Monitoring ............................ .....14
7.2 Hydrology Success Criteria .................... .....14
7.3 Vegetation Monitoring .................................15
7.4 Vegetation Success Criteria .........................15
7.5 Report Submittal .................................... ......16
7.6 Contingency ......................................... ......
16
8.0 REFERENCES ............................. 17
..................
ii ......
Appendices
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
Figure 1. Bank Location
Figure 2a. Map of 14-digit HU
Figure 2b. Map of 8-digit CU
Figure 3. Existing Conditions
Figure 4. Soils
Figure 4b. Soil Boring Locations
Figure 5. Restoration Plan
Figure 6. Reference Ecosystem Location
Figure 7. Monitoring Plan
APPENDIX B. DRAINMOD OUTPUT
• Existing Portsmouth Soil
• Restored Portsmouth Soil
• Existing Leon Soil
• Restored Leon Soil
• Open Ditch Analysis
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, L.L.C. (Restoration Systems) is proposing to convert
approximately 77 acres of a larger agricultural complex into the Godwin Bay
Wetland Mitigation Bank, herein known as The Bank, or The Site. All 190+
acres of the farm occupies the "interior" landscape of a Carolina bay, which was
cleared, grubbed and drained for agricultural production in the 1980's by the
Godwin family. The Site is located approximately 4 miles south of Benson just
west of NC 50 at Latitude 35.339480° N, Longitude -78.488790° W, (Figures 1
and 2, Appendix A).
The Bank encompasses approximately 77 acres of land that is used for
agricultural row crop production such as wheat and soybeans. The Site has
been cleared of native forest vegetation, ditched for agricultural purposes, and
planted in agricultural row crops. This land-use practice has been on-going since
the 1980s. Based on detailed soil mapping conducted by a licensed soil scientist
at The Catena Group, most of The Site (approximately 75.6 acres) is underlain
by a Class A hydric soil.
The Site is situated at the western edge of the Neuse River Basin and though
Carolina bays are small basins unto themselves, breaks in the ancient bay rim of
Godwin Bay enables floodwaters to exit The Site and flow east and southeast
ultimately via Mill Creek or Stone Creek. Except during major flood events The
Site's drainage area is limited to the bay surface area, which is approximately
575 acres or 0.9 square mile.
The dominant presence of hydric soils, an extensive ditch network, and the
absence of natural plant communities underscore the potential for an exceptional
wetland restoration opportunity at The Bank.
1.1 Project Goals
The purpose of this study is to establish a detailed plan for the restoration of a
non-riparian wetland community at The Bank. The primary goals focus on
improving biological diversity in this watershed, reducing point discharges of
pollutant-laden water to the Mill Creek watershed and facilitating flood storage.
These goals will be accomplished by:
• The acquisition of farmlands comprising The Bank, resulting in the immediate
cessation of spraying and broadcasting of fertilizers, pesticides, and other
agricultural chemicals onto The Site,
• The reduction of groundwater outflow to Mill Creek, including ag-chemical
effluent by filling and plugging approximately 14,000 linear feet of existing
drainage ditches, thereby reducing pollutant delivery to streams; promoting flood
storage, nutrient cycling, and the return of wetland hydrology;
• The reforestation of a native wetland plant community with subsequent
reestablishment of habitat diversity and functional continuity.
• The establishment of permanent protection of The Site's full potential of wetland
functions and values through the formal recordation of the conservation
easement.
Upon completion The Bank will provide approximately 65.9 acres, or 65.9
Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) of restored non-riparian, forested wetlands in
Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit (CU) 03020201.
This Mitigation Plan provides details of the proposed restoration of wetlands at
The Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions, 2)
groundwater model applications, 3) reference studies, 4) restoration plans, and
4) Site monitoring and success criteria.
2.0 METHODS
Natural resource information was obtained from available sources. United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Peacocks
Crossroads, North Carolina), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) soils mapping for Johnston County (USDA 1994), and recent
(2006) Google Earth aerial photography were utilized to evaluate existing
landscape, wetland, and soil information prior to onsite inspection.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases were
evaluated for the presence of protected species and designated natural areas. A
listing of federally protected species whose existing or historical ranges extend
into Johnston, Harnett and Sampson Counties was also obtained from the
USFWS (January 2008). State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records
were evaluated for the presence of significant cultural resources at The Site.
Since ultimate success with the restoration efforts at The Bank will rely on post
restoration collection of hydrological and vegetation data, it is important to
identify an existing natural community with attributes similar to what The Site
exhibited before it was converted to agricultural uses. Johnston County does not
have large numbers of Carolina bays as exists in counties further south such as
Sampson, Bladen etc. Not only is Godwin bay a fairly rare occurrence in the
state this far north and west, it is also quite large. Other bays do occur in
Johnston County, but most show signs of recent logging, or other development
activities such as farming. Extensive examination of aerial photography revealed
numerous potentially good reference sites south and east of The Bank. A good
reference site was located only 7.2 miles away. Mapped soils are similar to
those at The Bank and the forested community is relatively undisturbed. The
reference site is located in Sampson County, approximately 3 miles northwest of
Spivey's Corner just west of NC 242 (Figure 8).
Detailed field investigations were performed at The Bank starting in the spring of
2008, and consisted of hydrological measurements, soil surveys, and mapping of
onsite features. Project scientists evaluated hydrology and soil parameters to

map hydric soils and conducted detailed soil hydrological measurements for
groundwater models. A licensed soil scientist performed detailed analyses and
determined actual soils present.
Groundwater conditions were simulated using the DRAINMOD 6.0 groundwater
modeling program. The program simulates the hydrology of poorly drained, high
water table soils on a day-by-day basis for long periods of climatological record
(e.g. 50 years). The model predicts the effects of drainage and associated water
management practices on water table depths, the soil water regime, and crop
yields. It has been used to analyze the hydrology of certain types of wetlands
and to determine whether the wetland hydrologic criterion is satisfied for drained
or partially drained sites. The model was utilized to predict historic hydroperiods,
the extent of wetland degradation due to ditching, and the potential for wetland
restoration through effective removal of the drainage network.
Field survey information was platted and compiled within Geographic Information
System (GIS) base mapping and analyzed to evaluate Godwin Bay under
existing conditions. Based on field investigations and data analyses, a wetland
restoration plan has been developed for review and approval prior to onsite
implementation.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in the Southeastern Plains of the Atlantic Southern Loam
Plains ecoregion of North Carolina within USGS Cataloging Unit 03020203,
Subbasin 03-04-04 of the Neuse River Basin. Regional physiography is
characterized as floodplains and terraces associated with the Neuse River and
its tributaries. Elevations within The Site are nearly level averaging
approximately 210 feet above sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum-USGS
Peacocks Crossroads, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle).
Godwin Bay includes approximately 160+ acres of land located in the outer
margins of the coastal plain physiographic province. The entire 160 acres is
intensively farmed. Row crop production is the largest enterprise, but hog and
chicken production also occurs on-site.
An extensive ditch system has been excavated to drain The Site for agricultural
land uses. Drainage outfall from the system of ditches flows southeast to a
collector canal located outside the limits of the bay. Drainage continues
southeastward to tributaries of the Mill Creek watershed.
The dominant presence of hydric soils, an extensive ditch network, and lack of
forested vegetation structure/composition highlight the potential for an
exceptional wetland restoration opportunity at The Site.
3.2 Water Quality
The Site is located within the Neuse River Basin in 14-digit USGS Cataloging
Unit 03020201150040 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division
of Water Quality [NCDWQ] subbasin number 03-04-04) [Figure 2b, Appendix A]).
3.3 Soils
NRCS Soil Mapping
The Johnston County Soil Survey (NRCS 1994) identifies two primary soil series
within the project area (Figure 4). The series and some of the more pertinent
features are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. NRCS mapped soil series
Series Mapping Unit Subgroup Acres Hydric Status
Pantego Pn Typic umbraquult 76.1 Hydric
Toisnot Tn Typic fragiaquult 1.01 Hydric
Revised Soil Mapping
NRCS soil mapping is performed on a broad scale with the primary purpose of
providing general soil mapping units that are based upon their usefulness for
agriculture. As such, site specific mapping that identifies soil units based upon
their hydrologic reaction to drainage ditches is required to accurately determine
the restoration potential.
To this end, the soils were mapped by a NC Licensed Soil Scientist to provide
the revised soil map in Figure Table 2. The soils were grouped according to the
major surface (hydric vs. non-hydric), subsurface horizons (argillic, cambic,
spodic), and depth to C-horizon (unconsolidated sandy parent material). Based
on these criteria, three Soil Units were identified and are listed in Table 2 and
followed by a brief description.
Table 2. Results of in situ Soils Analysis
Soil Group Acres Subgroup Hydric Status Soil Equivalent
Soil Unit 1 74.6 Typic umbraquult Hydric Portsmouth
Soil Unit 2 1.01 Typic fragiaquult Hydric Leon
Soil Unit 3 1.5 Oxyaquic alorthod Non-Hydric Mandarin
Soil Unit 1
This soil comprises the majority of the project site. While the surface horizon and
subsurface horizon are similar to the Pantego Soil Series mapped by NRCS, due
to the decrease in clay of 20% or more within 60 inches of the surface, the most
similar NRCS soil series is Portsmouth. A representative profile from the field
investigation follows:
4
Soil Unit 1 Representative Profile (GB 1)
Horizon Depth (in) Soil Color*, Structure, Consistency Texture
Ap 0-6 black (10YR 2/1) very friable, sandy loam
granular 90%
covered
AE 6-12 black (10YR 2/1) very friable, sandy loam
granular 80%
covered
Btg1 12-19 Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam
friable, subangular blocky structure
Btg2 19-33 Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) friable, sandy clay
subangular blocky structure loam
BC 33-45 Grayish brown (7.5YR 4/2) firm, sandy clay
subangular blocky structure loam /
sandy loam
pockets
CB 45-52+ Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) with sandy loam
pockets of gray (10YR 5/1) sandy / sandy
clay loam; common distinct (2.5Y clay loam
4/6) massive pockets
*Munsell soil color notation
Soil Unit 2
Soil Unit 2 has a subsurface spodic horizon. Spodic horizons have varying levels
of cementation, which directly affects the degree to which it retards water flow.
Varying levels of cementation were encountered; however, all of Soil Unit 2 is
hydric soil. While there are no spodic soils mapped in Johnston County, the
Toisnot soil series has a fragipan, which typically acts similar to a spodic horizon
with regards to retarding water, so would therefore be the most similar County
soil series. However, Soil Unit 2 is taxonomically closest to the Leon soil series.
A representative profile from the field investigation follows:
Soil Unit 2 Representative Profile (DB 1)
Horizon Depth (in) Soil Color*, Structure, Consistency Texture
Ap 0-6 Black (7.5YR 2.5/1) very friable, gran. sandy loam
AE 6-9 Black (7.5YR 2.5/1) friable, granular sandy loam
with grayish brown (10YR 5/2) streaks
Bs1 9-13 Very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) firm, sandy loam
granular, slightly cemented
Bs2 13-19 Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) firm, massive, sandy loam
slightly cemented
BE' 19-27 Brown (7.5YR 4/2) friable, massive sandy loam
Bs' 27-35 Brown (7.5YR 4/2) friable, massive, sandy loam
granular with pockets of dark brown
(7.5YR 3/2) and very dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2)
C 35-42+ Light gray (2.5Y 7/2) massive/single loamy sand
arain
*Munsell soil color notation
Soil Unit 3
Similar to Soil Unit 2, Soil Unit 3 has a subsurface spodic horizon. However, the
spodic horizon occurs much deeper in the profile and the surface horizon is non-
hydric. The likely cause for this non-hydric inclusion is that it is probably the
remnant of a sand rim from an older bay. The closest taxonomic soil series is
Mandarin. As noted in Soil Unit 2, there are no spodic soils mapped in Johnston
County and therefore, no closely related County soil series. A representative
profile from the field investigation follows:
3.4
Soil Unit 3 Representative Profile (DB 1)
Horizon Depth (in) Soil Color*, Structure, Consistency Texture
Ap 0-6 Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam
very friable, granular
AE 6-11 Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) very sandy loam
friable, granular
E 11-17 Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) very sandy loam
friable, subangular blocky with many
distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/4)
concentrations
EB 17-23 Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) very sandy loam
friable, subangular blocky with many
distinct (10YR 5/6) concentrations and
many distinct light brownish gray
(2.5Y 6/2) depletions
Bhsl 23-31 Brown (7.5YR 4/3) massive, not sandy loam
cemented; many distinct multi-colored
concentrations and depletions
Bhs2 31-39 Very dark gray (7.5YR 3/1) massive, sandy loam
weakly cemented
C 39-43+ Light gray (2.5Y 7/2) massive, single loamy sand
arain
*Munsell soil color notation
Currently, onsite hydric soils do not support hydrophytic vegetation and/or
wetland hydrology. Areas targeted for wetland restoration historically supported
jurisdictional wetlands. Restoration of wetland hydrology and replanting with
native hydrophytic vegetation will occur in these areas. See Section 3.6 for more
information on jurisdictional wetlands and Section 6.0 for detailed wetland
restoration information.
Plant Communities
The Site is composed of agricultural land utilized for row crop production
consisting of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Primary successional herbaceous
vegetation includes dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), broomsedge
(Andropogon sp.), blackberry (Rubus spp), baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), and
annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Species found along the ditch margins include
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), and red maple (Acer
rubrum).
6
3.5 Hydrology
Carolina bays are elliptical surface depressions, and as such, they typically
function to collect and store surface and ground water within their perimeter. The
primary direction of water movement is vertical. Secondary water movements
may be radial toward the center of the bay or minor subsurface lateral flows
along a groundwater gradient. The principal hydrologic input into Carolina bays
is direct precipitation and the principal output is through evapo-transpiration.
Thus, water fluctuations tend to be vertical, as water elevations rise following
precipitation events and fall gradually as water is transpired.
In its current state, there are approximately 16,000 linear feet of ditches draining
groundwater from the project area. The ditches are approximately 4-5 feet in
depth with 2-3 foot-wide trench bottoms. Due to their depth, the ditches intercept
the unconsolidated, sandier soil horizons (CB and C horizons) that are below the
developed subsoil horizons (Bt and Bhs). By connecting to the deeper horizons
which have a higher saturated hydraulic conductivity rate than the developed
subsoil, it increases the effectiveness in moving the groundwater off-site.
3.6 Jurisdictional Issues
Rare and protected species, wetlands and cultural resource issues related to National
Historic Preservation have been, or are being addressed.
3.6.1 Rare and Protected Species
Element occurrences on file at the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program reveal that
spring flowering goldenrod (Solidago versa) is the only EO recorded for a radius of 1.0
mile of The Site. These records reveal that the subject plant was observed at two
separate locations within the right of way of a secondary road in 1982. This plant is
listed as Threatened by the state. No other rare or protected species, or special habitats
are recorded for areas within several miles of The Site.
Four federally endangered species have records of occurrence in Johnston County (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 01-31-2008). These species include the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River
spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxil). Since no
streams are located within the project area, impacts to dwarf wedgemussel and Tar
River spinymussel can be ruled out. Similarly, no trees will be cut during implementation
of the wetland restoration project so impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker will not
result from project activities.
Walking surveys of the land adjacent to drainage ditches was conducted by a biologist
very familiar with Rhus michauxii. Surveys were conducted in July and August 2008.
No plants occur within The Site.
3.6.2 Waters of the U.S.
Neither jurisdictional wetlands nor surface waters occur within the
proposed easement of The Bank. Jurisdictional wetland limits are defined
using criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). As stipulated in this manual, the presence of
three clearly defined parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology) are required for a wetland jurisdictional
determination.
Hydric soil limits were confirmed within The Site by a licensed soil scientist.
Based on field surveys and groundwater modeling discussed below, jurisdictional
wetland hydrology has been effectively removed from approximately 65.9 acres
of the approximately 77-acre tract (Figure 5, Appendix A).
Onsite ditches have been excavated through hydric soils. During field
investigations, ditches were ponded to a depth of approximately 1.5 feet;
however, ponding to approximately 4 or more feet in depth may occur during
wetter times of the year.
Historically, onsite wetlands may have supported a community with features
similar to non-riverine swamp forest, pond pine woodland, bay forest, or
intergrades among these community types. The plant constituency of adjacent
forests reveals components of all three community types. Historically, The Site
was seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables and poor soil drainage.
The forest was probably dominated by various hardwood species of oak
(Quercus spp.), cypress (Taxodium distichum), and gum (Nyssa biflora), but the
canopy probably also consisted of red bay (Persia borbonia), sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus).
Disturbance to onsite jurisdictional wetlands would have collectively reduced the
functionality of these systems including reduced hydrologic functions,
biogeochemical functions, and plant and animal dynamics.
3.6.3 Cultural Resources
In order to address the question of whether there is likely to be any significant
concerns about archaeological or architectural history resources, a letter has
been transmitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), asking for an evaluation of their records to determine if there is likely to
be any issues of concern at The Site. The response from SHPO and a report on
any further site investigation on behalf of this issue will be reported in the final
MBI documentation.
4.0 GROUNDWATER MODELING
DRAINMOD 6.0 was used to quantify the drainage effect of the ditch network as
well as the restoration potential of The Site. DRAINMOD was developed to
simulate the performance of agricultural drainage and water table control
systems on sites with shallow water table conditions. The model was
subsequently modified for application to wetland studies by recording the number
of events wherein the water table meets certain criteria of depth and duration.
Model results are analyzed to determine if wetland criteria are satisfied for
8
sufficient duration during the growing season of most years. Through this
methodology, DRAINMOD can be used to characterize water table elevations
under current drained conditions and then to predict groundwater levels under
post-restoration conditions.
Equations developed by Hooghoudt, Kirkham, and Ernst are used to calculate
drainage and sub-irrigation rates, infiltration rates are predicted by the Green and
Ampt equation, and Thornewaite parameters are used to predict evapo-
transpiration rates.
4.1 Groundwater Model Descriptions
There are multiple simulation parameters that are detailed in the appended
output files. Certain parameters were kept constant, such as
• 340 foot ditch spacing
• 4 foot ditch depth
• 7 foot depth to aquitard
• 68 year (1933-2000) modeling period
The soil parameter for the model contains a field calibrated Portsmouth soil file
which was accordingly used for Soil Unit 1. The Catena Group performed a
similar study on Juniper Bay in Columbus County, NC. This bay also had a Leon
soil in which in-situ measurements and field data calibration were used to create
a Leon soil file. This file was used for Soil Unit 2. While this data was not
calibrated for the project site, it is nonetheless anticipated to provide more
accurate data than arbitrarily choosing a rate from the published data range. Soil
Unit 3 was not analyzed in this model as it was non-hydric.
For most physiographic regions, maximum surface storage and Kirkham's depth
for flow to drain, while important, are relatively similar and vary little. However,
due to the natural physical configuration of bays with sand rims which prohibit
surface runoff, these two parameters become primary controlling factors. For
existing conditions, the maximum surface storage was set to 1 inch (3 cm). For
restored conditions, it was set to 3.5 inches (9 cm).
The growing season for Johnston County based on the Soil Survey is 202 days,
from April 6 through October 25. Therefore, wetland hydrology is based upon
groundwater within 1-foot of the surface for 12.5% (25 days) of the growing
season.
4.1.1 Model Application
For the majority of the site, input parameters remained consistent to reflect the
removal of the ditch network. However, the ditches between the project site and
the agricultural fields to the west and south will remain open. To account for
9
these ditches, a slight ridge of approximately 6-inches will be constructed just
inside of the open ditches in an effort to restore the sand rim effect.
In order to determine the drainage effect of the open ditches, several simulations
were run to determine the distance where wetland hydrology was no longer met
for 5% (10 days) of the growing season. The hydrologic criterion was reduced to
5% since the project is a non-riparian wetland and as such, is still considered a
wetland by meeting this hydroperiod.
4.2 Groundwater Model Results
The results of the simulations are appended (Appendix B) and summarized in
Table 3.
Table 3. Predicted Effects of Restoration Efforts
il S
i
S Years Wetland Hydrology Met
er
o
es Existing Restored
Portsmouth 0 out of 68 64 out of 68
Leon 0 out of 68 65 out of 68
As noted, under existing conditions wetland hydrology for 12.5% of the growing
season is not expected to occur. Restoration efforts are anticipated to restore
wetland conditions for most every year.
Several simulations were performed at different distances between ditches to
determine the distance where wetland hydrology for 5% of the growing season is
met 50% of the time (34 out of 69 years). This simulation assumed a minimum
6-inch berm within The Site and parallel to the open ditch and adjusted the
Kirkham's depth for flow to drains accordingly. The results (Appendix B)
determined a distance of 224 feet (6820 cm) between drains, which equates to a
112-foot drainage effect. This 112-foot strip (9.67 acres) is noted in Figure 5.
5.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
A reference wetland system was chosen as the primary emulation model for
development of this wetland restoration plan and for judging its success. The
reference site is located in Sampson County approximately 7 mile south of The
Site. The reference site is relatively undisturbed (Figure 6, Appendix A).
Hydrologic reference areas will be utilized to develop post-project hydrologic
parameters for success criteria. Reference vegetative community areas will be
utilized to supplement Schafale and Weakley's Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (1990) for community types identified above, or
ingrades among these communities.
5.9 Reference Forest Ecosystems
According to Mitigation Site Classification (MiST) guidelines (EPA 1990),
Reference Forest Ecosystems (RFEs) must be established for restoration sites.
RFEs are forested areas on which to model restoration efforts of the restoration
10
site in relation to soils, hydrology, and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically
stable climax communities and should represent believed historical
(predisturbance) conditions of the restoration site. Data describing plant
community composition and structure are collected at the RFEs and
subsequently applied as reference data for design of the restoration site.
Tree and shrub species identified in the reference site are listed in Table 4 and
will serve, in part, as the inspiration for the proposed planting plan for The Bank.
Table 4. Reference Site Veqetation
Canopy Species Subcanopy Species Other Species
Acer rubrum Arundinaria gigantea Gaylussacia sp
Chamaecyparis thycides Clethra alnifolia Ludwigia sp.
Gordonia_lasianthus Cyrilla racemiflora Lysimachia loomisii
Liquidambar styraciflua Ilex coriacea Osmunda cinnamonea
Magnolia virginiana flex glabra Osmunda regalis
Nyssa sylvatica Ilex opaca Pteridium aquilinum
Persia borbonia Kalmia angustifolia var. caroliniana Rubus sp.
Pinus taeda Leucothoe axillaris axillaris Rhexia sp.
Quercus alba Lyonia lucida Smilax laurifolia
Quercus nigra ` Myrica cerifera Sphagnum sp.
Symplocus tinctoria
Vaccinium corymbosum
Note: Shaded cells are plants considered to be important woody constituents of the
reference forest; red maple, sweet gum and white oak are thought to be reflective of past
site disturbances.
6.0 RESTORATION PLAN
Site alterations designed to restore characteristic wetland soil features and
groundwater wetland hydrology include: 1) ditch cleaning prior to backfill, 2) ditch
ditch plug construction, 3) ditch backfilling, 4) soil scarification, and 6) plant
community restoration. Restoration plans depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix A) are
expected to restore 65.9 acres of palustrine forested wetlands.
6.9 Ditch Cleaning Prior to Backfill
Ditches identified for backfilling in Figure 5 (Appendix A) will be cleaned, as
needed, to remove root debris and unconsolidated sediments within the lower
portion of the cross-section. Accumulated sediment within the ditches is
relatively high permeability material that may act as a conduit for continued
drainage after restoration. The unconsolidated sediments will be lifted from the
channel to expose the underlying, relatively impermeable clay substrate along
the ditch invert. The sediment will be temporarily placed on adjacent surfaces
during depression construction and ditch backfilling. Subsequently, the
unconsolidated sediment will be incorporated into top soils graded during soil
preparation for planting.
6.2 Shallow Depression Excavation
Shallow depressions will be constructed at random spacing throughout the
surface area of the restoration site. The depressions will be constructed by
grading out shallow, irregularly shaped (oblong) depressions. The depressions
will range to a maximum of 3-4 inches below the existing surface elevation in the
center of the depression. The location and attributes of oval depressions will be
constructed to mimic pre-disturbance surface irregularities, which developed over
the millennia and that occur within the reference ecosystem.
6.3 Ditch Plugs
Ditch plugs will be installed along onsite ditches at locations conceptually
depicted in Figure 9 (Appendix A). In addition, outfall locations will be effectively
plugged to prevent migration of surface water to and from The Site. The plugs
will represent low density material designed to withstand erosive forces
associated with concentrated surface water or groundwater flows. If earthen
material is used, each plug will consist of earthen material backfilled in 2-foot lifts
of vegetation free material and compacted into the bottom of the ditch. Earthen
plugs may be reinforced by incorporation of filter cloth into the plug to minimize
preferential flow of groundwater through fill material. Earthen material may be
obtained from upland borrow pits or through excavation of groundwater storage
depressions within The Site.
6.4 Ditch Backfilling
Ditches will be backfilled using borrow material obtained either onsite or offsite,
and from earthen material generated from the formation of depressions as
discussed above. Ditch backfill locations will be filled, compacted, and graded to
the approximate elevation of the adjacent wetland surface. Certain, non-critical
ditch sections may remain partially open to enhance habitat diversity and
hydrologic storage. Open ditch sections will be isolated between effectively
backfilled reaches to reduce potential for long-term, preferential groundwater
migration through evapo-transpiration.
6.5 Soil Scarification
Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized areas represent
important components of a wetland community. The reference site exhibits
similar variability in its surface microtopography. Small concavities, swales,
exposed root systems, seasonal pools, and hummocks associated with
vegetative growth and hydrological patterns are scattered throughout the
reference site. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface
microtopography will be implemented.
In areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be
performed. After construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex
microtopography.
12
6.6 Plant Community Restoration
Reforestation of The Site will allow for development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape and will contribute to diversity and
provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities
for mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife.
Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community
descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary plant community
associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities. Based
on Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions, The Site was likely to
have historically been similar to the non-riverine swamp forest, pond pine
woodland, bay forest, or intergrades among these community types.
6.6.1 Planting Plan
Deep-rooted, palustrine vegetation will be restored over the entire 77-acre Site,
including the +/- 9.7 acres of hydric soils to which hydrology will not be restored
(Figure 5). Reforestation is expected to provide soil stability, provide habitat for
area wildlife, and filter pollutants prior to entering the groundwater table.
Variations in vegetative planting may occur based on topographic locations and
hydraulic conditions of the soil. Vegetative species composition should mimic
reference forest data and observations of adjacent communities. Species
expected for this project are characteristic of the reference communities identified
above, as described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and will include most of the following:
Table 3. Restoration Plant List
Canopy Species Plant Quantities % Land Coverage
Chamaec aris th oides 8036 10.7
Gordonia lasianthus 8036 10.7
Ma nolia vir iniana 8036 10.7
N ssa s lvatica 8036 10.7
Persia borbonia 8036 10.7
Pinus serotina 8036 10.7
uercus ni ra 8036 10.7
SUBTOTAL 56252 74.9
Subcanopy Species
Clethra alnifolia 2083 2.8
C rilla racemiflora 2083 2.8
Ilex conacea 2083 2.8
Ilex /abra 2083 2.8
Ilex o aca 2083 2.8
Leucothoe axillaris 2083 2.8
L onia lucida 2083 2.8
Svmp/ocus tinctoria
Vaccinium co mbosum 2083
2083 2.8
2.8
SUBTOTAL 18747 25.1
TOTAL 74999 100
13
Bare-root seedlings of tree and shrub species will be planted within The Site at a
density up to 1000 stems per acre (6.6-foot 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. Bare-root seedlings
should be hand planted to minimize site soil profiles. A total of approximately
75,000 tree and shrub seedlings will be planted in support of wetland restoration
(Table 3).
6.6.2 Nuisance Species Management
No nuisance species were observed at The Site; therefore, no nuisance species
controls are proposed at this time. Nuisance species including nonnative,
invasives may disperse to The Site during the 5-year monitoring period. If so,
appropriate control measures will be taken. If nuisance species occur at the site,
physical removal will be the first priority method of removal. If this methodology
is ineffective, specific, targeted application of selective herbicides will be used.
When used, herbicide will be applied only to target plant(s) and will not be
broadcast over larger areas.
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of The Site restoration efforts will be performed for 5 years unless
until success criteria are not fulfilled within the 5-year monitoring period.
Monitoring is proposed for hydrology and vegetation. A general Site monitoring
plan is depicted in Figure 7 (Appendix A).
7.1 Hydrology Monitoring
After hydrological modifications are performed, continuous reading groundwater
monitoring gauges will be installed at Godwin Bay in accordance with
specifications in Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (NCWRP
1993). Fourteen groundwater monitoring gauges (two gauges within reference
and twelve gauges onsite) will be installed as depicted in Figure 7 (Appendix A).
Monitoring gauges will be set to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the soil
surface. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at
intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria (EPA 1990).
Gauges will also be installed in the 112-foot strip that was predicted to be drained
to determine if additional acreage will actually be restored to at least 5% of the
growing season.
7.2 Hydrology Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include a minimum regulatory wetland
hydrology criteria based upon reference groundwater modeling. Evaluation of
success criteria will also be supplemented by sampling and data comparison
between restoration areas and the reference wetland site. Hydrology success
criteria for the five-year monitoring period will include a minimum regulatory
criterion, comprising saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface for
12.5 percent of the growing season. The exception will be for the 112-foot strip
between the 112-foot strip adjacent to the open ditches to the south and west
14
and rest of the mitigation site, which will need to be set to 5% of the growing
season.
Reference Wetland Sites
Two monitoring gauges will be placed in reference wetlands located 7 miles
south of Godwin Bay. Wetland hydroperiods measured by groundwater gauges
located within the reference areas will be compared to the hydroperiods exhibited
by groundwater gauges within the restoration area to further evaluate restoration
success. Success criteria outlined by the groundwater model indicates that the
wetland restoration area should maintain saturation within one foot of the soil
surface for at least 74 percent of the hydroperiod exhibited by reference wetland
gauges in any year.
7.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance
with guidelines set forth in 2006 CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
(Levels 1 and 2 only) (Lee et. al. 2006). A general discussion of the restoration
monitoring program is provided. A photographic record of plant growth should be
included in each annual monitoring report.
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.
During the first year, vegetation will receive visual evaluation on a periodic basis
to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by aggressive
successional species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be
performed between June 1 and October 30, until the vegetation success criteria
are achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, up to six
sample plots will be randomly placed within The Site. Sample-plot distributions
are expected to resemble locations depicted in Figure 7 (Appendix A); however,
best professional judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative monitoring
plots upon completion of construction activities. In each sample plot, vegetation
parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density.
7.4 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for palustrine forest development.
Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic
forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and
growth of "Character Tree Species." Character Tree Species include planted
species, species identified through inventory of an approved reference (relatively
undisturbed) forest community used to orient the planting plan, and species
15
outlined in an appropriate plant community as described in Classification of
Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
An average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species 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.
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density
calculations from combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental
planting may be performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies.
Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of
vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as
part of the vegetation success criteria. Development of palustrine forests over
several decades will dictate the success in migration and establishment of
desired understory and groundcover populations.
7.5 Report Submittal
An "as-built" mitigation plan of the area, including initial species compositions by
community type, and sample plot and well locations, will be provided after
completion of planting. A discussion of the planting design, including the types of
species planted, species densities, and number of stems planted will be included.
The report will be provided within 90 days of completion of all work.
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly NLT December 31 to appropriate
permitting agencies following each annual monitoring assessment. Reports will
document the sample plot locations, along with photographs which illustrate Site
conditions. Groundwater monitoring gauge data will be analyzed to determine
the duration of wetland hydrology during the growing season. In addition, the
survival and density of planted and naturally recruited stems will be reported and
evaluated relative to the success criteria.
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 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 if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the
monitoring period. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until hydrology success criteria are
achieved.
16
8.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST).
EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological
Society (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lee, M. T., R.LK. Peet, S.D. Roberts, T.R. Wentwoth. 2006. CVE-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only. North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Available at http://www.nceep.net.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2007a. Final North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report)
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/20061R_FINAL_OOO.pdf
[November 26, 20071. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 1993. Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1). North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Skaggs, R. W. 1976. Determination of the hydraulic conductivity-drainable porosity ratio from
water table measurements. Transactions of the ASAE 19(1): 73-80.
Skaggs, R. W., and A. Tabrizi. 1986. Design Drainage Rates for Estimating Drain Spacings in
North Carolina. ASAE Paper Number: 84-2055.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation with
the National Committee for Hydric soils. United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service.
17
APPENDIX A: FIGURES

s t,
72

S 4

- Project Area

lG?'`
?
1 tom; ? ? ? ?_
i • .? ? .
? 1
i
i 1
9 Ce-
r ?
:5 r - '-, ft

we

0 d-

4 i ?

Cam
I
k

x b;
J
• a , , +r'' t ?` e -
r
' Raleigh Overview Map
.
,
• (11U,
t, f t .i-1 ,,q -?+ z

4 70
•
70
Directions (From Raleigh):

Take Interstate 40 East to Eat 334. Turn right onto NC-96. Travel - -
0.7 miles and turn right onto NC-50. Travel 1.7 miles to SR1005. Turn ,01
left and go 1.3 miles to Beasley Rd. Turn right and go 0.7 miles to
site entrance.
Restoration Systems, LLC

1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Figure 1: Godwin Ba Mitigation
y Bank
Raleigh, NC 27604
t ,t t Project Johnston County, NC 1: 24,000 ri
tel: [phone] Location 475 950 1.900 zaso aoo
Feet

C3
Sub-Watershed Boundary

C3 Sub-Basin Boundary

. „, -

.
,. i
B
d
B Roanoke
as
n
oun
ary ,
153 ;
0 > 153
153 1
5

153
153
401

501
- Tar ?- Pamlico
;

70
Durk_im
»L
- 64 - 301,
70 vg:
301 -
4
64 64 _n

15 64

4 401

. ,.
Neuse

1 _ 301 -.

15 70
1 -
J
5J1 -
,e
4=1
501 421 Gf'1CSc'?rn
401
Cape Fear
'? -

70
Neuse Sub-Watershed:
Project Location 03020201150040
Y

,J
Restoration Systems, LLC Figure 2a:
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank 1:750,000
Raleigh, NC 27604 HUC Neuse 01 r1
tel: [phone] location Johnston County, NC 0 2.5 5 10 15 -0
Miles
C3 Sub-Watershed Boundary
Basin Boundary
Y
Y
r
Neuse
fi
Project Location
t
?+ 9C
y .
s
_42 _
«- Neuse Sub-Watershed:
03020201150040
es -
i,
1.i
7-a V
Cape Fear
Restoration Systems, LLC Figure 2b:
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank 1:125,000
Raleigh, NC 27604 HUC Neuse 01 r?
tel.- 919.755.9490 Location Johnston County, NC ° o.as 0 9 ' $
a
n;rizs

r? x
a
•
-1:
LL

0

3
m c ?

a?
c
a?
?
O
yj m Z
?
fJ U ?

7
co
C

C6 ? ?:, .c
r
W m "D p
O Z
pU 7.

c o
C'N
0 u
r
n
V X O
W C
L
O

(: Q
(3) Z3
- O
Q3
I?-UCD
r^ a
M?

Goa

9+4'x:"?IVks
'l

Symbol ,
k? 'S.
Series Taxonomy
-
,
Pn Pantago thermic umbraquults
s` '
Tn Toisnot thermic fra9isquults
"!
t 'ate'#}'- < -
_..
.
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 107 Figure 4:
Godwin Say Mitigation Bank
1:6,000

M Raleigh, NC 27604 Soils Neuse 01 t?
tel: [phone] I Johnston County, NC 0 115 230 460 690 920
Feat
CIO
I
0
CIA0
N
O
U'1
N
Cil
O
L
�
Z
�4
U
O

} .
_ r
/i `t i `, �'� `�w'�t� c:, •• _ �✓ � .gni 6
r
,
1
� •4
..�
V
i
1 r '
•
leg
It
00
r Project Area
4.
v A
y
,
� I _ _�•-ter,.--, t, f
r
1�
/ f` 1` .. �._ • ...,..rte.., y,��,y � lP'
i i r
I Tv
v .�
l
af4�.
t
AD
/ r
- I � x �' `moi' f � ,F1i�,•�,.� • ...-
Reference Site -,
t
t.
N-. w �,
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Figure 6:
Godwin Bay Mitigation Bank
Raleigh, NC 27604 ReferenceJohnston County, NC 1:100,000 N
tel: [phone] Ecosystem 0 1.950 3.900 1.800 11.700 15.600
Feet

;
�
0
r
L
�
Q
m
Q
v
;n
o
2
_v

APPENDIX B: DRAINMOD OUTPUT
• Existing Portsmouth Soil
• Restored Portsmouth Soil
• Existing Leon Soil
• Restored Leon Soil
• Open Ditch Analysis
0 Existing Portsmouth Soil
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth Soil out
D R A I N M 0 D 5.1
Copyright 1980-99 North Carolina State University
LAST UPDATE: SEPT 1999
LANGUAGE FORTRAN 77/90
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.prj
cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
CLIMATE INPUTS
DESCRIPTION
------------------------------------ (VARIABLE) VALUE UNIT
------
FILE FOR RAINDATA ..............C:\Program -------------------------------------
FileS\DrainMod\weather\Plymouth1933_2
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\Program Files\DrainMod\weather\Plymouth1933_2
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ................... .......(RAINID) 111111
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ............ .......(TEMPID) 111111
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ............... ...(START YEAR) 1933 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION .............. ..(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ................. .....(END YEAR) 2000 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................ ....(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE .............. .....(TEMP LAT) 35.43 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX ................................ ..........(HID) 76.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE *w
JOB TITLE:
Godwin Bay Mitigation Site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
Page 1
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth soil out
STMAX = 3.00 CM SOIL SURFACE
ADEPTH =215. cm DDRAIN =122. CM
0------------- SDRAIN =10365. CM -----------0 -
EFFRAD =1.50 CM
HDRAIN =177. CM
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 30.0 15.000
30.0 - 106.0 2.000
106.0 - 299.4 8.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 122.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 177.4 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 10365.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 3.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 299.4 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 2.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 215.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 1.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 =16.75
•"•' SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS -,
No seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
.. ,• * end of seepage inputs
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 46.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) _ .75 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 105.0 CM
Page 2
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth soil out
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE S URFACE
---------
DATE -----
1/ 1 ----------
2/ 1 ------
3/ 1
4/ 1
5/ 1
6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
DATE 71 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 1211 1
WEIR DEPTH 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 34.2
2.0 56.1
3.0 71.2
4.0 84.3
5.0 95.8
6.0 106.8
7.0 117.3
8.0 127.6
9.0 137.6
10.0 147.4
11.0 157.0
12.0 166.3
13.0 175.4
14.0 184.3
15.0 192.9
16.0 201.6
17.0 210.1
18.0 218.7
19.0 227.3
20.0 235.8
21.0 244.4
22.0 253.3
23.0 262.9
24.0 272.5
25.0 282.0
26.0 291.6
27.0 301.2
28.0 310.8
29.0 320.3
30.0 329.9
35.0 377.8
40.0 425.6
45.0 473.5
50.0 521.4
60.0 617.1
70.0 712.8
80.0 808.5
90.0 904.3
1 TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLU%IE VS UPFLUX
Page 3
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth soil out
HEAD WATER CONTENT VOID VOLUME UPFLUX
(CM) (CM/CM) (CM) (CM/HR)
.0 .3655 .00 1.0000
10.0 .3325 .19 .5000
20.0 .3270 .49 .2000
30.0 .3205 .83 .0200
40.0 .3155 1.23 .0150
50.0 .3105 1.69 .0080
60.0 .3070 2.20 .0050
70.0 .3035 2.91 .0035
80.0 .3000 3.62 .0020
90.0 .2965 4.49 .0013
100.0 .2930 5.36 .0005
110.0 .2909 6.31 .0003
120.0 .2888 7.25 .0000
130.0 .2867 8.24 .0000
140.0 .2846 9.23 .0000
150.0 .2825 10.27 .0000
160.0 .2808 11.31 .0000
170.0 .2791 12.41 .0000
180.0 .2774 13.51 .0000
190.0 .2757 14.66 .0000
200.0 .2740 15.82 .0000
210.0 .2722 16.99 .0000
220.0 .2704 18.15 .0000
230.0 .2686 19.32 .0000
240.0 .2668 20.49 .0000
250.0 .2650 21.65 .0000
260.0 .2631 22.70 .0000
270.0 .2612 23.74 .0000
280.0 .2593 24.79 .0000
290.0 .2574 25.83 .0000
300.0 .2555 26.88 .0000
350.0 .2450 32.10 .0000
400.0 .2330 37.32 .0000
450.0 .2200 42.55 .0000
500.0 .2085 47.77 .0000
600.0 .1900 58.22 .0000
700.0 .1790 68.66 .0000
800.0 .1733 79.11 .0000
900.0 .1675 89.55 .0000
G REEN AMPT INFILTRATIO N PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 .000
50.000 1.200 .750
100.000 6.500 1.200
150.000 10.000 1.500
200.000 12.000 1.500
500.000 15.000 1.500
1000.000 15.000 1.500
TRAFFICABILITY
FIRST
REQUIREMENTS PERIOD
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM): 3.90
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM): 1.20
-MINI%',,U'v? TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE: 2.00
Page 4
SECOND
PERIOD
3.90
1.20
2.00
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth soil out
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 5/ 1
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20
12/32
12/ 32
8
20
CROP
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .17
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON
END STRESS PERIOD ON
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON
END STRESS PERIOD ON
4/10
8/18
WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
4/10
8/18
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 3.0
4 16 3.0
5 4 4.0
5 17 15.0
6 1 25.0
6 20 30.0
7 18 30.0
8 20 20.0
9 24 10.0
9 25 3.0
12 31 3.0
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
wetlands Parameter Estimation
Start Day = 96 End Day = 298
Threshold water Table Depth (cm) = 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 25
Fixed Monthly Pet values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
Page 5
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth soil out
Mrank indicator = 0
END OF INPUTS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:53
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr)
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR 8/1948, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE `*
MONTH 2, YEAR 1950 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 5.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 2/1951, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 8
FOR 4/1954, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
TERMINATE SIMULATION DUE TO END OF LOOP
Computational statistics <--
> Start computations = 773.995
> End computations = 774.021
Total simulation time = 1.6 seconds.
Page 6
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth soil wet
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina State university
-----------------------------------------------------
Godwin Bay Mitigation site, 3ohnston County
Existing Conditions
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:53
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ***%"'
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 25 days. Counting starts on day
96 and ends on day 298 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 25 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ -------------------
1933 0. 9.
1934 0. 4.
1935 0. 7.
1936 0. 6.
1937 0. 7.
1938 0. 7.
1939 0. 4.
1940 0. 8.
1941 0. 3.
1942 0. 7.
1943 0. 3.
1944 0. 5.
1945 0. 10.
1946 0. 9.
1947 0. 5.
1948 0. 5.
1949 0. 7.
1950 0. 12.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 7.
1953 0. 6.
1954 0. 2.
1955 0. 9.
1956 0. 8.
1957 0. 5.
1958 0. 6.
1959 0. 8.
1960 0. 6.
1961 0. 9.
1962 0. 8.
Page 1
Godwin Bay Existing Portsmouth Soil wet
1963 0. 6.
1964 0. 9.
1965 0. 13.
1966 0. 12.
1967 0. 7.
1968 0. 2.
1969 0. 1.
1970 0. 0.
1971 0. 8.
1972 0. 3.
1973 0. 5.
1974 0. 7.
1975 0. 8.
1976 0. 5.
1977 0. 5.
1978 0. 7.
1979 0. 8.
1980 0. 4.
1981 0. 6.
1982 0. 9.
1983 0. 6.
1984 0. 8.
1985 0. 5.
1986 0. 4.
1987 0. 4.
1988 0. 4.
1989 0. 17.
1990 0. 3.
1991 0. 5.
1992 0. 10.
1993 0. 7.
1994 0. 5.
1995 0. 13.
1996 0. 16.
1997 0. 0.
1998 0. 1.
1999 0. 9.
2000 0. 9.
Number of Years with at least one period =
0. out of 68 years.
Page 2
• Restored Portsmouth Soil
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth soil out
D R A I N M 0 D 5.1
Copyright 1980-99 North Carolina State university
LAST UPDATE: SEPT 1999
LANGUAGE FORTRAN 77/90
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.prj
Cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
Godwin Bay Mitigation Site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
CLIMATE INPUTS
DESCRIPTION (VARIABLE) VALUE UNIT
-------
-------------------------------------------
FILE FOR RAINDATA ..............C:\Program --------------------------
Files\DrainMod\weather\Ply ---
mouth1933_2
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\Program Files\DrainMod\weather\Ply mouth1933_2
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER .................... ......(RAINID) 111111
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 111111
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ................ ..(START YEAR) 1933 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ......................(END YEAR) 2000 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................. ...(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE ...................(TEMP LAT) 35.43 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX ................................ ..........(HID) 76.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE
JOB TITLE:
Godwin say Mitigation Site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
Page 1
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth Soil Out
STMAX = 9.00 CM SOIL SURFACE
ADEPTH =215. CM DDRAIN = 5. CM
0------------- SDRAIN =10365. CM -----------0 -
EFFRAD =1.50 CM
HDRAIN =177. CM
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 30.0 15.000
30.0 - 106.0 2.000
106.0 - 215.0 8.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 5.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 177.4 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 10365.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 9.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 182.4 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 2.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 215.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 1.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 =16.75
SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS ;*
NO seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
end of seepage inputs
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 46.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) _ .75 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 105.0 CM
Page 2
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth soil out
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE S URFACE
--------
DATE ------
1/ 1 ----------
21 1 ------
3/ 1 4/ 1 5j 1
6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
DATE 7/ 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 1211 1
WEIR DEPTH 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 34.2
2.0 56.1
3.0 71.2
4.0 84.3
5.0 95.8
6.0 106.8
7.0 117.3
8.0 127.6
9.0 137.6
10.0 147.4
11.0 157.0
12.0 166.3
13.0 175.4
14.0 184.3
15.0 192.9
16.0 201.6
17.0 210.1
18.0 218.7
19.0 227.3
20.0 235.8
21.0 244.4
22.0 253.3
23.0 262.9
24.0 272.5
25.0 282.0
26.0 291.6
27.0 301.2
28.0 310.8
29.0 320.3
30.0 329.9
35.0 377.8
40.0 425.6
45.0 473.5
50.0 521.4
60.0 617.1
70.0 712.8
80.0 808.5
90.0 904.3
1 TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
Page 3
HEAD
(CM)
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
290.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth soil out
WATER CONTENT
(CM/CM)
.3655
.3325
.3270
.3205
.3155
.3105
.3070
.3035
.3000
.2965
.2930
.2909
.2888
.2867
.2846
.2825
.2808
.2791
.2774
.2757
.2740
.2722
.2704
.2686
.2668
.2650
.2631
.2612
.2593
.2574
.2555
.2450
.2330
.2200
.2085
.1900
.1790
.1733
.1675
VOID VOLUME
(CM)
.00
.19
.49
.83
1.23
1.69
2.20
2.91
3.62
4.49
5.36
6.31
7.25
8.24
9.23
10.27
11.31
12.41
13.51
14.66
15.82
16.99
18.15
19.32
20.49
21.65
22.70
23.74
24.79
25.83
26.88
32.10
37.32
42.55
47.77
58.22
68.66
79.11
89.55
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 .000
50.000 1.200 .750
100.000 6.500 1.200
150.000 10.000 1.500
200.000 12.000 1.500
500.000 15.000 1.500
1000.000 15.000 1.500
TRAFFICABILITY
UPFLUX
(CM/HR)
1.0000
.5000
.2000
.0200
.0150
.0080
.0050
.0035
.0020
.0013
.0005
.0003
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
REQUIREMENTS
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM):
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAI:NFALL(CM):
-MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE:
Page 4
FIRST
PERIOD
3.90
1.20
2.00
SECOND
PERIOD
3.90
1.20
2.00
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth Soil Out
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 5/ 1
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20
CROP
12/32
12/32
8
20
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .17
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 3.0
4 16 3.0
5 4 4.0
5 17 15.0
6 1 25.0
6 20 30.0
7 18 30.0
8 20 20.0
9 24 10.0
9 25 3.0
12 31 3.0
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
Wetlands Parameter Estimation
Start Day = 96 End Day = 298
Threshold water Table Depth (cm) = 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 25
Fixed Monthly Pet values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
Page 5
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth soil out
Mrank indicator = 0
:::: ;: ;::: ::: -,'z -,'z ;: ;::; ;::: ;: ;::: ;: END OF INPUTS ................
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:55
input file: C:\Program FileS\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 5.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR 8/1948, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
•• ••" ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE **
MONTH 2, YEAR 1950 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 5.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 2/1951, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 8
FOR 4/1954, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
TERMINATE SIMULATION DUE TO END OF LOOP
> Computational Statistics
Start computations = 775.518
End computations = 775.561
> Total simulation time = 2.6 seconds.
Page 6
Godwin Bay Restored Portsmouth Soil wet
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state university
-----------------------------------------------------
Godwin Bay Mitigation Site, 7ohnston County
Existing conditions
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:55
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 5.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
` INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 25 days. Counting starts on day
96 and ends on day 298 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 25 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ -------------------
1933 1. 102.
1934 2. 69.
1935 2. 48.
1936 2. 30.
1937 2. 51.
1938 3. 56.
1939 1. 35.
1940 2. 61.
1941 1. 28.
1942 1. 82.
1943 2. 40.
1944 2. 38.
1945 1. 115.
1946 3. 116.
1947 2. 49.
1948 2. 29.
1949 2. 144.
1950 2. 89.
1951 1. 27.
1952 2. 86.
1953 3. 35.
1954 0. 24.
1955 1. 76.
1956 2. 89.
1957 1. 25.
1958 3. 48.
1959 2. 42.
1960 1. 64.
1961 2. 134.
1962 3. 53.
Page 1
Godwin Bay Restored
1963 1.
1964 1.
1965 1.
1966 2.
1967 1.
1968 1.
1969 2.
1970 0.
1971 2.
1972 2.
1973 2.
1974 2.
1975 2.
1976 L
1977 2.
1978 2.
1979 2.
1980 1.
1981 1.
1982 1.
1983 2.
1984 3.
1985 1.
1986 1.
1987 2.
1988 1.
1989 3.
1990 2.
1991 2.
1992 1.
1993 1.
1994 1.
1995 1.
1996 1.
1997 0.
1998 0.
1999 1.
2000 2.
Portsmouth
Number of Years with at least one period =
soil wet
48.
55.
67.
73.
102.
77.
39.
19.
69.
88.
81.
73.
37.
90.
70.
89.
119.
43.
41.
35.
53.
70.
30.
46.
76.
48.
73.
40.
89.
77.
35.
81.
52.
105.
20.
17.
53.
105.
64. out of 68 years.
Page 2
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Out
D R A I N M 0 D 5.1
Copyright 1980-99 North Carolina State university
LAST UPDATE: SEPT 1999
LANGUAGE FORTRAN 77/90
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.prj
cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
CLIMATE INPUTS
DESCRIPTION (VARIABLE) VALUE UNIT
------------------------------
FILE FOR RAINDATA ............ -------------------------------------------------
..C:\Program Files\DrainMod\weather\Plymouthl933_2
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\Program Files\DrainMod\weather\Plymouthl933_2
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ....... ...................(RAINID) 111111
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 111111
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ... ...............(START YEAR) 1933 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION .. ..............(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..... .................(END YEAR) 2000 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION .... ................(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE .. .................(TEMP LAT) 35.43 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX .................... ......................(HID) 76.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE
JOB TITLE:
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
Page 1
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Out
STMAX = 3.00 CM SOIL SURFACE
ADEPTH =215. CM DDRAIN =122. CM
0------------- SDRAIN =10365. CM -----------0 -
EFFRAD =1.50 CM
HDRAIN = 88. CM
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 30.0 15.000
30.0 - 106.0 2.000
106.0 - 215.0 8.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 122.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 87.5 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 10365.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 3.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 209.5 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 2.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 215.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 1.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 = 9.96
SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS
No seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
* end of seepage inputs .
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 46.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) _ .75 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 105.0 CM
Page 2
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Out
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE SURFACE
--------
DATE ------
1/ 1 ---------
21 1 -------
3/ 1
4/ 1
5; 1
6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
DATE 71 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 12/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 33.8
2.0 44.5
3.0 49.8
4.0 54.9
5.0 60.0
6.0 63.6
7.0 67.3
8.0 70.9
9.0 74.5
10.0 77.8
11.0 81.0
12.0 84.3
13.0 87.5
14.0 90.7
15.0 93.7
16.0 96.8
17.0 99.8
18.0 102.8
19.0 105.9
20.0 108.9
21.0 111.9
22.0 115.0
23.0 118.0
24.0 121.0
25.0 123.9
26.0 126.8
27.0 129.8
28.0 132.7
29.0 135.6
30.0 138.6
35.0 153.1
40.0 167.2
45.0 181.4
50.0 195.5
60.0 252.1
70.0 314.1
80.0 376.1
90.0 438.0
1 TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
Page 3
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Out
HEAD WATER CONTENT VOID VOLUME UPFLUX
(CM) (CM/CM) (CM) (CM/HR)
.0 .4200 50.00 .5000
10.0 .4010 .10 .5000
20.0 .3820 .38 .5000
30.0 .3770 .79 .3860
40.0 .3240 1.48 .1509
50.0 .2440 3.04 .0642
60.0 .1640 5.00 .0133
70.0 .1380 7.75 .0059
80.0 .1120 10.68 .0017
90.0 .1015 13.77 .0006
100.0 .0910 17.07 .0004
110.0 .0874 20.37 .0002
120.0 .0838 23.66 .0000
130.0 .0802 27.08 .0000
140.0 .0766 30.49 .0000
150.0 .0730 33.91 .0000
160.0 .0704 37.45 .0000
170.0 .0678 40.98 .0000
180.0 .0652 44.51 .0000
190.0 .0626 48.05 .0000
200.0 .0600 51.58 .0000
210.0 .0600 53.20 .0000
220.0 .0600 54.81 .0000
230.0 .0600 56.43 .0000
240.0 .0600 58.04 .0000
250.0 .0600 59.65 .0000
260.0 .0600 61.27 .0000
270.0 .0600 62.88 .0000
280.0 .0600 64.50 .0000
290.0 .0600 66.11 .0000
300.0 .0600 67.72 .0000
350.0 .0600 75.79 .0000
400.0 .0600 83.86 .0000
450.0 .0600 91.93 .0000
500.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
600.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
700.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
800.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
900.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 1.700
10.000 .620 1.700
20.000 1.140 1.700
40.000 3.150 1.700
60.000 8.240 1.700
80.000 9.950 1.700
100.000 10.640 1.700
150.000 11.700 1.700
200.000 11.700 1.700
1000.000 11.700 1.700
TRAFFICABILITY
REQUTREVENTS
FIRST SECOND
PERIOD PERIOD
Page 4
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Out
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM): 3.90 3.90
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM): 1.20 1.20
-MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE: 2.00 2.00
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1 12/32
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 5" 1 12/32
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8 8
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20 20
CROP
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .17
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 3.0
4 16 3.0
5 4 4.0
5 17 15.0
6 1 25.0
6 20 30.0
7 18 30.0
8 20 20.0
9 24 10.0
9 25 3.0
12 31 3.0
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
wetlands Parameter Estimation
Start Day = 96 End Day = 298
Threshold water Table Depth (cm) = 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 25
Fixed Monthly Pet Values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00 5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
Page 5
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Out
Mrank indicator = 0
...,
END OF INPUTS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:46
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR 8/1948, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
'• ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE
MONTH 2, YEAR 1950 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 5.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 2/1951, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 8
FOR 4/1954, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
TERMINATE SIMULATION DUE TO END OF LOOP
-`> Computational statistics <--°
> Start computations = 766.139
> End computations = 766.166
Total simulation time = 1.6 seconds.
Page 6
Godwin Say Existing Leon Soil wet
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state university
-----------------------------------------------------
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston county
Existing conditions
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:46
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
---- -------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE `*
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 25 days. Counting starts on day
96 and ends on day 298 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 25 days or Period in Days
more with wTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ ---------------------
1933 0. 6.
1934 0. 5.
1935 0. 7.
1936 0. 8.
1937 0. 4.
1938 0. 7.
1939 0. 0.
1940 0. 4.
1941 0. 6.
1942 0. 8.
1943 0. 0.
1944 0. 5.
1945 0. 9.
1946 0. 11.
1947 0. 1.
1948 0. 1.
1949 0. 20.
1950 0. 13.
1951 0. 0.
1952 0. 8.
1953 0. 5.
1954 0. 3.
1955 0. 7.
1956 0. 5.
1957 0. 2.
1958 0. 5.
1959 0. S.
1960 0. 5.
1961 0. 9.
1962 0. 8.
Page 1
Godwin Bay Existing Leon Soil Wet
1963 0. 3.
1964 0. 11.
1965 0. 14.
1966 0. 9.
1967 0. 8.
1968 0. 0.
1969 0. 0.
1970 0. 0.
1971 0. 9.
1972 0. 0.
1973 0. 7.
1974 0. 4.
1975 0. 4.
1976 0. 3.
1977 0. 1.
1978 0. 7.
1979 0. 13.
1980 0. 0.
1981 0. 4.
1982 0. 1.
1983 0. 7.
1984 0. 9.
1985 0. 5.
1986 0. 0.
1987 0. 3.
1988 0. 4•
1989 0. 10.
1990 0. 3.
1991 0. 6.
1992 0. 10.
1993 0. 8.
1994 0. 3.
1995 0. 8.
1996 0. 18.
1997 0. 0.
1998 0. 0.
1999 0. 17.
2000 0. 9.
Number of Years with at least one period =
0. out of 68 years.
Page 2
Godwin Bay Restored Leon Soil Out
D R A I N M 0 D 5.1
Copyright 1980-99 North Carolina State University
LAST UPDATE: SEPT 1999
LANGUAGE FORTRAN 77/90
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.prj
cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
CLIMATE INPUTS
DESCRIPTION (VARIABLE) VALUE UNIT
-------------------------------------------
FILE FOR RAINDATA .............. C:\Program ------------------------------------
Files\DrainMod\weather\Plymouthl933_2
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\Program Files\DrainMod\weather\Plymouthl933_2
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER .................... ......(RAINID) 111111
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ............. ......(TEMPID) 111111
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ................ ..(START YEAR) 1933 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION ............... .(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION .................. ....(END YEAR) 2000 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION ....................(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE ............... ....(TEMP LAT) 35.43 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX ..........................................(HID) 76.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE :; ..
JOB TITLE:
Godwin Bay Mitigation Site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
Page 1
Godwin Bay Restored Leon Soil out
STMAX = 9.00 CM SOIL SURFACE
ADEPTH =215. CM DDRAIN = 5. CM
0------------- SDRAIN =10365. CM -----------0 -
EFFRAD =1.50 CM
HDRAIN =177. CM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 30.0 15.000
30.0 - 106.0 2.000
106.0 - 215.0 8.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 5.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 177.4 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 10365.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 9.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 182.4 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 2.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 215.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 1.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 =16.75
*** SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS
No seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
end of seepage inputs
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 46.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) _ .75 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 105.0 CM
Page 2
Godwin Bay Restored Leon Soil Out
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE SURFACE
---------
DATE -----
1/ 1 ---------
2/ 1 -------
3/ 1
4/ 1
5/ 1 6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
DATE 7/ 1 8/ 1 9, 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 12/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 33.8
2.0 44.5
3.0 49.8
4.0 54.9
5.0 60.0
6.0 63.6
7.0 67.3
8.0 70.9
9.0 74.5
10.0 77.8
11.0 81.0
12.0 84.3
13.0 87.5
14.0 90.7
15.0 93.7
16.0 96.8
17.0 99.8
18.0 102.8
19.0 105.9
20.0 108.9
21.0 111.9
22.0 115.0
23.0 118.0
24.0 121.0
25.0 123.9
26.0 126.8
27.0 129.8
28.0 132.7
29.0 135.6
30.0 138.6
35.0 153.1
40.0 167.2
45.0 181.4
50.0 195.5
60.0 252.1
70.0 314.1
80.0 376.1
90.0 438.0
1 TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
Page 3
Godwin Bay Restored Leon Soil Out
HEAD WATER CONTENT VOID VOLUME UPFLUX
(GM) (CM/CM) (CM) (CM/HR)
.0 .4200 50.00 .5000
10.0 .4010 .10 .5000
20.0 .3820 .38 .5000
30.0 .3770 .79 .3860
40.0 .3240 1.48 .1509
50.0 .2440 3.04 .0642
60.0 .1640 5.00 .0133
70.0 .1380 7.75 .0059
80.0 .1120 10.68 .0017
90.0 .1015 13.77 .0006
100.0 .0910 17.07 .0004
110.0 .0874 20.37 .0002
120.0 .0838 23.66 .0000
130.0 .0802 27.08 .0000
140.0 .0766 30.49 .0000
150.0 .0730 33.91 .0000
160.0 .0704 37.45 .0000
170.0 .0678 40.98 .0000
180.0 .0652 44.51 .0000
190.0 .0626 48.05 .0000
200.0 .0600 51.58 .0000
210.0 .0600 53.20 .0000
220.0 .0600 54.81 .0000
230.0 .0600 56.43 .0000
240.0 .0600 58.04 .0000
250.0 .0600 59.65 .0000
260.0 .0600 61.27 .0000
270.0 .0600 62.88 .0000
280.0 .0600 64.50 .0000
290.0 .0600 66.11 .0000
300.0 .0600 67.72 .0000
350.0 .0600 75.79 .0000
400.0 .0600 83.86 .0000
450.0 .0600 91.93 .0000
500.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
600.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
700.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
800.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
900.0 .0600 100.00 .0000
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (GM)
.000 .000 1.700
10.000 .620 1.700
20.000 1.140 1.700
40.000 3.150 1.700
60.000 8.240 1.700
80.000 9.950 1.700
100.000 10.640 1.700
150.000 11.700 1.700
200.000 11.700 1.700
1000.000 11.700 1.700
TRAFFICABILITY
REQUIREMENTS
FIRST SECOND
PERIOD PERIOD
Page 4
Godwin Bay Restored Leon soil out
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM): 3.90 3.90
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM): 1.20 1.20
-MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE: 2.00 2.00
WORKING TIMES
-DATE TO BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1 12/32
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 5/ 1 12/32
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8 8
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20 20
CROP
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .17
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 3.0
4 16 3.0
5 4 4.0
5 17 15.0
6 1 25.0
6 20 30.0
7 18 30.0
8 20 20.0
9 24 10.0
9 25 3.0
12 31 3.0
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
wetlands Parameter Estimation „,•• ,.
Start Day = 96 End Day = 298
Threshold water Table Depth (cm) = 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 25
Fixed Monthly Pet Values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00 5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
Page 5
Godwin Bay Restored Leon Soil Out
Mrank indicator = 0
:.:.:.:.:.:...:. END OF INPUTS
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:52
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 5.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR 8/1948, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
*** ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE *""*
MONTH 2, YEAR 1950 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 5.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 2/1951, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 8
FOR 4/1954, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
TERMINATE SIMULATION DUE TO END OF LOOP
* > Computational Statistics <*."I
Start Computations = 772.035
'> End Computations = 772.076
*> Total simulation time = 2.4 seconds.
Page 6
Godwin Bay Restored Leon soil wet
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina state University
----------------------------------------------------
Godwin Bay mitigation site, 3ohnston County
Existing Conditions
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 12:52
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 10365. cm drain depth = 5.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
* INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE ***** °
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 25 days. Counting starts on day
96 and ends on day 298 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 25 days or Period in Days
more with wTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ -------------------
1933 1. 59.
1934 2. 69.
1935 2. 42.
1936 1. 30.
1937 2. 51.
1938 3. 56.
1939 1. 35.
1940 2. 61.
1941 1. 28.
1942 1. 28.
1943 1. 28.
1944 1. 30.
1945 1. 96.
1946 3. 116.
1947 2. 49.
1948 0. 23.
1949 2. 144.
1950 2. 68.
1951 1. 27.
1952 2. 86.
1953 3. 35.
1954 0. 21.
1955 1. 75.
1956 2. 74.
1957 0. 20.
1958 3. 48.
1959 2. 36.
19,00 1. 63.
1961 2. 134.
1962 3, 53.
Page 1
Godwin Bay Restored Leon Soil wet
1963 1. 37.
1964 1. 42.
1965 1. 67.
1966 2. 72.
1967 1. 76.
1968 1. 77.
1969 1. 39.
1970 0. 19.
1971 2. 69.
1972 2. 88.
1973 2. 81.
1974 2. 73.
1975 2. 37.
1976 1. 66.
1977 2. 46.
1978 2. 89.
1979 2. 119.
1980 1. 43.
1981 1. 33.
1982 0. 14.
1983 2. 53.
1984 3. 70.
1985 1. 29.
1986 0. 7.
1987 2. 40.
1988 1. 47.
1989 3. 73.
1990 2. 39.
1991 2. 69.
1992 1. 74.
1993 1. 35.
1994 1. 61.
1995 1. 46.
1996 1. 105.
1997 0. 20.
1998 0. 14.
1999 1. 53.
2000 2. 105.
Number of Years with at least one period = 60. out of 68 years.
Page 2
Godwin Bay lditch Out
D R A I N M 0 D 5.1
Copyright 1980-99 North Carolina State University
LAST UPDATE: SEPT 1999
LANGUAGE FORTRAN 77/90
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.prj
Cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
CLIMATE INPUTS
DESCRIPTION
----------------------- (VARIABLE) VALUE UNIT
--------------------
FILE FOR RAINDATA ..............C:\Program ---------------
Files\DrainMod\ ----------
weather\Pl -----------
ymouthl933_2
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\Program Files\DrainMod\ weather\Pl ymouthl933_2
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ..........................(RAINID) 111111
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 111111
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..................(START YEAR) 1933 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ......................(END YEAR) 2000 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION ................ ....(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE .............. .....(TEMP LAT) 35.43 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX ..........................................(HID) 76.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE
JOB TITLE:
Godwin Bay Mitigation Site, Johnston County
Existing Conditions
Page 1

Godwin Bay lditch out
STMAX =15.00 CM SOIL SURFACE
ADEPTH =215. CM DDRAIN =122. CM
0------------- SDRAIN = 6820. CM -- --------0 -
EFFRAD =1.50 CM
HDRAIN = 85. CM
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 30.0 15.000
30.0 - 106.0 2.000
106.0 - 215.0 8.000
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 122.0 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 84.9 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 6820.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SURFACE PONDING = 15.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 206.9 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 2.50 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 215.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 7.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 = 9.96
**;` SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS :; °
NO seepage due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
end of seepage inputs
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 46.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) _ ,75 : 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 105.0 CM
Page 2
Godwin Bay lditch out
DEPTH OF WEIR FROM THE SURFACE
--------
DATE ------
1/ 1 ---------
2/ 1 -------
3/ 1
4; 1
5/ 1
6/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
DATE 71 1 8/ 1 9/ 1 10/ 1 11/ 1 12/ 1
WEIR DEPTH 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 34.2
2.0 56.1
3.0 71.2
4.0 84.3
5.0 95.8
6.0 106.8
7.0 117.3
8.0 127.6
9.0 137.6
10.0 147.4
11.0 157.0
12.0 166.3
13.0 175.4
14.0 184.3
15.0 192.9
16.0 201.6
17.0 210.1
18.0 218.7
19.0 227.3
20.0 235.8
21.0 244.4
22.0 253.3
23.0 262.9
24.0 272.5
25.0 282.0
26.0 291.6
27.0 301.2
28.0 310.8
29.0 320.3
30.0 329.9
35.0 377.8
40.0 425.6
45.0 473.5
50.0 521.4
60.0 617.1
70.0 712.8
80.0 808.5
90.0 904.3
1 TABLE 2
SOIL hATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
Page 3
Godwin Bay lditch Out
HEAD WATER CONTENT VOID VOLUME UPFLUX
(CM) (CM/CM) (CM) (CM/HR)
.0 .3655 .00 1.0000
10.0 .3325 .19 .5000
20.0 .3270 .49 .2000
30.0 .3205 .83 .0200
40.0 .3155 1.23 .0150
50.0 .3105 1.69 .0080
60.0 .3070 2.20 .0050
70.0 .3035 2.91 .0035
80.0 .3000 3.62 .0020
90.0 .2965 4.49 .0013
100.0 .2930 5.36 .0005
110.0 .2909 6.31 .0003
120.0 .2888 7.25 .0000
130.0 .2867 8.24 .0000
140.0 .2846 9.23 .0000
150.0 .2825 10.27 .0000
160.0 .2808 11.31 .0000
170.0 .2791 12.41 .0000
180.0 .2774 13.51 .0000
190.0 .2757 14.66 .0000
200.0 .2740 15.82 .0000
210.0 .2722 16.99 .0000
220.0 .2704 18.15 .0000
230.0 .2686 19.32 .0000
240.0 .2668 20.49 .0000
250.0 .2650 21.65 .0000
260.0 .2631 22.70 .0000
270.0 .2612 23.74 .0000
280.0 .2593 24.79 .0000
290.0 .2574 25.83 .0000
300.0 .2555 26.88 .0000
350.0 .2450 32.10 .0000
400.0 .2330 37.32 .0000
450.0 .2200 42.55 .0000
500.0 .2085 47.77 .0000
600.0 .1900 58.22 .0000
700.0 .1790 68.66 .0000
800.0 .1733 79.11 .0000
900.0 .1675 89.55 .0000
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 .000
50.000 1.200 .750
100.000 6.500 1.200
150.000 10.000 1.500
200.000 12.000 1.500
500.000 15.000 1.500
1000.000 15.000 1.500
TRAFFICABILITY
FIRST SECOND
REQUIREMENTS PERIOD PERIOD
-MINIMUM AIR VOLUME IN SOIL (CM): 3.90 3.90
-MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DAILY RAINFALL(CM): 1.20 1.20
-MINIMUM TIME AFTER RAIN BEFORE TILLING CAN CONTINUE: 2.00 2.00
Page 4

Godwin Bay lditch out
WORKING TIMES
-DATE To BEGIN COUNTING WORK DAYS: 4/ 1
-DATE TO STOP COUNTING WORK DAYS: 5! 1
-FIRST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 8
-LAST WORK HOUR OF THE DAY: 20
CROP
SOIL MOISTURE AT WILTING POINT = .17
HIGH WATER STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
CROP IS IN STRESS WHEN WATER TABLE IS ABOVE 30.0 CM
DROUGHT STRESS: BEGIN STRESS PERIOD ON 4/10
END STRESS PERIOD ON 8/18
MO DAY ROOTING DEPTH(CM)
1 1 3.0
4 16 3.0
5 4 4.0
5 17 15.0
6 1 25.0
6 20 30.0
7 18 30.0
8 20 20.0
9 24 10.0
9 25 3.0
12 31 3.0
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
Wetlands Parameter Estimation
Start Day = 96 End Day = 298
Threshold Water Table Depth (cm) = 30.0
Threshold Consecutive Days = 10
Fixed Monthly Pet values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
12/32
12/32
8
20
5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
Page 5

Godwin Bay lditch Out
Mrank indicator = 0
END OF INPUTS ......................., ..............., ........ ,.:.........
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 13:26
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 6820. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR 8/1948, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
*** ERROR IN TEMPERATURE FILE *••
MONTH 2, YEAR 1950 NOT FOUND
PET VALUE = 5.000000E-02 SUBSTITUTED (WILSON, NC)
FOR 2/1951, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 8
FOR 4/1954, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
TERMINATE SIMULATION DUE TO END OF LOOP
Computational Statistics
Start Computations = 806.022
End Computations = 806.049
> Total simulation time = 1.6 seconds.
Page 6

Godwin Bay lditch wet
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.1
Copyright 1980-04 North Carolina State university
-----------------------------------------------------
Godwin Bay mitigation site, Johnston County
Existing conditions
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 9/12/2008 @ 13:26
input file: C:\Program Files\DrainMod\inputs\GodwinBay.pr.
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculated
drain spacing = 6820. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D R A I N M 0 D--- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION
*;;***;; INTERIM EXPERIMENTAL RELEASE :;***
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.00 cm
for at least 10 days. Counting starts on day
96 and ends on day 298 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 10 days or Period in Days
more with wTD
< 30.00 cm
------------------ --------------------
1933 1. 15.
1934 0. 9.
1935 0. 8.
1936 1. 13.
1937 0. 6.
1938 1. 24.
1939 0. 3.
1940 1. 20.
1941 0. 3.
1942 1. 14.
1943 0. 3.
1944 0. 7.
1945 1. 21.
1946 0. 9.
1947 0. 6.
1948 0. 7.
1949 3. 12.
1950 2. 32.
1951 0. 0.
1952 1. 13.
1953 1. 13.
1954 0. 2.
1955 2. 36.
1956 0. 7.
1957 0. 7.
1958 1. 11.
1959 1. 10.
1960 1. 13.
1961 1. 10.
1962 1. 16.
Page 1

Godwin Bay lditch wet
1963 0. 7.
1964 2. 24.
1965 2. 18.
1966 1. 17.
1967 2. 25.
1968 0. 1.
1969 0. 0.
1970 0. 0.
1971 1. 26.
1972 0. 2.
1973 0. 7.
1974 0. 7.
1975 1. 16.
1976 0. 5.
1977 0. 6.
1978 1. 18.
1979 1. 12.
1980 0. 1.
1981 1. 13.
1982 1. 10.
1983 0. 9.
1984 1. 21.
1985 1. 18.
1986 0. 5.
1987 0. 5.
1988 0. 3.
1989 1. 24.
1990 0. 9.
1991 1. 14.
1992 1. 15.
1993 0. 2.
1994 0. 7.
1995 1. 14.
1996 3. 25.
1997 0. 0.
1998 0. 1.
1999 1. 34.
2000 0. 9.
Number of Years with at least one period = 34. out of 68 years.
Page 2