20040325 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20051004

Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200300583
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
September 26, 2005
Messrs. Alan Fickett and Bill Gurber
ECOBANK
5104 N. Orange Blossom Trail, Suite 210
Orlando, Florida 32810
Dear Sirs:
grr?'gwq
OCT 0 4 2005
WETLANDS AND TORPAWATER BRANCH
This letter confirms the final review of the Wetland Mitigation Plan for Barra Farms Phase
II Mitigation Bank, owned by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation (ECOBANK),
located at the intersection between Highway 53 and Highway 210, north of SR 2041 (Beard
Road), in Harrison Creek Bay, in the headwaters-of Harrison Creek, near Cedar Creek,
Cumberland County in the lower Cape Fear River Drainage Basin, North Carolina. Also, please
reference my August 25, 2005 telephone conversation with Mr. Rob Moul of Land Management
Group, and my November 22, 2004 meeting with Mr. Christian Preziosi of Land Management
Group.
As stated in the December 1998 Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for Barra Farms
Mitigation Bank Phase I, the sponsor may request the addition of adjacent lands to the Phase I
bank site provided specific provisions are addressed, including a site-specific restoration plan. A
restoration plan was submitted to our office and circulated to the Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT). Upon our review and coordination with the MBRT, our office concurs with the
December 2004 Wetland Mitigation Plan, or site-specific restoration plan, which includes credit
types, amounts, and credit release schedule. This plan includes the restoration, enhancement,
and preservation of 1,812 acres of wetlands and waters. Our office agrees to the proposal of
sectioning Phase II into three parts: Section I of Phase II is 1,171 acres (or 512 credits), Section
II of Phase II is 335 acres or (328 credits), and Section III of Phase II is 306 acres, or 299 credits.
These sections of Phase II will be implemented sequentially.
All provisions of the MBI shall apply to Phase II of the bank. Therefore, you are reminded
that prior to any release of credits for Section I of Phase II, and for each following section, the
following must be completed prior to the release of any credits: 1) ownership documentation of
the property, including title search, 2) delivery of acceptable financial assurances, 3) recordation
of an acceptable preservation mechanism acceptable to the Corps, as well as title opinion
covering the property acceptable to the Corps, and 4) an acceptable construction schedule.
Once these items have been completed, a copy of,the documents must be provided to our office
-2-
for confirmation. This step must also be repeated for both Section II & III prior to the release of
any credits in those sections. At any time there are failures in Section I, the MBRT retains the
right to modify the restoration plan for Section II & III in order to ensure the success of Phase II.
Upon receipt and approval of the items 1-4 above, fifteen percent (15%) of the bank's total
credits for Section I of Phase II shall be immediately available for sale. Please be reminded that
you must also complete the initial physical and biological improvements to the bank site
pursuant to the mitigation plan no later than the first full growing season following initial
debiting of the Bank. .
In regards to Barra Farms Phase I, our office has some concerns regarding the accounting
procedures, property disposition, and long-term management. Pursuant to the December 1998
MBI in Section 4.4 Accounting Procedures, you are required to generate a report, within 30 days
of debiting credits, showing the credits used at the time they are debited from the bank; and to
prepare an annual debit or credit report on each anniversary of the date the MBI was executed,
which is March 5, 1999. To date, we have no record of any credits being debited from Phase I.
Additionally, the MBI states that you intend to provide fee simple transfer of the property to the
appropriate land management organization as determined by the MBRT. The mitigation plan
states that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program intends to hold the easement in the
interim until completion of debiting of the bank, or until the end of the monitoring period,
whichever is longer. In discussions with your office and Land Management Group, it is our
understanding that you were in negotiations with the Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT) to hold
the easement and manage the property in perpetuity. Again, at this time, our office has no record
of the fee simple transfer agreement.
Lastly, our office has concerns and questions over the long-term management of Phase I.
The MBI states that you will provide a separate, long-term trust fund for the long-term
maintenance, management, and remedial actions acceptable to the MBRT. We have been
informed that EcoBank has experienced some financial difficulties; and our office is concerned
that this will affect or compromise the long-term management of the site. If this is valid, please
provide us with assurances of EcoBank's ability to move forward with the long-term
management plan. We are pleased at the results of success during the five-year monitoring
period, but question the long-term management status. Please provide a status report regarding
the required trust fund. If all credits have been debited, you must. satisfy the long-term trust fund
immediately. With the absence of the above information, our office and the MBRT members
will look unfavorably upon the release of future credits in Phase II.
-3-
As always, future decisions concerning the acceptability of the use of this bank to offset the
wetlands impacts authorized by any particular permit will be made during the review of that
permit. If you have any questions or comments on this issue, please contact me at (910) 251-
4811, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Melissa Carle
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
R eigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
r. John Dorney
ivision of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Mr. Rob Moul
Land Management Group, Inc.
Post Office Box 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Christian Preziosi
Land Management Group, Inc.
Post Office Box 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Mr. Steve Everhart
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726 .
Ms. Becky Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Section- Region IV
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
Environmental Consultants
Post Office Box 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
FAX: [phone]
TEL: [phone]
MR. MAC HAUPT
TO - NC WETLANDS RESTORATION PROG.

WE ARE SENDING YOU
DATE 5 / 0 5 / 0 0 JOB NO.
ATTENTION
RE:
BARRA FARMS MONITORING REPORT
? Wetland maps ? Soil maps ? Aerial photo
? Septic tank plans X3 Environmental reports ?
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below
? For approval
? For your use
? As requested
? For review and comment
FOR 5/11/00 SITE VISIT
REMARKS:
RECEIVED
MAY 5 2000
NC WETIA"
RESTORATION
COPY TO
? Prints
SIGNED:
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN AT
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
1999-2000
The following is a list of actions that have been taken to improve the quality of monitoring and
insure future mitigation success at Barra Farms:
1. Installation of six 18" diameter drainage pipes along the north section of Barra to alleviate
ponding (Figure 1). The pipes were installed in October of 1999 to reduce the standing
water created by rainfall from hurricanes and from any future heavy rain events. Ponded
water will be lowered only during and/or after extreme climatic rainfall events after which
ponding could be detrimental to the growth of survival of character species. The pipes will
not allow groundwater levels to recede below the wetland hydrology thresholds and can
be plugged in dry periods to allow percolation into the wetland before standing water is
released.
2. The percentage of Barra being sampled for vegetation was increased in Year 2 monitoring.
In Year 1 monitoring, 24 plots, each 0.05 acre in size, were sampled resulting in a total of
1.2 acres surveyed. In order to get a larger sample of representative vegetation and to
pinpoint the location of areas not meeting the vegetative success criteria, the sampling
area was increased in 1999. In Year 2 monitoring, 34 plots that were each 0.1 acre in size
were sampled resulting in 3.4 total acres surveyed. This is a 283% increase in sampling
size between Year 1 and Year 2. These 34 plots include 19 of the original 24 plots plus an
additional 15 plots randomly placed in areas generally lacking plots.
3. In December of 1999, a subcontractor hired by ECOBANK installed 3 new RDS
monitoring wells at Barra to get a more precise and continuous account of hydrology. A
total of five RDS wells now read hydrology data on-site and 2 RDS wells are located at
reference sites.
4. In January of 2000, the mouth of the mitigation stream at Barra was cleaned of debris
such as fallen limbs and snags to increase stream flow and further reduce standing water in
this area (Figure 2).
5. Supplemental planting at the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank was performed February 8-11,
2000. Twelve species that have shown an ability to survive at Barra (Table 1) were
planted across the groundwater flats and headwater slope habitats, which comprise
approximately 362 acres of this site (Figure 3). Seedlings that were approximately 2 years
old were purchased from the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources Nursery in
Goldsboro, NC (Figure 4) and were evenly distributed across the former crop land at
Barra (Figures 5 and 6). However, in wetter areas, such as the headwater slope habitat, a
greater number of bald cypress and water tupelo were planted, since these species are
better adapted to wet conditions. Planting actions were closely monitored by Land
Management Group, Inc. personnel. A total of 43,300 seedlings planted across 362 acres
resulted in approximately 120 trees/acre (- 20-foot spacing). Since an average of 241
characteristic trees/ac (average of groundwater flats and headwater slope habitats) were
observed in Year 2 monitoring, this supplemental planting increased tree density to 361
trees/acre. These trees, in addition to new volunteers and the established trees already
present, will help Barra achieve the vegetative success criterion of 320 characteristic
trees/acre over the required monitoring period.
Table 1. Number andspecies of trees planted at Barra Farms during the winter of 2000.
Common Name Scientific Name Number Ordered
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 4000
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 6000
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 1000
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 800
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2500
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 2000
Swamp Blackgum Nyssa biflora 6500
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 2000
Water Oak Quercus nigra 6000
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica 5600
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5900
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1000
TOTAL 43,300
6. Since the continuous monitoring stream gauges placed in the reference and restoration
streams in 1999 have been somewhat unreliable, staff gauges will be replaced and used as
a backup measure of stream flow. The staff gauges will insure continuous collection of
flow data and will allow a more accurate assessment of stream mitigation.
' . ? •? .:. ay 'aM.f?.tir.'.'? ,>R?4 ? r'' • , ? ,pl '•?. ti LAX
?' .`???y ????. ?? .•s?- .??' - i •-ar a•aF???1i? ..?.?1 Qu - Y t .,i,3 ?'
?? ,r,?r as

?i^s a \
ezi
` f - we - F

Figure 1. Six drainage pipes were installed under the
roadiberm to alleviate ponding.

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Ecobank
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
sit`
Teo-
Al de
1

rY,
Figure 2. In January of 2000, the mitigation stream was
cleaned of debris to improve flow.
A • t

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Ecobank
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

0

Cd

w

i Aa

? o
0 0
0
N
O
O ?
O ?

- -- I I ?
Z p w
r +,
U
° o U)

/
.5 0
? u.

i

b

o o ri

s

4`>
c _
..T 1 O 1? yE l • }
? R
'Ai
•4
A.

ter'
r
Y
`?? Eby: .w ,? y- ?, •,
Figure 4. A total of 43,300 seedlings, which included
12 species, were purchased from the NC Div;
Forest Resources ,
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Ecobank
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

H.? _ . t .
14 1

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Figure 5. Trees were planted at approximately a 20-foot Ecobank
spacing within the former crop land at Barra Farms. Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Figure 6 Seedlings planted at Barra Farms. Ecobank
Cumberland
Land Managemi ? ;un. Inc.
PROGRESS REPORT:
Results of April, 2000 vegetation monitoring
at Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Prepared for:
Ecobank
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington, NC
May 1, 2000
Success criteria for the Barra Farms Mitigation Plan include a minimum mean density of
320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
hardwood species can comprise more than 20 percent of the total number of stems/acre total.
Softwood species cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the total number of stems/acre. The
Year 2 Monitoring Report found that neither the groundwater flats nor headwater slope
community types met these vegetation success criteria. Supplemental planting of 43,300 seedlings
occurred during February of 2000 to increase survivability to acceptable levels. A third
monitoring survey was conducted in April of 2000 to monitor the progress of these seedlings. The
results of both surveys are given below.
November, 1999 SURVEY (2' Monitoring Report)
Groundwater Flats
Within the groundwater flats habitat, 27 woody species were surveyed among the 29
plots. Of the 27 species, 19 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree
species, 11 were planted and 8 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common
species included bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica). The
vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 269 stems/acre with approximately
128 stems/acre from planted species. Because 435 stems/acre were planted in these areas
in the winter of 1998, the survival rate is estimated at approximately 29% after the second
growing season. When using the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the
total number of stems/acre criterion (<_ 20% of 320 stems/acre for hardwoods and _< 10%
of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per acre is
255.4 (see Table 4, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 8 woody species were found within this habitat, of which 4 were planted and 4
were volunteer. The most common species include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). This vegetation averaged 317 stems/acre, with 130
stems/acre from planted species. Therefore, the survival rate of trees planted in the
headwater slope is 30%. When success criteria percentages are used (<_ 20% of 320
stems/acre for hardwoods and <_ 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number
of trees that can be counted per acre is 227.5 (see Table 5, column 5).
April, 2000 SURVEY (3`d Monitoring Report)
Groundwater Flats
Within the groundwater flats habitat, 26 woody species were surveyed among the 30
plots. Of the 26 species, 18 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree
species, 11 were planted and 7 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common
species included bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa bflora, N. aquatica). The
vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 485.1 stems/acre with
approximately 259 stems/acre from planted species. When using the number of trees/acre
by species that can be applied to the total number of stems/acre criterion (_< 20% of total
stems/acre for hardwoods and s 10% of total stems/acre for softwoods), the total number
of trees that can be counted per acre is 456.6 (see Table 6, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 14 woody species were found within this habitat, of which 9 were planted and 5
were volunteer. The most common species include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa bflora, N. aquatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). This vegetation averaged 612.5 stems/acre, with 300
stems/acre from planted species. When success criteria percentages are used (s 20% of
total stems/acre for hardwoods and _< 10% of total stems/acre for softwoods), the total
number of trees that can be counted per acre is 436.2 (see Table 7, column 5).
Summary
In 11/99, a mean density of 255.4 stems/acre was found across 27 character wetland
species within the groundwater flats habitat, with an average of 3.9 species/plot. In 4/00,
a mean density of 456.6 stems/acre (adjusted) was observed across 26 character wetland
species, with an average of 6.6 species/plot. In the headwater slope habitat in 11/99, a
mean density of 227.5 stems/acre was found across 8 wetland species, with an average of
4 species/plot. In April, 2000 the headwater slope habitat had a mean density of 436.2
stems/acre (adjusted) across 14 wetland species, with an average of 7.5 species/plot. Both
habitats doubled their stem counts as well as their species diversity. As a result of natural
recruitment, supplemental planting, and the installation of drainage pipes to control water
levels, both habitat types now contain more than 320 stems/acre and over 5 wetland
species/plot. Therefore, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank has met and exceeded the
wetland vegetation success criterion.
2
(5
•y
D\
?O
O?
N
?o
00
r-
tn tn
M

y
O co O
00
N
M
r-
W)
M
C?
O
O
00
N
.-+
N
00
-
M
-+
O
-

N

M
m
r _
H .
O?
r

h
G H
00
r
00
N
N
WCf)
)
00
N

1?0
c)
00 _

N

?o
kn

+.+ V ? kn
N ?o
N P
N 00
N m
N O
M .-+
M N
M M
M ?t
M in
M \O
tr1 h
M 00
M ON
M
Is N
N
y
•
u
a %0 00 V1 00 V' \-O \?o ?o tn V1 [- O\ O1 M kn V1
R
a

h
00
N
t?
l
M
00

N
?t
M

N
?O
W)
[?
M
d
Cl)

M
d
00
[?
N
N
O
,...?
M
V?1
E 4n N C
)
i
i
d
01
? ? .y ?

?

M

?

1

N

N

M

")

--?

?

-•

O

1

0

-+

N

?

?

i
t
w d
0

t

O?

N

M

Q?

?.,?

?t

01

M

I'D

N

M
rn
oo
M

M

N
,

4g
M -1
. Itt ?
?
N

N
c?
E-'
M
0

3

0
N ? o

O 4

U b
cl
b >
O 5
0
O

3 3 o
b o 0 ? ? F o ?.

C) 0
g
° R
P
C*
4 cd

N O E- a
O C4 O F ; 3
o C,3
C o
cu
? 1.
1.. 0 ¢ O a c? a; p?
U U 3 ° ., ?-

`°
O
4) 3 o
as ca o ?
U ai U
4)
0' a a? ai ?? ai Q s i o,

cl) d?
Q+ O O

H ai 3 a h a F H
•
C
y d' M v') tr) N N M N N 00 --? N N ?.o

y
H
°i
N
M
°?
M
\O
N
M
M
N
i

?
Vl

CCS
CA
++
C?
fA

CC

N
p1

ccS
to

GC
N
-
RS
M
-
CG
`A

CG
m
-
CC

N

N
Vi
i.+
ftf
VI
C?
M
YRS
fA
rCC
w
IC5
?, w w w g w w w w w w o o w w w w r=.w
u iu
+ u
+
+
+
?+ ul
a+ u
t+
+.+ v
?-+ u
r-+
++ Y r-+ i.+ a+
4 a+
g ? a .
-o o -o b b v T3 ? Cd
-
0
0
?`L"+ 0
o 0 0
tz Cd ? o 0 o
0 0
0 O
0 o
7 v
as o
Cd
x o
?' 0
7
? 0
?' 0
7 0
?
i
C7
C7
U
x
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
C
x
U
C
?
U
C
C
7

i
i ? W? r-- 00 CN

-

--i

-

-

-

-r

N
.r .-. ?O
a?
c?
F?
I:t
4

a ?
0

0
44
3
0
0
0

o

b N
N

Cd V
S. O

3
U U
o
Cd
o
3
o
ae
p
-co 3 O a
O
Cc
?G m ? C? U
4 3 ° o

.
p 3 ? ? N 3

cn o
GA x
O
?.
° ?•
.?,
U)

°

U

o 2
? w b 3 3 ?' c. •o m cd

ai ma H x as o ?3 ai x x xa xai x H H x
d
y N N -+ N N d, N It N ?o

rA
o
? H oo ,? °?° N N M ?D °° %0 N

d y
Y
CC h
Y
tt? y
Y
ftS

N y
Y
?
Y
CV N
Y
Cd ti
Y
RS on
Y
C? y
Y
CC
?+
CC2 y
?-+
CO w
Y
C? y
Y
RS y
Y
Rf Ln
?+
?
w w w g w w w w w w w w w w w w
+ + Y Y Y Y Y ?+ Y
R Y
3 ?+
3 ?--?
3 i'q
°r Y
fC!
3 Y
CC
3 Y
tt1
3 ?
C?
3 ?
?
3 RS
3 RS
3 CC
3 ttS
3 Ri
3 C?
3 CC
3
? -o -o •o ? -o -o v •b •v -o
g b
S v
o -o v
0 v
0 v
o
x 0 co 0 o o

C7
C7
C7
x
p
O
C7 U4
C7 1-
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
C7
i

?
N
?
N
N
N 00
N °ll
N O
M ~
M N
M M
M cn
M N
M cn
M m
M 00
M
a, N

kn
a?

•
V] Q N aI ? ? ? ? Q ? ?
?. a? 3 o 0 a U
? 3 > ? 3 ? ? ?
o
a U ? ? as

3o
N
3 79

N b
cG
^ 3
O
v?
?
CS"
y
rA 3
?
Ri
i Pal O ?,
° •_ ??
? i
? ?;
er o oCZ

CQ
E
'
3 p
?,,
O
u o O
r. y y C •rs U
b L1, a?
'Oj e U
v

^ N

O

v
3
0 (D
cn r
°
0
3
? T

U .C

U GQ
GA
?,

3 1
m
?
,, ?
pa
}
H
. b v,

3 ai ;
3 ¢ r
0
m = -0 &
... cd En 04
°'
i
4 4) o c fxl

b ° a R w o
(n -? -? 0 0 0 -d b
?
? b
as 3 ? H y as as ? ? a c? o a ? & ai ? a
.b ai U p., H
U
7a
L) Ed j cc$
-? ^ -? in. Cl. -0 o. -a -o "a a
H H ¢3 ai 3v ?v H a H a r rn H H w
d
0 Q to 00 Vl 00 ?o ?O ?o N vl V- ON ON M tn N

W
4-i w
[L

V00
l

n

M

cn
00

N

l)

N

f)

l)

l)

M

0

)

-

M

n
N h w w y 0
Q
?, a4
w c4
w ai
w N
o
w cv
w c?
w c?
w «S
w cK
w N
o N
o c?S
w c?
w c0
w c4
w c0
w
a+
3 3 3 °? 3 3 3 3 3 3 °? °? 3 3 3 3 3
,8 ? -o ? ? b -o v •o -c? -d ?
-o ?+
v -u -o -a b
0 -o
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 c
? 0
o 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 Ll ca o 0
6 0
5 0
7 0
6
C7 C7 C7 x C7 C7 C7 6 6 6 x x C7 ( C
p N cn vi ?p ?i ? 00 0, O r- O
QI
N
a.+
a
c
ti
'C
C
ITS
v
d
a:
C
v
N
.fl
c?
h

3
a ? 3

¢ y N
? U y ?Q R3 a

O
O U
b O
„ o
?.o
o U
Y a?i
by y
of M i
'? ?n 3 n
a
oa
?
o o - 3 3 as

a H 3 o O o

cts
3
o
F'
p
w
o
3
n
00.
a
U ¢

ti

3

e

° n C ? En

)
19

U

a

O
a

o

?Wi

b
a?
CL
3
o .
O
3
O
Y 1
is ° 0
? y;
o
>
W
3
a1 o
3
0 > ,
Eo O U
3 3 H? ¢

cd
°

as
y ^ ? p ? .o v, „ n ca ?, U n a?
n Cd u
o

Cd
"0 as

H _

H

w

H

a

3

m

° O

¢ H
ca ?: H , En
? o o a as o c C3 a C,3
m P. c c

4) ,
3
CIS
3

-°

It:$

-°
4)
PG a: E?- E= CU O cis U P1 44 r? O P4 F a H H a; O GG
d
•
ci In %C Ol V7 \O 00 I? tI') tn W)
M

VI
W Q

? H
00
M
W)
M
[?
O
O
00
.N-.
N
00
M
.-.
p
N
O
Cl)
M
v1
N V) m V] V) U2 V1 m V1 V1
Y V]
Y U)
Y N
Y V1
Y V]
Y V]
Y

?' Y Y Y t4 Y Y
cl Y Y Y
w
w ?
w
w
w
w
w
s
; w w w o w w w w w w
F Y Y Y Y Y Y ,~
Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 °? Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3
4
3
3
3

3

3

3
,a
` -o -o -o ? -cs o -c -o -cs b b ? ? v -o b
?? 0 0 0 cri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C7 0 a x C7 o C7 C7 C7 C7 0' C7 C7 C7 C7 0 0

V
N ¢
N
N ?
N 00
N o1
N O
M
M N
M M
M It
M V7
M ?o
M
M 00
M ON
M
a ?,
N
Y
0
0
U
M
°
H
rl-
Table 4. Number of each snecies found within the Groundwater Flats habitat during the 11/99 survev.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 53.1 19.7 53.1 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 45.5 16.9 32 softwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 36.6 13.6 36.6 hardwood/volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 32.8 12.2 32.8 hardwood
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 24.8 9.2 24.8 mostly from 1 plot
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 16.2 6.0 16.2 hardwood
Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 13.1 4.9 13.1 shrub
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 10.7 4.0 10.7 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 5.5 2.0 5.5 hardwood
Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasianthus 3.1 1.2 3.1 hardwood
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 3.1 1.2 3.1 shrub
Red Bay Persea borbonia 3.1 1.2 3.1 hardwood
Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 3.1 1.2 3.1 shrub
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 2.4 0.9 2.4 hardwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2.4 0.9 2.4 hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 2.4 0.9 2.4 softwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia .1.7 0.6 1.7 shrub
Water Oak Quercus nigra 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe 1.4 0.5 1.4 shrub
Alder Alnus serrulata 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Bayberry Myrica heterophylla 1.0 0.4 1.0 shrub
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 0.7 0.3 0.7 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 0.7 0.3 0.7 hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 0.7 0.3 0.7 softwood
Cherrybark Oak Pinus pagoda 0.3 0.1 0.3 hardwood
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Total 268.9 100 255.4
Tahle 5_ Number of each snecies found within the Headwater Slove habitat durinjz the 11/99 survey.
Common name Scientific Name Average
# of
trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac % of total /
ac allowed in
criteria Comments
Black Willow Salix nigra 105 33.1 32 volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 75 23.6 64 planted hardwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 70 22.0 64 volunteer hardwood
Bald Cypress Tazodium distichum 45 14.2 45 planted hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 7.5 2.4 7.5 volunteer hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 7.5 2.4 7.5 planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 2.5 0.8 2.5 planted hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 2.5 0.8 2.5 volunteer hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe sp. 2.5 0.8 2.5 shrub
TOTAL 317.5 100 227.5
Takla. A Mnmlwr nfaach cnariec fnnnd within the Grnundwater Flats habitat during the 4/00 survev.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 86.3 17.8 86.3 hardwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 79.0 16.3 79.0 hardwood/volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 78.7 16.2 78.7 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 77.0 15.9 48.5 softwood
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 22.7 4.7 22.7 mostly from 1 plot
Willow Oak (known) Quereus phellos 21.7 4.5 21.7 hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 17.3 3.6 17.3 hardwood
Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 15.3 3.2 15.3 shrub
Water/Willow Oak Q. nigra/Q. phellos 14.7 3.0 14.7 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 14.3 2.9 14.3 hardwood
Sweetgum Liguidambar styraciflua 12.3 2.5 12.3 hardwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia 9.0 1.9 9.0 shrub
Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 5.7 1.2 5.7 shrub
Red Bay Persea borbonia 5.7 1.2 5.7 hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5.3 1.1 5.3 hardwood
Tulip Poplar Driodendron tulipifera 3.3 0.7 3.3 hardwood
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 3.3 0.7 3.3 softwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 3.3 0.7 3.3 hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 2.3 0.5 2.3 softwood
Alder Alnus serrulata 1.4 0.3 1.4 hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1.3 0.3 1.3 hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe 1.3 0.3 1.3 shrub
Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasianthus 1.3 0.3 1.3 hardwood
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 1.0 0.2 1.0 shrub
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 0.7 0.1 0.7 hardwood
Bayberry Myrica heterophylla 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 0.3 0.1 0.3 softwood
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Total 485.1 100 456.6
10
Tahle 7_ Numher of each snecies found within the Headwater Slone habitat durine the 4/00 survev.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 210.0 34.3 122.5 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 150.0 24.5 61.2 softwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 90.0 14.7 90.0 hardwood/volunteer
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 45.0 7.3 45.0 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 35.0 5.7 35.0 hardwood/volunteer
Water/Willow Oak Q. nigra/Q. phellos 35.0 5.7 35.0 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 17.5 2.9 17.5 hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10.0 1.6 10.0 hardwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia 5.0 0.8 5.0 shrub
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 5.0 0.8 5.0 hardwood/volunteer
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 5.0 0.8 5.0 hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 2.5 0.4 2.5 hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2.5 0.4 2.5 hardwood
Total 612.5 100 436.2
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 1)
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
[phone]
Prepared by:
EcoScience
EcoScience
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
[phone]
November 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................3
' 2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING ........................................... 5
2.1 Monitoring Program ................................................ 5
2.2 Monitoring Results ................................................. 5
2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria . . 10
' 3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ........................................... 11
3.1 Monitoring Program ............................................... 11
' 3.2 Monitoring Results.......... 12
..•.-..••..•••.••••• .................
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria . 14
t 4.0 STREAM MONITORING ................................................ 16
4.1 Initial Monitoring Program ......................................... 16
4.2 Updated Monitoring Program ....................................... 16
' 4.2.1 In-Stream Flows ............................................ 19
4.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes .................................. 19
.
4.2.3 Stream Geometry 19
' 4.3 ...........................................
Summary . 21

' 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT ......... 22
5.1
(January ) .............
Pre-Restoration Conditions 1997 to November 1997
22

' 5.2
5.3 Wetland Construction Activities (November 1997 to January 1998) .........
Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1998 to November 1999) ............ 22
22
' 6.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Revised, Final Monitoring Plan
Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs
' Appendix C: Wetland Vegetation Data

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Site Location .....................................................4
Figure 2: Monitoring Plan ................................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data ............................... 7
Tai ;.e 2: Summary of Vegetation Monitoring Data: Crop '.and .................... 13
Table 3: Summary of Vegetation Monitoring Data: Forest Land ................... 15.
Table 4: Summary of Rainfall and Stream Stage Data ........................... 17
Table 5: Summary of Mitigation Credit Release ................................ 20
2

ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 1)
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
ECOBANK, a private sector mitigation banking company, has established the Barra Farms Cape
' Fear Regional Mitigation Bank (Bank) within the Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin.
The bank comprises 623 acres located along upper reaches of Harrison Creek in Cumberland County
' (Figure 1). Stream and wetland restoration/enhancement activities were completed in the winter of
1997-1998 as described in the detailed mitigation plan. A mitigation banking instrument has also
been prepared through ongoing coordination with the mitigation banking review team (MBRT) as
' outlined in the Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60
FR 12286-12293, 1995).
' The detailed mitigation plan and the MBI details wetland and stream monitoring procedures and
success criteria required for release of compensatory mitigation credits. The monitoring plan
' requires annual monitoring for a five year period and analysis of the data to evaluate success in the
establishment and maintenance of diagnostic stream and wetland parameters. The monitoring plan
and mitigation credit schedule are attached for reference in Appendix A.
' This document represents the Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) for Year 1 of the
' monitoring plan. Monitoring has been performed throughout the 1998 growing season for
hydrology, vegetation, and stream parameters, consisting primarily of a comparison between
hydrology model predictions, reference wetlands, and wetland restoration areas in the Bank.
' Subsequently, the success criteria are analyzed and verified to facilitate issuance of mitigation credit
designated in the MBI at the end of Year 1 monitoring.

L

1 3
u

%

a?' 7i q 1
D• i r . /t • ' ss? ,• i °saa?+ se _ -* 'W,re r -? F ,`_.i•`n
IN- ?• ! , ?, % `.` I
1 V s k }` I ? / i--
CT"
' + '° ?, ' t ,° - ,_ ??-• a 1- s
' ' NC 24
` t 210
FeOf
• '• t ,. , /•, ??.k l ?, •? •'I ? ! ` •,j -runt r ? ti <% \ ' ? ', `n, ,._ ? ? '-..?'o r
Z'z
_ ?• _ -? - `
r• ~I IM {• ? ? rte...- - -___' 4 _ ?'
? • .? /I ' ?,\ i i .r,.n - _ _ may, Mo ?
`\ •, _, t ` • alP, ,? ? ? ` ? ! ? ,,per
-. .»` +i +,? , ? p .4 210 - ,?•O?•??-..
Lama
FafR
41 z
^swap. - ?__ - ?`??'??- i'' ? `•^ .r+?' - •••- ? -ter • • a. _
- -
A I
F7 71
Study Area
i^ 0 1 2 3 Miles ---- ?" ;. =t t` ' E! ' •
0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers < - `? ?- '` Ire' rt ' ?•tiL?s + -,L•
Replodueed with pwvl pion Loontlw NoM Quo inn _ - 1 -• - '?'-?',- - ., '? - _
Atlr and Gazaam. Deloonn Meppkp, im
JLIk
=z<<} Site Location Figure: 1
coScience Barra Farms/Cape Fear Regional
Corpomfion Mitigation Bank Project: ER97047
Cumberland County, North Carolina Date: Dec 1997
a ,

2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
' 2.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
' Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) were located throughout the Bank to
provide representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the four physiographic
landscape areas: 1) uplands; 2) groundwater flats; 3) headwater slope; and 4) riverine floodplain.
' Wetland construction was completed and the monitoring wells placed in January 1998. Figure 2
depicts the approximate location of monitoring wells in the Bank. Two continuous recording
(RDS24) wells were also placed on-site to provide continuous data that can be extrapolated to
' manual recording devices. Monitoring wells were installed and downloaded by ECOBANK
personnel in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-M-3.1, August 1993). The monitoring
' wells are set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
' Five monitoring wells were placed in reference wetlands to compare hydrology between the Bank
and relatively undisturbed wetlands in the region. Three wells are located in the reference
groundwater flats along the northwestern periphery of Barra Farms. Two additional wells are located
in the reference riverine wetland along Colly Creek in the Bushy Lake/Horse Shoe Lake Natural
Area. These wells provide comparative annual hydroperiods within the organic soil flat and riverine
floodplain physiographic areas of the Site. The headwater slope physiographic area will be
interpolated between the two adjacent systems as described in the mitigation plan and the NMI.
' Hydrological samples continue to be collected at weekly intervals on-site and within the reference
sites. The data extending from 14 March 1998 to 30 September 1998 has been utilized in this Year
' 1 AWMR, to cover the 1998 growing season.
2.2 MONITORING RESULTS
' The raw well data is depicted as hydrographs and in tabular format in Appendix B. Wetland
hydrology criteria in number of consecutive days and % of the growing season is also summarized
in Table 1. The water levels show a typical pattern of flooding during the early spring, followed by
' late summer and autumn dry periods. A steady linear interpolation between well readings was
assumed for flooding event calculations. Line intersection at 12 inches below the surface was used
' as the cut off for wetland hydrology, following the regulatory wetland criterion requiring saturation
(free water) within one foot of the soil surface.
' The well data has been subdivided into three wetland physiographic wetland types: 1) groundwater
flats (GF); 2) headwater slopes (HS); and 3) riverine floodplains (SS).
0

5
1

C

I

C
C

C

o co
m a
? a
N i O
Ob
2
m
iz a` o°
0
a- -,
s. m
m ?
m
3 U ?
O U Vl
Y
C
0
m
00
y E-
0 0
?U
-t
C 0 +?
0 C p
4 mZ
S?
L C
0
41
C Ii 0
U
0
ac
ov
U?
? .n
EE
" 3
vU
LL-
v
0
m
wA
ri a
00
WU
cl.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1
Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data
1998 Annual Wetland Monitoring
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Well Number Maximum Percent of the Comments
Consecutive Growing Season
Saturation Days
Groundwater Flat
Mitigation Bank
W4
112
47
FF, located in proximity to backfilled canal
W2 107 45 Former Farmland (FF)
WI 109 45 FF
W 11 108 45 FF, located in proximity to backfilled canal
W7 107 45 FF
W22 105 44 existing Pocosin Vegetation (PV)
W10 105 44 FF, discharge towards headwater slope noted
W20 106 44 FF
W17 105 44 FF, located on fill material in backfilled
ditch
W23 89 37 PV
W21 79 33 PV, end organic soil flat (targeted swamp
forest community)
W5 78 33 FF, mineral soil flat (targeted wet hardwood
forest community)
W12 76 32 FF, mineral soil flat
W6 75 31 FF, mineral soil flat
W14 74 31 FF, mineral soil flat
Average
Reference
Wetland
JB 1 96

1083 40

35 Range: 31% to 47%

existing Forest Vegetation (FV), mineral
soils
J132 88 37 FV, organic soils
J133 95 40 FV, organic soils
Average 89 37 Range: 35% to 40%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1 continued
Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data
1998 Annual Wetland Monitoring
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Well Number Maximum Percent of the Comments
Consecutive Growing Season
Saturation Days
Riverine Floodplain
Mitigation Bank
W15 116 48 existing forest vegetation (FV), upstream
reach, outer floodplain (backwater influence
noted)
W18 90 38 FV, downstream terminus, inner floodplain
(discharge towards stream channel expected)
Average 103 43 Range: 38% to 48%
Reference
Wetland
SS I 113 47 FV, outer floodplain
SS2 101 42 FV, inner floodplain
Average 107 45 Range: 42% to 47%
Headwater Slope
Mitigation Bank
W3 7109 45 former farmland (FF), upper reaches
W9 44 FF, interior slope area
W16 106 44 FV, interior slope
W8 89 37 FV, interior slope
W19 78 33 existing pocosin vegetation (PV), upper
reaches
Average 97 41 Range: 33% to 45%
Reference
hydroperiod'
Average 97 41 Range: 37% to 45%
1: The reference hydroperiod for the headwater slope physiographic area is calculated as the average
hydroperiod exhibited by both the groundwater flat and riverine floodplain.

Groundwater Flats (GF)
' The reference wetland data provides an general indication of the average 1998 wetland hydroperiod
on groundwater flats that support steady state forest structure and organic soils. Data indicates that
' the average hydroperiod on reference groundwater flats in the region encompassed 37% of the
growing season and ranged from 35% to 40% dependent upon landscape position.
' The groundwater flat data indicates that the Bank supported an average wetland hydroperiod
encompassing 40% of the growing season (Table 1). The hydroperiod ranged from 31% to 47%
and appeared to correlate with the extent of existing vegetation cover and soil organic matter content.
' Organic soil flats on former farmland (relatively unvegetated) supported an average hydroperiod
encompassing 45% of the growing season. Organic soil flats that support dense successional
' (pocosin-like) vegetation supported an average wetland hydroperiod of 38%. Mineral soil flats on
former farmland in southwestern and northeastern site peripheries also exhibited hydroperiods
averaging 38% of the growing season.
' Riverine Flood plains
' The reference wetland suggests that the average hydroperiod in relatively undisturbed, small stream
swamps encompasses 45% of the growing season and ranges from 42% to 47% dependent upon
proximity to the stream channel (Table 1). Hydroperiods appear to decrease in proximity to stream
' channels and increase along outer floodplain fringe influenced by riparian groundwater discharge,
the lack of discharge outlets (stream channels), and backwater flooding.
' Riverine floodplains in the Bank supported wetland hydrology averaging 43% of the growing season
and ranged from 38% to 48%. As with the reference wetlands, The primary influence on
' hydroperiod appears to involve the location of the well relative to the stream channel.
Headwater Slopes
' Reference wetland hydroperiods for the headwater slope physiographic area have been simulated by
averaging the hydroperiod exhibited by adjacent riverine floodplains and groundwater flats (see
' Appendix A). The average reference hydroperiod encompassed 41% of the growing season and
ranged from 37% (adjacent groundwater flat) to 45% (adjacent riverine floodplain).
' Based on interpolation between flats and riverine wetland hydroperiods, headwater slopes in the
Bank are projected to support wetland hydroperiods averaging 41% of the growing season and
' ranged from 33% to 45% (Table 1). The range appears to be influenced primarily by landscape
position within the headwater storage area and vegetation cover. Lower hydroperiods (33%)
occurred in an area dominated by early successional or pocosin vegetation (Well #W19) while
hydroperiods in forest and former farmland ranged from 37% to 45%.

9

2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
' Hydrological success criteria are described in detail in Appendix A. In summary, success in the
restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank require saturation (free water) within one foot of the
' soil surface for at least 50% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wetland. This criteria is
applied separately to each of the physiographic areas.
' The reference groundwater flat, riverine floodplain, and headwater slope exhibit wetland hydrology
for a period averaging 37%, 45%, and 41% of the growing season, respectively. In the Bank,
restored wetlands support hydroperiods averaging 40%, 43%, and 41 %, respectively (95% to 105%
of reference).
' At individual locations, the greatest deviation between reference and the Bank occurred at Well #
W 14 (Figure 2 and Table 1). This groundwater flat represents a transitional area from organic soil
to mineral soil proximal to a Carolina Bay sand rim. The wetland hydroperiod at Well #W14
' encompassed 31% of the growing season or 84% of the hydroperiod exhibited by reference (37%
of the growing season). Therefore, restoration of wetland hydrology has been successfully achieved
' throughout the Bank.

F

10

3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
' 3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
' Quantitative sampling of vegetation was carried out in October 1998. Twenty-four permanent,
circular sampling plots (0.05 acre) are located near the monitoring wells in the restored wetland
areas. Figure 2 depicts the approximate location of each vegetation sample plot. The center of each
' plot is permanently established with a labeled, white Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe.
The restoration area is comprised of several community types with overlapping stages in forest
t development, requiring two methods for sampling vegetation. The first method is used in former
crop land and early successional scrub communities, where full tree planting (435 stems/acre) was
' implemented. The second method is used in plots where an established forest canopy is present and
supplemental tree plantings occurred (70 stems/acre).
Method 1: (Former Crop Land. Full Planting)
In planted crop land, all woody species exceeding one inch in diameter at breast height
(DBH) were recorded and measured for height and DBH within each 0.05-acre plot. In some
cases, clumps of multiple black willow (Salix nigra) stems originating from a common root
source were counted as single stems. Stems less than one inch in DBH were also measured
for height and summed to obtain the number of stems on a per acre basis. Average heights
and average DBH were collected to document future growth in Year 2 through 5 of the
monitoring plan.
1
All herbaceous vegetation was recorded and assigned to one of 7 cover classes: 1=0-5%,
2=0.5-1%, 3=1-3%, 4=3-15%, 5=15-33%, 6=33-66%, 7=66-99%. Specific cover values
' were obtained by averaging the class mid-point for each species. Cover classes for all
species was determined by visually estimating the area of ground surface covered by its
vertical projection.
' Method 2: (Forest Areas. Supplemental Planting)
h
t
t
i
suppor
a
ng areas t
This method was used to evaluate forest stands and supplemental plant
multiple vegetative strata. The vegetation profile was divided into four strata:
'
Overstory - trees >4 inches DBH,

' Midstory - trees and shrubs > 1 inch and < 4 inches DBH,
Understory - shrubs and herbs < 1 inch DBH.
Planted Seedlings
Overstory and midstory were recorded by species and DBH. Tree species density and basal
area was calculated separately for the overstory and midstory. Importance values (Rank)
' 11

u
were calculated from relative basal area and relative density. Planted seedlings were
' measured as described above. Cover estimates for the understory elements were estimated
over the entire plot using the cover classes described above.

1

n

3.2 MONITORING RESULTS
The vegetative community at Barra Farms can be separated along a succession continuum of forest
development. Over half of the acreage is in the early stages of old field succession. This area
extends over several different physiographic areas and received a full planting of diagnostic species
at 435 trees/acre. The vegetation is dominated by volunteer herbaceous species that vary in
abundance according to micro-topographical differences and seasonal variation. Hydrophytic
vegetation established during the spring and early summer include sedges (Cyperus spp.), cat tail
(Typha sp.), seedbox (Ludwegia spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus),
and yellow-eyed grass (Xyris spp.). In summer and early fall, developing herbaceous components
include panicum grasses (Panicum spp.), crab grass (Digiteria sp.), horseweed (Erigeron
canadensis), frost aster (Aster pilosus), and dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Complete
species inventories can be found in Appendix C.
Further along the succession continuum, several fallow fields and areas along old drainage ditches
support volunteer trees > 1 inch DBH, such as black willow, sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus). These
areas continue to support dense areas of herbaceous species. Black willow and red maple can be
aggressively invading species, creating competition for other more desirable tree species. Canopy
dominance by these species in certain areas may be a concern and may warrant attention in Years
2 through 5 of the monitoring plan. However, black willow, red maple, and overtopping by
herbaceous species are not posing an imminent threat to diagnostic tree species in the 1998 growing
season. A detailed review concerning competition from herbaceous species should be performed
in the late spring of 1999. The greatest risk of overtopping by herbaceous species and resulting tree
mortality is expected if a drought occurs in early spring.
Former Crop Land, Full Planting
Stocking levels of planted trees and natural recruitment are summarized in Table 2. A total of 18
species, both planted and volunteer were found. The top 8 species include black willow, bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), water tupelo and/or swamp tupelo (Nyssa aquatica, Nyssa biflora),
red maple, cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), swamp cottonwood
(Populus heterophylla) and willow oak (Quercus phellos). The total stocking level averages 733
stems/acre with approximately 360 stems/acre representing planted seedlings. Because 435
stems/acre were planted in the Bank, the survival rate is estimated at approximately 83% after the
first growing season. A large majority of the mortality appears to have occurred in Atlantic white
cedar (AWC, Chamaecyparis thyoides) seedlings; mortality is probably due to overtopping by water
in early spring. The planted AWC seedlings supported negligible above ground woody stems and
the above-ground plant parts resided under water during the spring and early summer.
12

.ri
CCt
O C
Q bA
O
' N ^C ,IS
e? C D
GC ?
Ct, ~ CC
Tr
ed
1

c

?
? 0
>
y
o
o

w c
as c
c0 a
O c
ed c
cC a
? c
c0 c
cd cc
fl. c
cC c
cO a
O c
O a
? c
cC c
ca a
0
ti c. a > a a > a a a n. a > a > n. c >
rp °? M V1 T O 10 00 00 00 00 M M
O
V o0 6 6 ?O cV oo \G 4 fJ C G O C O C O QU
O
E.4 X

'? u ca

Q+ y W
F
v

O u
? r- C*4
M N M M M M
W M M

wa

U z
a°iW F
F ++ z
a

?a 00 ?t M m ?n 00 ?n v d d ^.
p N o0 00 fV O et M (V O O O O O O O O 00

u
° d QQ

w Z
? L I.a
wF
O
a
a
U

w
C? a 00 ?o N d t N t- oo "o d M M M M m
?t/f O M M Q\ M N

V
F

F
cO

. C
CQ U CC d N T
"' lC '?
ca ? 'c
° N N
'd C 'c C

u

d 26
: °

E
c
•
?
C

G
on
.
c.
O a
N
A c a
N N
N
N 0
t: W
•
d N N N
.
'

V ? =
.=
y
C1
V N
'
v y
4V
iV
°
C
C
co
U ?
C
' C
O
'
X ° y
>.
U {
.
7 4
.
7 ?
p
=
= ..
= .. O
'C p
q
cv
N
iC
a K b
O
v, F» z a a a a a U a a : a a a a w c?

a o O `
o
?a
O °
U ccl F
C p N -

c co
t:
N
e`3
G
F
3 a c O U O 3 ?E U C3 c N
° ° °?
U v
m
i
a y i
'
3
¢
° -
F a
i
¢
3 c
oa v
i u 0
a
b
O
w
O
? o
?w
o ?
c o,
N
4: ` U
N ?
x 2
v? N
a
y
0
3 A
b ?
y U O
U M
N =0
X
CJ
o y
? W o
Y o?
y?•o
y
N
O. M .?
..+ W O
U
U •a y
W C £..
O y
tr ?
.a
'?v8
ceps" N c
U
.L nJ• c?
U N ~
W
w ?
? o
? 0 ?
Forest Areas. SupRlemental Planting
Table 3 depicts the stocking levels of existing trees (> 4 inches DBH) combined with planted
seedlings in the forested, supplemental planting areas of the Bank. The total stocking level averages
636 stems/acre. Red maple represents the most abundant over-story species in the forest community,
' accounting for 32% of all stems encountered. Other important species include, bald cypress, loblolly
bay, sweet gum, and swamp tupelo.
3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success in the restoration of wetland vegetation includes the establishment and maintenance of a
' species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria include
a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must
be present, and no species can comprise more than 20 percent (64 stems) of the 320 stem/acre total.
' Softwood species,(ex: loblolly pine, pond pine, and black willow) cannot comprise more than 10
percent (32'stems) of the 320 stem/acre requirement.
' Table 2 and Table 3 depict the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the 320 stem
per acre criterion (column #5). In former crop land, a mean density of 379 diagnostic stems/acre is
' represented across 17 characteristic wetland species (Table 2). In forest areas, 426 trees and planted
seedlings/acre are represented across 14 diagnostic species. The 379 stem/acre (crop land) and 426
stem/acre (forest area) totals exceed the 320 stem/acre requirement stated in the monitoring plan.
In addition, the 14 characteristic wetland species sampled exceeds the 5-species minimum diversity
stated in the monitoring plan. Therefore, current stocking levels meet the vegetation success criteria.

'
14

1
1 ?
GC
A ti1D
? ? ea
M ? b O
' a °o
ACt a a
RS ?
W
it
CC
CA
0
3
O
H O

U fr
,??, lr
a°i V
?i V
a°?
•p 4?
? {r
? V
? I..
a°?i ?
'b
?
'o
'o 1
7 e > > ° c c

0

0

0

o

o o

>

o

o

n ro

a
ca
0,
ca
a
O O eh O O O O O ?O ?D O h •-+ M
.9 •L V1 v1 N o0 eF h h h N O M N O
y O
E
>
w
o
U
0

u u

¢
L D ? M c h O O O h h et M M O N

^o o U

? 3 u
a z
V ? ?

'fl h V1 M M h h h h O In O
i \O
C u w ell a 00 un ri d O O r g
w
y w
a
woo a
R ._ a
w ?{ ? D

M v 00 r- m M h O O O h h N M M O M
u d ? W O
N \0 h ?°
w
bA
C4

?a
F ?
7
C .y.. C

E, W cya G y •? C 'G ? ? c? i

¢
7
a
z
z
a
"
O
= 115
a
O
"
C u . E w
O

Lu ?
?
? M
C
x
t

I ?
0

^

7
F

d
`

d
>s

.G

.
C

U
e
a
p,

V
C

U
-

Q
b ,G

l R 0

l

r

° Oc

G 0

C ?

CC
M
Oc
F
F
p
N
>
>

N
C
a ,S A Cn H Jo a ¢ 3 co ¢ O 3
0
VCS 3
G W
0
a?
0
? i
? a
N
oE°.3
v`i N
w ?.M..
O
50
O b
O
M O aU+
b ti
y 'V O
? R M
N w N
o w
o
a o
? b
C6 M ..nr
N
W 3
U O O
Cc)
U •? ti
O ;? y
O A O
c
N U
u ? C
U
U
h F+» ?
U W cu
y U vi
o ?

4.0 STREAM MONITORING
' The stream monitoring plan and success criteria are currently being negotiated as part of the MBRT
' process. Two monitoring plans have been developed; the initial plan is included in the detailed
mitigation plan. The updated monitoring plan is included in Appendix A and has been incorporated
into the most recent draft of the MBI.
' 4.1 INITIAL MONITORING PLAN
The initial monitoring plan calls for periodic measurement of stream stage and rainfall in the Bank.
' One staff gauge has been placed on central sections of the mitigation stream reach and the second
staff gauge is located approximately 300 feet below outfall from the Bank. Rain gauges have been
' placed at open locations within central portions of the Bank. Stream stage and rainfall have been
measured weekly throughout the monitoring period. Table 4 depicts the stream stage and rainfall
data during the report period.
' The channel supported continuous flows during the spring and early summer. On June 9, stream
flows were absent; however, numerous pools of standing water and saturation of the developing
' stream channel bed were observed. The cessation of stream flows corresponded closely to the period
of rapid groundwater draw-down observed within groundwater flat portions of the Bank. Wetland
' hydroperiods ended within a majority of wetland monitoring wells during the week of June 3 to June
9. In addition, flows ceased within the reference stream reach during this period. On September 8,
stream flows returned to the Bank and the reference reach after relatively large rainfall events in the
area.
' The initial monitoring plan proposed fulfillment of success criteria if near-permanent stream flows
are established within the Bank. Intermittent flow may occur during periods of groundwater draw-
down, generally confined to summer months. Insufficient data has been collected to fully verify
' success criteria. However, assuming that flows continue throughout the fall and winter months of
1998/99, the channel will have supported near-permanent flows and developing in-stream aquatic
' habitat for 302 days, or 83% of the year.
4.2 UPDATED MONITORING PLAN
' The updated monitoring plan has been developed based on consultation with the MBRT to provide
data sufficient to support first order stream restoration credit. The current monitoring plan, included
in Appendix A, calls for measurement of in-stream flows, measurement of stream geometry, and
' measurement of biological stream attributes.

16

A °y o
aio a ?

CI 'S

d ..
' H G ? W

o
' ? c
C? it
S
?I

1
e+1 to tn tn vn O O V O O O 8 to to
O O O O O O O O O cV cV

., a N to to kn tn g g O
? O
t O
to S g to ,r,
W
A r+

? i i i N N
O r-
O N
O O O O
C o
O O
O
N
cV
C
?

a
in kn to kn S S
O
S
°
S
g
"'
N N r- N lkn V1 N
i ^- O O O O O O ^- O O N N
N
y
in
tf)

O

O

O

to

O

O

O

O

O

O
N N .6 6 6 6 M G C C O
6a
0
A
?
ao as
e? u

? y

u
v
?
v>
o
v,
v?
0
0
0
0
°
„,
o
O
o
o
O
O

? - W l`- v'? d' V'1 N o0 0o M C? N G? oo l?
'? er eh to ?n 'kn to 00 00

CO
A
1
1
1
1
1
1

1 Ao?
0
a?
?c

1 ?
C ? C C
? O O

1 ? ="w

0

00 ea

cc
Q
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

A
? N O O O O ? S
w u
C ? ;;
?
C
d'
?n
C
a

N
O
O
O
O
O
O
C O ON 10 \D d

R
?
A
0
a? e
e
u
?
,Op
v ?
c.

v y O 0 06 O ?
"' O 6 ? 00 V1 m

l
01 -• 00 O, vl O
y 000 000
Q

H

I I
J

u

n
n
n

4.2.1 In-Stream Flows
The updated monitoring plan calls for the placement of two continuous monitored stream gauges to
compare in-stream flows between reference and the Bank. The gauge data will be reported as mean
daily flows for velocity (ft/second) and discharge (CFS) in tabular and graphic format. In-stream
flow measurements must indicate that the mitigation stream reach supports average annual, mean
daily flows per unit of drainage area equal to, or exceeding the average annual, mean daily flows per
unit of drainage area within the reference stream reach. Due to potential rainfall differences within
each watershed, a five percent deviation in average annual, mean daily flows between the reference
and mitigation stream reaches will be allowed by the MBRT.
The reference stream reach supports an approximate 6.7 mil drainage area while the mitigation
stream reach supports an approximate 2.5 mil drainage area (37% of reference). Therefore, average
annual, mean daily flows in the mitigation reach must equal to or exceed 32% of the average annual,
mean daily flows in reference.
Stream gauges will be placed in the Bank and in the reference stream reach in early December 1998.
The gauges will be downloaded and the data analyzed for the Year 2 AWMR, when sufficient stream
flow data has been collected to evaluate restoration success. Therefore, release of stream credit will
begin at the end of Year 2 monitoring as depicted in the revised mitigation credit release schedule
in Table 5.
4.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes
In the updated plan, biological stream attributes will be measured in the Bank and in reference
between April 15 and May 15 of each year. Biological monitoring will be used to compare in-stream
species diversity between the mitigation stream reach and the reference stream reach. Success
criteria for stream restoration will require that the type and number of species populations identified
in the mitigation reach must be equal to, or increasing towards, the type and number of species
identified in the reference reach in each successive monitoring year. However, because the Bank has
a developing stream reach, allowances may be given and justified when evaluating future data. Upon-
approval of the MBI, biological surveys will be initiated in April 1999 and included in the Year 2
AWMR.
4.2.3 Stream Geometry
Stream geometry will be measured in central sections of the mitigation stream reach. The reach has
been staked in the field by permanent PVC pipes and markers at 25-foot intervals. The reach extends
for 300 feet along the restored channel. Stream geometry measurements to be collected include a
channel plan view, three channel cross-sections, pebble counts, and a water surface profile. Data
compiled will include : 1) cross-sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth; 4) average
width; 5) width/depth ratio; 6) meander wavelength; 7) beltwidth; 8) water surface slope; 9)
sinuosity; and 10) stream substrate composition.
19

x
z
as
vW, z
G
az?
V
0.0 O ?
MCI
O W
z
zAo
W Oz?
? ?Ea
W
OzU
MdM
Frl
y b
i
VQU?
U V d
_R m .8 C14
E M
U3U?
O O O N
ON Ic ?
-. ,-. 00
C14f NI 't
I, 00 1 Ell „I I 1 00 (ON
NI
y +?+ ?O ?O ?t D ?O et 00
L ^O M M N M M N ?h
3 U

w?>
o
^
...
° ° ?

ton ..

° s

? 00

Rom„
r
:
kn
tn O
W)
-
'r,
--
O
-,
O
v
y
C -. -. N
?
U?

"C O
00
00 00
ON
O
O
pN
S
u ++ O? a\ C, O O
? ?
O CL A N M ? ? ? .
? .
.

U U U U U
h
cl)
U
L h
COD
U h
coi
U y
(n
U w
(A
U
/H4

J Con

W °° 0 w w w w 'S

? a) cz
a o °
c?i
cYi
?
?ri
.r p t.
O+ w. w. w
?
V
O O O ? N M ? V7
? N M M M M M M
N
ctg
O
C
O
a
3
U
y
0
L
W ?
N y
y, U
N ?
y
C
cts
0
?L
>4 ;
0
w ?
o
U ?
U ?
a
c
abi t.
U .
? y
o s
3
L y
rL Qy
? N
U ?
w O
C
Stream geometry measurements will be incorporated into the fluvial geomorphic classification
' scheme (Rosgen stream classification system). The channel and flood prone area must support
characteristics supporting an E, C, or DA stream type to fulfill the success criteria.
' Baseline conditions were assessed in May 1997 to characterize the former stream channel prior to
restoration activities. However, lack of regular stream flow, organic matter accumulation, and debris
' deposition obscured evidence of a defined stream channel, bankfull cross-section, or stable pattern
within the Bank. Therefore, the system could not be classified based upon fluvial geomorphology
(pattern, dimension, and profile).
4.3 SUMMARY
' Success criteria for stream restoration has been subdivided into three primary components: in-stream
flows, stream geometry, and biological stream attributes. Insufficient data has been collected to
evaluate success criteria for the Year 1 AWMR. Therefore, data will be collected and analyzed for
' the Year 2 AWMR. Release of stream credit will begin at the end of Year 2 monitoring as depicted
in the revised mitigation credit release schedule in Table 5.

L

n

21
n
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT
' The following discussion provides photographic evidence and abrief summary of wetland attributes
that have developed in the Bank during the first year after restoration.
' A photographic database has been developed in the Bank and in reference wetlands. Twenty three
stations have been photographed weekly to monthly throughout the 1998 growing season.
' Additional photographs have been collected that exhibit conditions at the Bank prior to restoration
and during construction activities. The entire photographic database is available for review upon
request. Referenced photographs are attached to the end of this section.
5.1 PRE-RESTORATION CONDITIONS (January 1997 to November 1997)
' The 623-acre Bank is located on lower portions of a broad coastal plain interstream divide which
includes the historic origin of Harrison Creek. Adjacent flats and ridges comprise a watershed
encompassing approximately 9.8 square miles (mil) of land with groundwater and surface water
' discharging from these flats and terraces towards the Bank. A majority of the Bank was cleared,
ditched, and drained in the last 30 years with wetlands and streams effectively eliminated. The
' drainage network included approximately 100,000 linear feet (ft) of ditches and canals (Photograph
1-2). The drainage area that historically flowed through the Bank was diverted into constructed
canals which bypassed Harrison Creek and the riverine wetland corridor. Drainage networks
' effectively eliminated stream and wetland functional attributes in the Bank (Photograph 3-4).
5.2 WETLAND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (November 1997 to January 1998)
' Restoration activities included placement of impervious plugs and backfilling of all ditches and
canals in the Bank (Photograph 5-6). Former canal flows from the upper watershed were diverted
' into the headwater slope physiographic area of the Bank through construction of intermittent
drainageways (Photograph 7-8). The headwater slope and former floodplain were reconnected
through berm removal and cleaning of the relict stream channel. Soil surfaces on former crop land
' were scarified to increase microtopography and surface water storage (Photograph 9a-10a).
Subsequently, the site was planted with 192,000 diagnostic tree seedlings as detailed in the
' mitigation plan (Photograph 9b-10b).
5.3 POST-RESTORATION CONDITIONS (January 1998 to October 1998)
In January 1998, surface water from the upper watershed inundated the Bank. Depth of water
generally ranged from saturation to elevations approximately 4 feet above the soil surface. Due to
' the extent of inundation and flow velocities, two canal plugs in northern reaches of the Bank were
blown out during this period and subsequently reconstructed to prevent overtopping by surface water.
' Inundation and influent surface waters generally continued from January through early June
(Photograph 11-12). Blooms of algae and large populations of amphibians and fish developed
within the Bank during this period. Characteristic species associated with aquatic wetland habitats
' 22

n
1

0
Lam'

included sunfish (Lepomis sp.), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus),
grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer),
pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys
guttata), and water snake (Nerodia sp.). Fish populations became stranded in isolated pools during
the summer and attracted a large population of wetland dependent avifauna to the Bank. On 9 July
1998, over 1000 coastal birds were observed feeding in desiccating pools, including great egret
(Casmerodius albus), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green heron
(Butorides striatus), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), and merlin (Falco columbarius). Black bear
(Ursus americanus) also frequent protected portions of the Bank.
Photograph 13 provides a comparison of surface water conditions between the wetland restoration
area and adjacent prior converted farmland that continues to support drainage networks. The
photograph was taken approximately 2 months after the drainage network was removed and
watershed drainage was diverted into the Bank.
Due to drainage redirection into the historic origin of Harrison Creek, significant stream flows of
greater than 20 cubic feet per second (CFS) were initiated in the headwater slope and riverine
floodplain physiographic areas of the Bank during the spring of 1998 (Photograph 14-15). The
historic stream exhibited evidence of channel development during the spring and early summer
months (Photograph 16-17). During an MBRT site visit in the early spring of 1997 (pre-restoration
condition), the former stream corridor was dry and lacked distinct evidence of an existing stream
channel.
Photographs 18-23 depict a chronological sequence of wetland surface hydrology at Station #11 as
depicted in Figure 2. The Station is located at a constructed intermittent drainageway that serves as
the primary infall from the watershed into the Bank. The view generally parallels the primary
diversion canal that was plugged and backfilled during wetland construction. The constructed
intermittent drainageway extends perpendicular across the bottom of the photograph. Photograph
23 was taken at a 90 degree angle to photographs 18-22 to provide a view of the constructed
drainageway in the downstream direction. Influent surface waters inundated the area from January
through early June of 1998 (Photograph 18-19). In late June (Photograph 20-21), rapid groundwater
draw-down and cessation of surface water inputs occurred during a drought period. However,
surface water inputs occurred after periodic storms in August/early September with relatively
constant flows re-establishing in September (Photograph 22-23).
Photographs 24-29 depict a chronological sequence within the reference (relatively undisturbed)
' groundwater flat wetland. Similar to the Bank, reference wetlands were inundated until early June
(Photograph 24-25). In June, the water table dropped over two feet below the soil surface in
' 23

C?
0
1
1

reference (Photograph 26-27). Surface water hydrology has not re-established in reference during
the month of September (Photograph 28-29).
As depicted in the chronological sequence, herbaceous wetland vegetation began to colonize the site
after inundation ceased in late June. Characteristic hydrophytic species include panicum grasses,
sedges, cat tail, seedbox, knotweed, Ludwegia, and wool-grass. In wetland restoration areas, planted
trees exhibited, on average, an 83% survival rate. Survival rates were highest among seedlings that
supported well developed above-ground stems extending more than 3 feet above the soil surface
(primarily bald cypress, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, and oak species). Atlantic white cedar
seedlings supported little or no above ground stems; therefore, the extent of inundation appears to
have induced mortality of greater than 70% for this planted species.
In summary, the bank developed wetland habitat that exhibited hydrological characteristics similar
to the reference wetlands. Functional attributes exhibited include long term surface water storage,
energy dissipation, retention of nutrients and particulates, and establishment of characteristic wetland
species populations. Although isolated pockets of emergent wetlands may develop, a majority of
the Bank appears to support hydroperiods and successional patterns conducive to establishment of
forested habitat.
The Bank has fulfilled success criteria for development and maintenance of wetland hydrology and
wetland vegetation for 1998 (Year 1 AWMR). Table 5 provides a summary of credit release through
November 1998, contingent upon approval of the MBI.
Insufficient data has been collected within the Bank and within reference to evaluate success criteria
for stream restoration. Therefore, data will be collected and analyzed to evaluate stream hydrology,
geometry, and biology for the Year 2 AWMR (November 1999).
24
11

1
1
1
1
1
t
Photograph 13: Post-restoration condition: comparison of surface water storage in the
restored wetlands and adjacent farmlands that continue to support drainage
networks.
k'?ta+
PANORAMIC VIEW SHOWING RESTORED PHASE I (FAR LEFT)
ADJACENT TO PHASE 11 LAND STILL IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (FAR RIGHT
(JANUARY, 1998)

Photograph 1 - 2: Pre-restoration condition: constructed ditches and effective drainage.
Photograph 3 - 4: Pre-restoration condition: crop land and lack of wetland functional
attributes.

Photoaraph 5 - 6: Wetland construction: backfilling of ditches during wetland construction.

i
PhotoLyranh 7 - 8: Wetland construction: construction of ephemeral dramageways.
i

r
--
f
Photograph 9a - 10a: Wetland construction: scarification of soils and formation of surface

Photograph 9b - 10b: Wetland construction: Planted seedlings

Photograph II - 12: Post-restoration condition: inundation of the bank from influent flows in
the upper watershed.
STATION 10 5/31/93

I

Photograph 14 - 15: Post-restoration condition: restored stream flows within the mitigation
stream reach.
C

BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK

1

C

Photograph 16 - 17: Post-restoration condition: restored stream flows within the mitigation
stream reach.

i
Photograph 18-19: Post-restoration condition: Wetland surface water hydrologic patterns in
?1__ D--], -, W-11 41 1 A--;I 1 nnQ
STATION 11 4/ iwia

Photograph 20-21: Post-restoration condition: Wetland surface water hydrologic patterns in
the Bank at Well #11, July 1998.

STATION 11 7/29/98

.
? • ?b;cam`
? '
k
k

x ]err
r o f ?,T o ?"?M?FF ;

r,

STATION 11 9/19/98
Photograph 22-23: Post-restoration condition: Wetland surface water hydrologic patterns in
?t__ n,__1_ - A[7_11 111 1 1!1!10

I

Photograph 24-25: Post-restoration condition: Wetland surface water hydrologic patterns in
the reference (relatively undisturbed) groundwater flat wetland, April
1998.
STATION 21 4/21!913

0

Photograph 26-27: Post-restoration condition: Wetland surface water hydrologic patterns in
the reference (relatively undisturbed) groundwater flat wetland, July 1998.
STATION 21 7/29/921

L

Photograph 28-29: Post-restoration condition: Wetland surface water hydrologic patterns in
the reference (relatively undisturbed) groundwater flat wetland, September
1998.
STATION 21 9/30/98
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

11

APPENDIX A
REVISED, FINAL
MONITORING PLAN
26

1
1
1
1
1.0 REVISED. FINAL MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan will consist of a comparison between hydrology model predictions, reference
streams and wetlands, and restoration areas on the Site. Stream restoration monitoring will be
performed through analysis of in-stream flows, stream geometry, and biological stream attributes.
Wetland monitoring will entail analysis of two primary parameters: vegetation and hydrology.
Monitoring of restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success criteria are
fulfilled.
1.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
After hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will be
designed and placed in. accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing
Monitorina Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) will be installed at the Site to provide
representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the three physiographic
landscape areas (Figure 2). Four monitoring wells will also be placed within the reference wetland
site in similar landscape positions, where available. Three continuous recording (RDS24) wells will
also be installed on-site to provide continuous data that can be extrapolated to manual recording
devices.
' Hydrological sampling will be performed on-site and within reference during the growing season (17
March to 12 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within the
' designated physiographic area (EPA 1990). In general, the wells will be sampled weekly through
the Spring and early Summer and intermittently through the remainder of the growing season, if
' needed to verify success.
1.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using a potential combination of three
' different methods: 1) regulatory wetland hydrology criteria; 2) reference groundwater modeling; and
3) reference wetland sites.
' Regulatory Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil
surface for 12.5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In some instances,
the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between 5 and 12.5% of the growing season.
' Reference Groundwater Model
The reference groundwater model forecasts that the wetland hydroperiod in interior areas of the Site
will average 22% of the growing season in early successional phases. As steady state forest
' conditions develop, the average wetland hydroperiod is forecast to encompass 40% of the growing
season. Over the 31 year modeling period, the annual hydroperiod fluctuated from less than 12.5%
to over 44% dependent upon rainfall patterns and successional phase. In addition, the on-site
' Page 1 of 5

u
' landscape includes diverse wetland geomorphology, especially near uplands and the stream channel,
which are not characterized by the model.
' Due to wide fluctuations in modeled annual hydroperiod (<12-44+%), the groundwater model cannot
provide a specific hydrology success criteria above the regulatory criterion (12.5%) on an annual
basis. A specific success criteria such as a 22% target hydroperiod will fail in 50% of the years
' sampled. A success criteria of 12.5% (the regulatory criteria) will also fail in 10% of the years
sampled in reference wetlands.
Reference Wetland Sites
Four monitoring wells will be placed in the groundwater flats reference wetland located in the
northwestern periphery of Barra Farms. Wells will be also be placed in a riverine reference wetland
in the Bushy Lake/Horse shoe Lake natural area dependent upon contact with the North Carolina
Park and Recreation Service. These wells will provide annual hydroperiods on the organic soil flat,
and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Site. The headwater slope physiographic area may
be interpolated between the two systems. Transition zones from uplands towards the wetland interior
will not be represented. Therefore, these wells will provide comparative information on interior
wetlands only.
The hydrology success criteria for this Site will require saturation (free water) within one foot of the
soil surface for at least 50% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wetland.
Based on groundwater models, average wetland hydroperiods in groundwater flats will exhibit a
' steady, non-linear increase from 22% to 40% of the growing season during forest (post-farmland)
development. This trend includes a hypothetical reduction in hydraulic conductivities and a 50%
increase in surface water storage through the first 15 years of wetland development. Therefore, a
' goal of 50 +/-% hydroperiods relative to reference wetlands is warranted for the five year monitoring
period. This 50% goal may not apply in non-organic soils as evapotranspiration may play a greater
role in early successional hydroperiods than surface water storage.
' 1.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA guidelines
' presented in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general discussion of the
monitoring program.
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 cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
' ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 31 after each growing
' season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
Page 2 of 5
P
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37051 xt

?
R.
• WETS Stati on : FAYETTEVILL E, NC3017 CREAT ION DATE: 6 /24/96
Latitude: 3504 Longi tude: 07 852 Elevation: 100
State FIPS /County (FIPS): 37051 County Name: Cumberland
Start yr.
--------- - 1961
------- End yr.
--------- - 1990
---------
-
-
Temperat
ure ------- ------------------
Precipitation ------ ------ ?
(Degrees F.) (Inches)
------- ------------------
30% chance ------
avg ------ I
will have 1# ofj avg
------ - ------- -------? -------- --------- jdaysl total
Month avg avg avg avg less more Iw/.11 snow
daily daily than than orl fall
max min I imorel
----------
January -------
51.5 ---------
29.1 ---------
40.3 --------
3.74 ---------
2.71 ---------
I 4.40 ------
7 ------
0.7 ?
February 55.1 31.5 43.3 3.77 2.54 4.51 6 0.6
March 64.1 39.2 51.7 4.07 2.91 4.81 7 I 0.6
April I 73.5 47.6 60.5 2.93 ( 1.69 3.56 5 0.0
May 80.4 56.5 68.5 3.52 2.51 4.17 6 0.0
June 86.8 64.7 75.7 4.22 2.74 5.07 6 0.0
July 89.7 69.0 79.4 5.51 3.95 6.51 8 0.0
August 88.3 68.2 78.3 5.61 3.79 6.71 7 0.0
September 83.4 61.6 72.5 4.25 2.20 5.37 5 0.0
October 74.0 48.6 61.3 2.86 1.54 3.49 4 0.0
November 65.5 39.9 52.7 2.92 I 1.71 3.54 4 0.0
December
---------- 55.5
------ 32.2
- ------- 43.8
------- 3.31
-------- 2.30
-------- ( 3.93
-------- 5 0.4
Annual
------
--- -----
?
--- ----- ----- ------ 42.89 49.68 -- ----
-
Average
---------- -
--
72.3
------- - -------
I 49.0
----
-- ?--
60.7
------- --------
------
- -------- I
------ _
-------
------ i----
-- I ------
----

-Total
- --------
-----
------- -
-----
------- ?
----- I
------- -
46.69
-------- --------
------
-------- --------
------
-------- ---- I
70 ------?
2.3
------
GROWING SEASON DATES
----------------------
---------------------
Probability
---------------------
50 percent *
70 percent *
------------------------------------------------------
Temperature
-----------------------------------------------------
24 F or higher 28 F or higher 32 F or higher
----------------- ----------------- I -----------------
Beginning and Ending Dates
Growing Season Length
3/ 1 to 11/30
274 days
3/18 to 11/15
242 days
3/30 to 11/ 1
216 days
2/23 to 12/ 6
287 days
3/14 to 11/19
251 days
3/25 to 11/ 6
225 days
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning
and Ending dates.
total 1933-1996 prcp
Station : NC3017, FAYETTEVILLE
------- Unit = inches
yr
--- jan
---- feb
----- mar
----- apr
----- may
----- jun jul aug sep Oct nov dec annl

33
3.44
4.85
1.87
5.06
5.52 -----
1.42 -----
9.08 -----
3.69 -----
4.05 -----
0.04 -----
0.77 -----
0.25 -----
40.04
34 1.49 3.36 5.08 2.92 3.87 3.02 5.69 3.33 3.11 0.82 5.01 2.20 39.90
1 of 4 2/2/98 12:55 PM
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres. usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37051. txt
A
35 2.87 3.37
36 5.12 5.35
37 6.38 5.37
38 1.99 0.60
39 3.54 7.41
40 3.90 2.68
41 1.63 2.76
42 2.13 2.85
43 3.91 0.85
44 5.03 6.48
45 1.15 3.90
46 3.25 0.81
47 3.48 0.51
48 2.57 4.85
49 1.39 M2.81
50 2.49 1.09
51 1.74 1.50
52 2.53 5.07
53 2.35 3.71
54 4.21 1.12
55 3.07 2.39
56 1.89 6.66
57 2.23 3.94
58 4.17 3.99
59 2.70 4.64
60 5.69 5.61
61 3.57 4.84
62 3.59 2.72
63 4.69 2.80
64 5.15 5.78
65 1.89 5.66
66 5.61 3.30
67 3.32 4.59
68 3.98 0.63
69 2.10 3.62
70 2.31 3.68
71 4.70 5.38
72 5.83 4.26
73 3.42 6.58
74 2.90 5.73
75 5.72 5.45
76 3.44 1.29
77 4.04 1.55
78 5.25 0.87
79 3.60 4.11
80 3.77 1.77
81 0.80 2.46
82 6.31 5.26
83 2.44 6.60
84 2.19 4.82
85 4.49 5.02
86 1.29 2.15
87 7.84 4.60
88M3.44 1.67
89 2.20 3.72
90 2.21 2.22
91 4.07 0.98
92 2.25 2.38
93 5.15 2.26
94 4.49 2.78
95 5.22 3.98
96
Notes
2.95 2.24 2.40 1.59 3.48
6.20 M6.09 M1.12 5.75 9.84
2.24 5.36 0.55 3.13 3.20
1.72 6.81 3.60 5.67 6.50
3.05 4.55 3.16 5.91 9.92
3.27 3.68 3.60 3.52 3.52
4.78 4.70 0.85 7.16 7.38
7.23 1.55 2.79 4.61 4.59
6.20 2.72 2.82 3.00 13.35
6.41 4.36 3.90 1.45 4.85
1.85 2.53 1.41 4.63 5.54
3.62 6.41 8.24 M2.36 7.33
3.30 6.10 2.10 1.97 4.55
M3.35 4.73 M3.11 3.85
1.99 5.03 4.80 7.24 2.49
3.16 0.32 M4.50 4.81 M8.67
3.15 2.97 1.72 6.68 4.25
6.45 2.52 1.98 4.90 4.35
4.96 2.35 4.54 3.79 3.28
3.55 4.13 3.63 3.13 4.09
2.23 2.53 3.90 5.42 8.84
2.82 2.11 2.43 2.27 4.36
5.97 1.61 3.72 7.32 4.32
3.87 4.45 6.66 6.95 2.12
5.76 5.39 4.56 4.96 11.39
M2.57 3.51 3.99 2.75 8.85
3.70 4.96 2.60 5.27 4.24
4.01 2.17 2.47 6.03 3.75
3.23 2.07 4.89 3.94
4.90 2.63 1.88 5.92 7.05
6.65 2.51 1.77 9.33 9.88
3.24 0.99 4.93 2.05 2.74
0.86 2.58 3.73 4.25 9.14
2.27 2.27 1.72 2.60 5.88
4.15 4.62 3.79 9.40 6.12
3.51 3.25 1.20 4.46 6.52
6.72 3.70 2.89 1.57 4.52
3.46 2.27 3.86 2.67 7.35
4.74 7.22 3.34 5.30 3.30
3.83 2.20 5.04 4.25 9.05
5.76 2.27 3.69 1.99 9.08
2.82 0.18 6.75 3.51 2.37
6.42 0.98 4.35 4.00 1.47
4.17 5.80 3.70 5.72 5.73
3.41 2.65 3.54 3.26 4.97
5.93 3.61 1.77 6.16 2.64
1.54 0.35 4.05 1.89 6.17
2.23 3.08 3.84 4.39 4.94
8.87 4.25 0.63 5.32 2.19
5.45 3.52 5.05 2.28 8.90
1.47 1.53 3.99 3.86 7.43
1.81 0.47 2.49 1.40 5.34
4.25 2.80 1.84 1.91 1.89
3.50 2.49 5.90 6.46 6.33
5.69 6.27 6.43 6.92 5.09
3.45 4.08 3.54 0.44 5.66
4.68 2.48 3.01 8.65 7.39
2.53 4.29 2.69 5.31 0.60
5.07 4.76 0.82 1.57 2.89
5.63 1.05 2.10 7.21 6.81
5.83 0.59 4.07 15.94 6.39
Data missing in any month ha
Data missing for all days in
4.36 8.24 1.05 M2.77 M3.59 38.91
11.70 5.61 5.37 3.19 M4.78 70.12
7.76 1.16 1.36 2.47 1.84 40.82
2.56 8.09 1.59 2.70 2.74 44.57
5.64 3.63 1.80 1.65 2.27 52.53
6.90 2.24 0.22 2.57 2.69 38.79
3.25 1.14 1.40 1.32 3.26 39.63
16.02 2.73 1.99 0.62 M3.76 50.87
2.80 2.97 0.27 1.90 4.19 44.98
2.95 3.01 2.99 2.47 43.90
2.26 8.69 2.04 0.53 5.46 39.99
6.44 2.70 M1.04 3.93 0.96 47.09
7.43 6.55 2.54 7.27 1.56 47.36
2.25 5.90 3.05 7.35 4.40 45.41
12.59 2.55 1.64 M3.30 1.37 47.20
1.78 4.18 4.51 0.63 2.45 38.59
4.13 3.01 1.42 M2.15 2.92 35.64
6.40 6.98 0.70 4.45 2.63 48.96
2.49 5.53 0.08 3.97 5.77 42.82
5.14 0.66 4.80 1.69 3.10 39.25
12.37 10.05 1.98 2.34 0.72 55.84
7.60 5.80 3.56 1.89 2.96 44.35
5.23 10.06 1.42 7.56 4.06 57.44
7.22 0.87 5.69 0.81 3.16 49.96
3.52 2.63 5.77 1.87 3.13 56.32
5.01 5.83 1.38 0.88 1.46 47.53
9.63 2.12 1.82 2.75 2.95 48.45
3.05 6.91 1.64 6.38 3.47 46.19
3.58 3.71 0.49 6.31 3.00 38.71
6.08 4.76 9.26 0.96 3.86 58.23
1.65 2.23 2.29 2.02 0.54 46.42
7.78 4.80 1.52 1.58 3.55 42.09
9.51 4.14 1.18 2.98 4.02 50.30
6.46 0.00 5.48 4.07 2.67 38.03
5.52 4.09 1.37 2.48 3.26 50.52
4.81 3.35 3.11 2.86 2.19 41.25
4.42 2.44 6.23 1.18 1.60 45.35
6.59 4.94 1.45 5.01 3.69 51.38
5.85 1.66 0.48 0.32 6.36 48.57
10.69 5.96 1.12 3.00 4.71 58.48
1.12 10.28 1.52 2.20 4.70 53.78
3.66 2.84 4.65 4.06 5.00 40.57
9.47 3.32 4.03 1.79 4.73 46.15
3.45 3.11 0.81 5.72 2.30 46.63
1.46 11.32 1.10 6.16 1.64 47.22
2.46 7.91 4.99 2.52 2.55 46.08
6.73 1.24 2.02 0.68 4.50 32.43
3.69 2.02 3.89 1.78 4.00 45.43
2.48 4.71 1.64 2.78 7.73 49.64
5.40 5.14 1.73 0.29 1.37 46.14
3.94 0.26 5.56 4.92 2.01 44.48
10.30 1.35 2.67 4.05 3.14 36.46
7.46 3.55 0.75 1.98 2.92 41.79
7.53 6.92 1.77 2.37 0.85 49.23
5.99 12.19 3.83 2.20 M3.27 63.80
7.54 0.09 7.34 2.08 2.68 41.33
4.76 3.89 1.18 3.44 3.24 47.77
5.04 1.80 1.70 6.38 2.50 37.47
2.17 3.76 5.23 3.10 2.54 39.32
6.25 2.58 3.44 2.46 2.55 47.35
3.25 3.13 5.71 3.32 1.62 59.05
Te a 'M' flag
a month is blank
2 of 4 2/2/98 12:55 PM
1

APPENDIX B
1 WETLAND HYDROLOGY DATA AND HYDROGRAPHS

n
I

27

t

L

1

C
0'96

ll M
(y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N o o o o
C o
C o (n o
C o
l o
N lq
N
(O t0 (O (C (O (O CO (O tp to 0
r 61 -
r W
e- (7 C7 W
r to
r M (f
- • r r
LL N O o O M O O O (g Q Q M (g 0 a g o O O O O O O O tO O O O O
U ? (o 6 co Q CG co (G O r r N M C7 (o 0 w
1 N N
I N N
1 N
I N m 6 r
LL N 0 0 0 0, 00 (q O tq to O ul (O ((f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
. O
.
(3 ?? (o (o CG (o (o (o n r; ? O ? ? O Or N N M C°o M O O COD r N
U. O
N
0
0
0
O!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O O
(h O O O O to Iq O tq

o l(') O
in

C7
$
W
(o
(o
(G
(G
(C
(C
(C
CG
w
(C
(C
(G
(C ?-
r
Q
a
O r
N M
1
N M
e O -
N N cm
M co
r
•
(C r
r
1
(q 0 0 0 LQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('Q 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O M O O
_ r Co (o (C (o co co co Co co O co
1 Cl) N - M M M C7 M n N N
0 0 0 ((? 0 0 (q GD O o O O In to b y tq q 0 o q O O O o p O o
co (p (p O (p r C r c? pj et n O• co m co co co N N N o M
cm
r.
LL 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 M an O O p (q 0 0
C7 (o co (c m co co (o (o co co (o (o 10 10 co (o
N r
N
N
N
r
N f? r 6 n

co t0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

^ O

^ O

^ p M 0

c t
q
,o
= 3 (O (O CC fC
s (O (O CO (O (O (O CO w o w o tp N N N N N N N N ? r
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(q
0
lq
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
p
p
Q
fA 3 (0 CID w to co co co (0 w cd ui (6 cc t j c d
1 N
1 N ? ui 6 i

LL
O
o
O
C
o
0
0
0
0
0
o O O O O O O O O o '0 0 0 0
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O r N d'
N N N Cl N N N d
N N N N co r N N
J M U? Iq (°f CO O O lA Lill lq q O O O lq to 1q lq O (n to M lq "Xi q
Lill
to
In
d 3 0
r n
r

1 00

11 r
r N
r d'
r

1 O
N C
N C7
N r
CO r
M
M

1 N
C? N
(7 N
C7 N

M
1 N
M N
M N

M
1 N

M N

M N

C7 N

M 0

N N

M N

M N

M
LL N O
w
cm O
O C
(D O
W O
co O
O q l
w c;
co O
co O
o O
M O
V O
4 O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N v O
N O
O (q
O q
r- (q
N

U.. r
O O
O
O!
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0

O 0 0

CD
(o
N
6
(O
(o
(C
(C
(o
(o
(o
(o
co
co
(o
ui
9
? C? 1 M M N N N
U

i r

1 N
O
O : 1 1 1
f?

(Q LL
C7
` O
(o
N O
N Cj
(Lj O
(O O
CC O
(C 0
(C 0
(O 0
(C 0
(O 0
(G 0
(C 0
(C 0
(C 0
(G
P O
I? O
1? O
r? O (p
r O
(C O
d' O

0 O

co p
CC M
OD
$ N N N N r N N
C
C
(n
_
0

31-
0
tt
0
?t
0
0
0
0
'If
0
0
d'
0
0
0
(o
0
to
0
(o
0
(C
0
tC
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
(q
N
q
N
o
N
0
0
(o
0
co
p
O
O
C2
N N N N N N N N N N 1 1
?T ap O O O b O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
m
.D
= er
N sf
N C
N d
N,
N et
N R
N V'
N cm
N ?
N ?
N
O
O
O
I (n
N (A
N
? (O
N
1 b
N to
N
• (A
N (
N 11.0
N Cq
O
O Uf

1 to

1
O LL r, O O p Oj O O O O O O o 0 0 O C! 0 0 q q
q 9 c; g 0 0 0 0 0
v a ? N N 6 (o w w w w 0 0 6 6 6 6 I
0 0 C l
N
I N
1 N r
1 N N
1 (D (G co co (C

>
pp
'O
LL
w
o
0
o
CI
O
O
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
O
N
O
O
O
N
0
0
O
N
M
O
N
0
N
0
(
p 0 3r 6 N O (Q 6 6 (O 6 6 0 (O r N N N N N N N N 9 N
L
Q LL to o p o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ? co N (C (4 (o Co (o to (o to (o (G (C
r'
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N O
N (o
; (o (? (o
1
W ?
U) LL
p
0
0
Cj
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
M
OG
Q
o
O
O
O
O
?[ 3
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O O
?-
to
r,
N

N

N

N

N

0

0

0

0
Z
M CD
= M p
O 0
N 0
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
O O
o O
o O
O O
O (q C
fn O
M
N C?
M
N (A
C
N O
M
N O
M
N 0
0?
? 0

(0 0

0 (q
M 0
h
Z N i
F-
/
a
LL
N
(o
0
0,
co
w
0
co
0
(C
w
co
to
w
(o
to
r
N
N
N
r
N
N
(G
N
r
9
m
p

1
.
CL ,
O 79
O O
LL r 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W
C O
n 0
I- 0
I` O
r-
r`
N p p to O m
m 0
LL
C7 (o N N (o (G (o (o (o (o (G (o !G (o (o r CV N
1 N r N N (o 3 i0 N a
c
3
c
c
(
a
as
O C m
= > a
N
?• 3
`}' O M tq O (O M N O O O r co O
O T w
N Iq
M
v
u"
w
w O
(O w
co w
n r
co M
Of w
O> o ?
II
(0
Q O Q r .- N M M M (D (O n M c0 Of - r r r r r r r r- r r e- - it II II
(7 LL ? ? d

T

m M

01 M

O M

O W

O M

O M

O

M
co

O
co
M
M
M
O
m
M

O
w
M
O

O
M

O
m

O
co
M
O7
M
O
M
W
M
O
M
O
M
M
M
0

0
co
M
0
M
0

0
co

0
co
O

O

(O

O

(q

?-

OD

f`
v
((Y

7

Iq

(?

CO

M

O

C?

W

CO

n

(?

r

CO

O

ll7

O
y r
0 N
0 N
0 C9
0 r N N O r N C9 O r r N
O O
O O
O N
O N
O O
O
O N
O M
O O
O r
O N
O M
O
EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I
y.
1
0
*401
to

?.1
V `
3
?? J

1
4 tO )o
{
ld
t.

cli
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cn
r-
r-
0
Go
U)
(n
(n
z
z
z
w
w
w
o
w
w
CC
9
0
9
C
6.
r
?
N
N
N
N
N
N
?
?

fn
p
p
p
a

w
q
O
O
O

CO
O

CO
O

CC
O

N
00

O
u)

r
O

N
W

to O
N

. O
CV

r O
ui

r O
.t

N O

N O

d'
N O

N O

N p

O p p

Oi Q

M ??

M
`?
En ?n z Z Z w O CO r
W LL M 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O ? M O Q
r CR g
I? q O
CC O
CD O
co O
M O
W O
O p 0
T 0
u 0
co
H C7 m z Z co co CC CC CC CC 0 CC O C? T w T N N N N N N r r

W
V
U
C
p
O
O
O
O
Cn
O
CA
O
O O
w CA
0 O
N O
M O
? O
r 0
r 0
n 0
n 0
O 0
N 0
ui 0 I
I- Lq
.- y
itf y
N C
cC
\
Z C7 m Z Z w O m o CC r CV r Cn 'r .- N N N t N N N N N r 7 -
N
LL
O
Q
W
0
T 0 O O g co U) 0 co CA O Cn

O v!

M Lq

O 0

C'7 0 0

I? 0 0 0

!? 0

n 0 0

n 0

6 ?

I:

6
0

P
0
??
co
M
N
O
LL
IL
W LL co
- Z Z C? I O r M p7 C0 N N N
Z& N N EV N N N N r r N ny m C
¢ 0 ' . c 0
IM r
' 0- 00)
S .E C
R ((1
N
?'
O
C17
to
IO
CO
M
N
O

CO
O

h
O

tp
O
00
0
't
W MO L?2 co M d0' d' CO
O CO O n

T w

r 0

r

r
0 C7

11 =

II ?

11 II
O O T r N C
) M Cp CO r r T T r r T r r J
0-
(yN U C7 = cn ?
CL
C`
co
W
co
O
CA
O
T

T
co
co
co
O
co
O
co
co
co
?
co
!
co
O
co
dl
co
co
O
co
co
O
?
co
Z
co
z
co

$z
co
00
Of
00
R!
00
O
M
M
O
O
0
• V'

r O

N CO

N

'2 O s

s r

N CD

N I

O O

r V

N T

M UY

0 cc

-

` co

N
M
O
O
O

N
O
N
co
O
h
T
M
N

CM
M
O
M
N
O
C`1
CC M M M M
0 $ O CA
O n
O .
0 CA
0 CO
0 CO
0 CO
0 (O
0 P
O h
O t?
O f?
O a0
O 00
O O
O O
0 O
0 O
0 O>

O O

O
IL 0 0 0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
a
0
a?
?o
-12
-24
24
12
t
G-
0
m
.a
-12
-24
JB3 -
JB2-------
JB1
------------------------------------•- -
?-. ' ,.
' last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 auu
SS1
SS2-------
........ ?- - -------------------------
last
'--------- sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 210 ouv
growing season in Julian days (March17- November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
0
a?
co
-12
3
-24
Well 1
last
sampling
--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- - •--............... date.W30)----
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
24
12
t
a
0
d
-12
?a
3
24
Well 2
.............
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Z/5 Suu
Well 3
24
171
12
v
w
o-
'C 0
m
c?
-12
?a
3
-24
\ last
--------------- sampling---
---------•---------------------------------------------- date (9130)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 suu
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
a
-0 0
N
-12
a
3
-24
24
c 12
w
Q
a 0
a?
c?
i -12
m
-24
24
12
t
Q
'°'v 0
c?
L -12
m
3
-24
Well 4
last
sampling
date
a ------------------------------•--•-------•----•-•-------•--V -------------- tN--------- f--------------------------------------- i
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 5
last
sampling
date
-1 ------------------------------------------ }----------------------------------------------- I------------------------------------- I
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 6
..................................... .................................................. .. ... ---...----------------
last
sampling
date
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12

a
a 0
a?
.Q
-12
3
-24
24
12
s
Q
a 0
T
n
m
-12
24
24
S 12
Q
a 0
LD
L -12
N
3
-24
Well 7
--------------------------------------------------
last
sampling
date
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 8
last
------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- sampling
date
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 9
............................................. ....... ...----------------- ----•-----
last
sampling
date
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 . 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
0
a?
-12
-24
24
5 12
fl.
0
m
cr,.a
-12
N
-24
24
5 12
s
Ll
0
m
a
co
L -12
3
-24
Well 10
last
......................
---------- sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
J ---------------------------------------------------------- i --.--------------------------
Well 11
----------------------
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 12
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
t
Q
0
m
m
-12
-24
24
12
t
Q
0
a?
c?
-12
-24
24
12
Q
0
4)
co
L -12
m
-24

Well 13
--------------------•-------....__.._..------•------••--------.__
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 14
--------------------------------------- ,--.----_---_.-.---•--.--_---._--__---•-------
last
_ sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 15
.....................
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
.r-
CL
0
a?
-12
3
-24
24
?. 12
s
fl.
'a 0
m
.n
ca
-12
24
24
S 12
s
Q
0
N
to
L -12
-24
.................................................{ ---------------------------------- I---...---
Well 16
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
---------------------------------------------------
Well 17
. .................... ` last
-------------- sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 18
........................................ .. .____.._..-------- ............. .- ---------- - -_-_-__---____
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
12
Q
0
m
m
L -12
-24
24
12
Q
'a 0
m
cv
-12
-24
24
12
Q
-a 0
W
cy
L -12
3
-24
Well 19
J------------------------------------------ V-------------------------- .------------ .--_-_
---•-••-•-••---._....•--••-...
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 20
_ ------•-••--•-•-••----
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 21
- --------.-
last
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)

24
5 12
s
Q-
0
N
m
? -12
m
.r
3
-24
24
c 12
w
Q.
0
m
-12
m
-24
Well 22
---------------------------------------------
last
sampling
n date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Well 23
last
---------------------------------------------- -------- ------------------------------ ----------- ----...-- ---------
sampling
date (9/30)
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
growing season in Julian Days (March 17 - November 12)

71

APPENDIX C
WETLAND VEGETATION DATA
27
F

u
L

r

n
Average height and DBH of all tree species found in the full planted area.
number
number average with DBH average
Species found height > 1 inch DBH
Acer rubrum 86 32 8 1.2
Chamaecyparis thyoides 10 20
Fraxinus caroliniana 1 11
Gordonia lasianthus 1 6
Liriodendron tulipifera 4 13
Magnolia virginiana 2 40 1 1
Nyssa spp. 119 31 2 1.5
Persea palustris 3 31
Pinus serotina 1 39
Platanus occidentalis 3 25
Populus heterophylla 11 45 13 1.3
Quercus laurifolia 3 16
Quercus lyrata 29 17
Quercus michauxii 5 13
Quercus pagoda 42 14
Quercus phellos 15 21
Quercus stellata 7 12
Salix nigra 176 NA 7 1.7
Taxodium distichum 122 38

F

C

Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Flat (full planting)
percent
Species # trees/acre of total
Salix nigra 99 248 39.3
Nyssa biflora 61 153 24.2
Taxodium ditichum 46 115 18.2
Quercus lyrata 18 45 7.1
Acer rubrum 18 45 7.1
Quercus phellos 3 8 1.3
Platanus occidentalis 2 5 0.8
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 3 0.5
Quercus michauxii 1 3 0.5
Quercus stellata ' 1 3 0.5
Populus heterophylla 1 3 0.5
total 251 631
Nonriverine Swamp Forest (full planting)
percent
Species # trees/acre of total
Acer rubrum 77 154 23.1
Taxodium ditichum 76 152 22.8
Nyssa sp. 58 116 17.4
Quercus pagoda 42 84 12.6
Populus heterophylla 23 46 6.9
Quercus phellos 12 24 3.6
Quercus lyrata 11 22 3.3
Chamaecyparis thyoides 10 20 3.0
Quercus stellata 6 12 1.8
Quercus michauxii 4 8 1.2
Persea palustris 3 6 0.9
Liriodendron tulipifera 3 6 0.9
Quercus laurafolia 3 6 0.9
Magnolia virginiana 2 4 0.6
Fraxinus caroliniana 1 2 0.3
Gordonia lasianthus 1 2 0.3
Pinus serotina 1 2 0.3
Platanus occidentals 1 2 0.3
total 334 668

Nonriverine Swamp Forest (Bay Forest)
Over-story
density Basal area relative relative Importance
Species stems/acre ft2/acre density basal area value
Acer rubrum 250 37.8 50.0 36.0 43.0
Gordonia lasianthus 160 38.2 32.0 36.4 34.2
Pinus serotina 30 24.5 6.0 23.3 14.7
Cyrilla racemiflora 30 2.8 6.0 2.7 4.3
Magnolia virginiana 30 1.7 6.0 1.6 3.8
total 500 105.0
Mid-story
Magnolia virginiana 190 8.4 29.2 25.1 27.2
Acer rubrum 130 6.4 20.0 19.1 19.6
Ilex coriacea 100 6.4 15.4 19.1 17.2
Gordonia lasianthus 60 7.1 9.2 21.2 15.2
Cyrilla racemiflora 70 2.9 10.8 8.7 9.7
Lyonia lucida 30 0.8 4.6 2.4 3.5
Vaccinium corymbosum 30 0.5 4.6 1.5 3.1
Clethra alnifolia 10 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
flex verticillata 10 0.3 1.5 0.9 1.2
Persea palustris 10 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.9
Rhododendron sp. 10 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.9
total 650 33.5
Under-story
% cover
Ilex coriacea 16.5
Clethra alnifolia 9.0
Cyrilla racemiflora 2.0
Ilex verticillata 2.0
Magnolia virginiana 2.0
Persea palustris 2.0
Vaccinium corymbosum 2.0
Smilax sp. 0.5
Chamaecyparis thyoides 0.3
Leucothoe axillaris 0.3

Small Stream Swamp Forest
' Over-story
density Basal area relative relative Importance
Species stems/acre ft2/acre densi basal area value
' Acer rubrum 113 50.3 40.4 40.4 40.4
Liqiudamber styraciflua 53 25.3 18.9 20.3 19.6
Nyssa biflora 47 19.11 16.8 15.4 16.1
' Magnolia virginiana 40 8.3 14.3 6.7 10.5
Gordonia lasianthus 20 8.4 7.1 6.8 6.9
Quercus nigra 7 11.1 2.5 8.9 5.7
Ilex opaca 7 1.9 2.5 1.5 2.0
' total 280 124.4
Mid-story
' Acer rubrum -153 5.7 26.6 41.0 33.8
Magnolia virginiana 18 3.4 3.1 24.5 13.8
Persea palustris 73 0.9 12.7 6.5 9.6
' Gordonia lasianthus 67 0.8 11.6 5.8 8.7
Clethra alnifolia 73 0.4 12.7 2.9 7.8
' Vaccinium corymbosm
Cyrilla racemiflora 67
47 0.4
0.8 11.6
8.2 2.9
5.8 7.3
7.0
Symplocos tinctoria 33 0.8 5.7 5.8 5.7
Ilex opaca 13 0.3 2.3 2.2 2.2
' Nyssa biflora 7 0.3 1.2 2.2 1.7
Quercus lyrata 7 0.1 1.2 0.7 1.0
Gelsemium sempervirens 7 0 1.2 0.0 0.6
Ilex coriacea 7 0 1.2 0.0 0.6
' Quercus nigra 7 0 1.2 0.0 0.6
total 579 13.9
' Under-story
% cover
Clethra alnifolia 19.0
Persea palustris 16.1
Lyonia lucida 1.3
Gelsemium sempervirens 0.3
Ilex coriacea 0.3
' Smilax latfolia 0.3
Symplocos tinctoria 0.3
Taxodium distichum
Arundinaria gigantea 0.2
0.1
Itea virginica 0.1
Liquidambar styraciflua 0.1
' Magnolia virginiana 0.1
Nyssa biflora 0.1
Pinus sp. 0.1
Platanus occidentlis 0.1
' Quecus sp. 0.1
Smilax sp. 0.1
' Vaccinium corymbosum 0.1
Vitis rotundifolia 0.1
Woodwardia areolata 0.1

u

Headwater Slope Swamp Forest
Over-story
Species
Acer rubrum
Nyssa biflora
Magnolia virginiana
Gordonia lasianthus
total
Mid-story
Acer rubrum
Manolia viginiana
Gordonia lasianthus
Persea palustris
total
density Basal area relative relative Importance
stems/acre ft 2/acre density basal area value
260 76.2 81.3 73.1 77.2
20 24.5 6.3 23.5 14.9
20 1.8 6.3 1.7 4.0
20 1.8 6.3 1.7 4.0
320 104.3
500
160
80
40
780
12.3 64.1 54.7 59.4
5.4 20.5 24.0 22.3
2.2 10.3 9.8 10.0
2.6 5.1 11.6 8.3
22.5
Under-story
Persea palustris
Magnolia virginiana
C/ethra alnifolia
Leucothoe axillaris
Smilax latifolia
Lyonia lucida
Gelsemium sempervirens
Rhodendron sp.
Vaccinium corymbosum
Taxodium distichum
Quecus lyrata
Fraxinus carolinina
% cover
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3

C

L7

it
fl
n

Average cover of herbaceous species across all full planted plots.
Zero indicates a percentage less than one
percent
Scientific Species Common name cover
Panicum sp. grass 22.2
Digiteria sp. crab-grass 10.9
Cyperus sp. sedge 7.8
Salix nigra black willow 6.2
Eupatorium capillifolium dog fennel 6.0
Androgon virginicus broom sedge 4.7
Panicum verricosum grass 4.6
Ludwegia palustris seedbox 3.4
Polygonum sp. 1. knotweed 3.4
Erigeron canadensis horseweed 3.4
Scirpus cypernus wool grass 2.9
Juncus sp. rush 2.2
Rumex sp. sheep-sorrel 1.6
Polygonum sp. 2 knotweed 0.9
Solidago sp. goldenrod 0.7
Ludwegia hydropiperoides seedbox 0.5
Cyperus sp. 2 sedge 0.2
Aster pilosa frost aster 0.2
Rubus sp. blackberry 0.1
Rhexia mariana meadow-beauty 0.1
Carex sp. carex 0.1
Ambrosia artemisiifolia ragweed 0.1
Physalis virginiana ground cherry 0
Ludwegia deccurrens seedbox 0
Clethra alnifolia sweet pepperbush 0
Typha sp. horsetail 0
Mikania scandens climbing hempweed 0
Smilax sp. greenbriar 0
Baptisia sp. baptisia 0
Baccharis halimifolia groundsel bush 0
Gnaphalium sp. cudweed 0
Plantago aristata plaintain 0
Agalinis sp. gerardia 0
total percent cover 82.2

ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda. gov/support/climate/wetl ands/nc/37051.txt
0
WETS Statio n : FT BRAGG WATER PLANT , NC3168 CREATION DATE: 6/ 24/96
Latitude: 3511 Longitude: 07 902 Elevation: 160
State FIPS/ County(FIPS): 37051 County Name: Cumberland
Start yr. -
- 1964
---- End yr. - 1990
---
----
-----
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
---------- --
- -
-
-
-
Temperature
I -
--
- -----
-
---
----
Precipitation ------ ------I
(Degrees F.) (Inches)
------- -------------- -- I - ------- ---------------
30% ---
chance
------
lavg I
------
`
will have I# ofl avg
------- I------- I------- I ----------------- Idaysl total
Month avg I avg i avg I avg less more Iw/.11 snow
daily I daily than than I orl fall
max I min morel
---------- -
January ------
----- --------------- ---
I ----- ----- - -------
3.72 ------------------
2.52 4.45 ------
1 7 I ------?
0.4
February ----- ----- ----- I 3.78 2.37 4.57 1 6 1 0.3
March ----- I ----- ----- I 4.23 3.08 4.99 1 7 I 0.0
April ----- I ----- ----- 3.19 I 1.87 3.88 5 I 0.0
May ----- I ----- ----- 4.08 2.76 I 4.88 7 l 0.0
June ----- I ----- ----- I 4.65 3.05 I 5.59 6 I 0.0
July I ----- I----- ----- I 5.88 3.93 I 7.05 8 I 0.0 i
August I ----- I----- I----- I 5.21 3.38 I 6.27 17 I 0.0
September I ----- I ----- ----- I 3.32 1.71 4.05 I 5 0.0
October ----- I ----- ----- I 3.18 1.80 I 3.88 I 4 0.0
November ----- I ----- ----- I 2.83 1.69 I 3.43 I 4 0.0
December I
---------- -----
------ I----- I----- I
- I------- I------- I
- 3.41
------- I 2.15 I 4.11
I-------- I-------- 15 I
I----I 0.0
------I
-Annual (
- -------- -----
------ ------ -----
I
--
--- - ------ I 42.67 I 49.81 I -- I ----
I
Average I
i
---------- -
-----
------ -
-
----- I
----- I ----- I
------- ------- I
- -

- -------
------
------- I--------I--------
I ------ I ------
I-------- -------- I----I

-
- ------ I

Total I
---- -----I
-----
------
----- -----
- ------- -------

-
47.50
-------
I ------ ------
I-------- -------- I
-
-
71
I---- ------
0.7
------
GROWING SEASON DATES
----------------------
---------------------
Probability
---------------------
•-----------------------------------------------------
Temperature
-----------------------------------------------------
24 F or higher 28 F or higher 32 F or higher
----------------- I ----------------- I -----------------
Beginning and Ending Dates
Growing Season Length
50 percent *
70 percent *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning
and Ending dates
total 1964-1996 prcp
Station : NC3168, FT BRAGG WATER PLANT
------- Unit = inches
yr jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep Oct nov dec annl
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
64 1.82 4.33 7.95 10.51 3.48 10.11 1.41 5.38 44.99
3 of 4 2/2/98 12:55 PM
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda. gov/support/climate/wetlands/ne/37051.txt
65 1.26 5.23
66 5.71 2.88
67 2.31 5.07
68 4.49 0.37
69 1.79 4.45
70 2.24 3.39
71 4.87 4.61
72 4.43 4.44
73 3.46 8.64
74 2.70 5.41
75 6.29 5.63
76 3.27 1.28
77M3.56 1.85
78 6.25 1.03
79 4.66 4.31
80 4.49 2.02
81M0.77 1.48
82 6.60 5.92
83 2.57 6.59
84 3.91 5.11
85 3.78 4.63
86 1.11 1.44
87 8.39 4.45
88M3.33 2.39
89 2.41 M2.90
90 2.13 2.85
91 3.51 1.49
92 2.55 2.06
93 5.52 2.20
94 4.44 3.27
95 5.72 4.86
96
Notes
7.86 2.16 1.31 7.11 11.62
5.11 2.02 7.09 3.58 3.64
0.85 2.55 4.57 5.64 4.14
2.39 1.73 1.71 2.16 8.52
4.56 2.87 1.27 7.77 6.04
3.69 3.08 2.34 3.55 5.66
6.27 4.40 2.46 1.39 6.95
3.53 3.63 4.50 4.49 9.08
4.82 8.06 5.37 8.00 6.60
4.64 2.65 6.82 6.47 4.04
5.32 2.75 5.45 2.27 7.61
2.90 0.48 6.80 2.65
6.62 1.02 3.42 5.47 3.30
4.45 7.25 4.36 7.49 4.16
3.78 3.57 6.22 3.21 2.64
M5.15 4.45 1.85 5.29 3.38
1.60 0.33 5.42 3.84 4.27
2.64 4.24 4.01 5.54 5.06
6.94 4.03 1.60 2.67 1.70
4.69 3.73 6.30 13.55
1.95 1.34 2.90 3.34 10.84
2.53 0.57 3.18 4.42 6.16
4.34 4.82 1.98 5.27 2.58
3.35 2.78 3.45 M5.14 7.90
6.62 4.96 7.72 7.65 M7.58
3.49 3.49 6.27 0.28 1.23
4.99 2.17 2.03 3.75 10.40
2.91 2.98 5.12 8.13 0.82
6.12 4.78 1.52 2.24 6.02
4.84 0.62 2.06 5.58 8.37
5.46 0.64 2.45 12.66 7.24
Data missing in any month ha
Data missing for all days in
4.21 1.14
3.42 4.49
10.17 4.18
1.88 0.07
4.43 5.72
5.33 3.07
4.05 3.28
3.44 6.06
3.88 3.50
9.69 3.12
1.47 5.77
3.54 2.00
12.34 2.53
2.67 1.58
0.77 9.73
3.25 5.38
6.54 2.65
3.55 1.56
2.89 3.60
4.52 2.69
6.91 0.50
7.51 1.35
7.38 2.19
5.27 4.07
3.80 5.49
7.35 0.41
3.00 0.58
6.77 0.93
2.67 3.25
8.59 4.88
3.15 2.87
,re a 'M' flag
a month is b
2.90 2.32 0.34 47.46
1.82 1.44 3.01 44.21
1.15 3.14 4.32 48.09
5.38 4.39 2.90 35.99
1.85 1.88 3.29 45.92
3.80 1.30 2.23 39.68
1.25 1.33 40.86
1.77 6.83 5.05 57.25
0.14 0.29 7.07 59.83
1.33 3.53 4.26 54.66
2.32 3.28 4.69 52.85
3.09 3.40 5.13 34.54
5.61 2.05 5.04 52.81
1.21 5.31 2.60 48.36
1.30 5.63 1.39 47.21
3.34 2.25 2.38 43.23
3.05 0.89 4.57 35.41
3.46 2.02 5.05 49.65
3.00 2.04 7.19 44.82
2.66 0.72 2.24 50.12
5.66 6.82 1.17 49.84
2.72 3.89 3.41 38.29
1.05 1.99 2.87 47.31
2.24 4.28 0.97 45.17
5.11 2.63 M1.63 58.50
6.65 1.38 2.47 38.00
1.36 1.81 3.16 38.25
2.74 6.96 2.28 44.25
4.17 1.74 3.06 43.29
3.75 2.30 2.14 50.84
7.28 3.51 1.52 57.36
Lank
4 of 4 2/2/98 12:55 PM
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37129.txt
r
WETS Station : WILMINGTON 7 N, NC94 67 CREATION DATE: 6/ 24/96
Latitude: 3419 Longi tude: 07 755 Elevation: 40
State FIPS /County (FIPS): 37129 County Name: New Hanover
Start yr.
---------- - 1961
------- End yr.
--------- - 1990
-------
--
-------
-----------
--------
------
------I
Temperat ure Precipitation
(Degrees F.) (Inches)
------ --------- ------- - I ------- -------------------
I 30% chance ------
Iavg I ------I
I
I will have I# ofl avg I
------ - ------- ------ -I I --------- -------- Idaysl total
Month avg I avg avg I avg I less I more Iw/.1I snow I
daily daily I I than I than i orl fall I
max min I I Imorel I
----------
January -------
I 55.1 ---------
32.4 -------
43.8 -- -------
4.29 -----------
3.07 --------
5.08 ------
I 8 I ------ I
0.6
February 58.1 34.6 46.4 3.89 2.64 4.65 I 6 i 0.8
March 66.2 42.0 54.1 4.24 3.00 5.02 I 7 I 0.6
April 74.4 49.0 61.7 3.18 1.91 3.86 5 0.0
May 80.9 58.0 69.4 4.70 3.43 5.53 6 0.0
June 86.3 65.7 76.0 5.41 3.32 ( 6.55 6 I 0.0
July 89.2 69.6 79.4 8.30 6.51 9.58 9 I 0.0
August 88.1 68.8 78.5 7.41 4.86 8.89 I 9 I 0.0
September 83.6 63.4 73.5 5.11 2.73 6.24 I 6 I 0.0
October 75.0 51.8 63.4 2.68 1.60 3.26 I 4 I 0.0
November 67.7 I 43.3 55.5 3.13 1.91 ( 3.78 I 4 I 0.0 I
December
---------- 59.0
I ------ 35.7
- I ------- 47.3
I ------
- I 3.90
------- 2.34
- I -------- I 4.73
-------- I 5 I
---- 0.7
------
----------
Annual
I -----
I -----
I -----
I
------
I 52.35 I
59.72
-- ------
----
----------
Average
---------- I------
73.6
I------ - -------
5
- I ------- I ------
62.4
I ------ -

- -------
------
I ------- - I -------- I
I ------ I
- I -------- I --------
------
-------- ----
I I
I ----I ------
----
------ I
Total
---------- I -----
I------ I -----
- I ------- I -----
I ------
- I 56.25
I ------- I ------ I
- I-------- ------
I -------- 175 I
I----I 2.6
------I
GROWING SEASON DATES
----------------------
---------------------
Probability
--------------------
50 percent *
70 percent *
•-----------------------------------------------------
Temperature
-----------------------------------------------------
24 F or higher 128 F or higher 132 F or higher
----------------- I ----------------- I -----------------
Beginning and Ending Dates
Growing Season Length
2/28 to 11/28
274 days
3/20 to 11/16
241 days
4/ 5 to 11/ 1
209 days
2/22 to 12/ 3
285 days
3/16 to 11/20
249 days
3/31 to 11/ 6
220 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning
and Ending dates.
total 1949-1996 prcp
Station : NC9467, WILMINGTON 7 N
------- Unit = inches
yr jan feb mar apr may
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- jun jul
----- ----- aug
----- sep
----- Oct
----- nov
----- dec
----- annl
-----
49 M6.21 7.22 6.00 0.79 4.16 2.02 26.40
50 2.46 1.41 3.94 1.31 4.53 5.15 18.14 6.49 5.24 5.43 1.54 3.26 58.90
1 of 4 2/2/98 12:56 PM
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37129.txt
51 0.73 1.74 3.67 4.56 1.18 2.22 12.13
54
55 4.01 2.66 1.92 2.63 4.06 3.45 8.32
56 1.86 4.61 2.45 3.02 7.86 2.70 7.53
57 2.71 2.01 6.27 0.43 3.44 7.02 3.65
58 3.91 3.53 5.12 5.80 3.69 6.84 5.55
59 2.03 4.42 6.91 3.55 1.40 2.39 11.45
60M4.22 5.21 6.83 2.88 4.27 2.01 9.77
61 2.48 3.03 3.28 10.22 4.98 11.19 4.79
62M5.04 2.49 5.43 4.55 3.31 7.70 11.03
63 3.16 4.66 1.37 1.13 5.69 2.83 10.30
64 8.12 6.90 2.59 1.57 6.20 6.13 6.46
65 1.53 5.26 6.49 3.13 4.34 6.93 13.39
66 6.93 3.07 5.33 1.85 7.28 8.94 9.59
67 4.58 4.64 0.93 1.43 2.33 4.59 9.09
68 4.09 0.86 1.93 3.48 2.44 2.20 12.17
69 3.13 2.76 5.06 3.99 9.42 9.10 10.80
70 2.13 2.32 8.21 1.76 3.16 6.10 4.57
71 6.00 3.72 5.26 3.42 3.84 4.97 6.98
72 5.62 5.24 3.00 1.30 3.42 3.91 8.18
73 5.45 6.51 M2.81 7.45 3.85 9.31 12.96
74 2.84 4.85 2.93 4.25 6.10 5.26 7.96
75 5.36 6.75 3.66 4.61 4.31 7.05 10.05
76 3.89 1.82 3.12 0.79 5.23 11.84 8.68
77 3.00 1.78 5.74 1.61 6.10 4.54 2.39
78 6.60 1.19 4.57 3.69 3.53 2.52 8.85
79 6.08 5.54 4.48 4.57 5.45 7.21 3.72
80 4.47 2.20 7.26 1.44 5.43 3.26 8.31
81 1.21 3.16 3.48 1.72 5.59 2.10 7.25
82 6.30 7.26 1.97 3.84 1.51 9.80 6.64
83 4.94 7.72 9.18 2.28 1.68 5.18 4.63
84 2.89 4.99 4.19 3.43 6.44 1.23 10.21
85 2.25 5.72 2.02 0.85 2.95 3.86 12.12
86 2.34 1.90 3.79 0.60 6.95 3.56 6.92
87 7.37 3.85 4.05 3.46 2.10 4.98 5.51
88 6.60 2.24 3.74 3.93 5.88 2.16 10.03
89 2.24 2.09 5.75 6.75 2.42 3.45 9.02
90 2.18 2.24 5.48 2.43 9.08 0.34 6.53
91 8.33 1.58 5.18 2.99 2.27 3.19 17.25
92 5.58 3.16 4.68 3.12 3.70 6.07 4.56
93 5.12 2.69 5.30 5.65 1.14 2.23 5.08
94 5.58 3.43 6.90 1.02 3.02 2.97 7.37
95 4.58 4.08 3.71 0.15 8.65 9.66 8.12
96
Temperature
(Degrees F.)
-----------------------
I I
avg I avg I avg
daily I daily
max I min
------------------------•
Notes: Data missing in any month have a 'M' flag
Data missing for all days in a month is blank
WETS Station : WILMINGTON WSO AP, NC9457 CREATION DATE: 6/24/96
Latitude: 3416 Longitude: 07754 Elevation: 00070
State FIPS/County(FIPS): 37129 County Name: New Hanover
Start yr. - 1961 End yr. - 1990
-------------------------------------------------------------------------I
Month
January
February
4.88 4.45 35.56
M3.17 4.45 M5.52 M2.10 2.63 17.87
12.88 15.11 1.91 3.02 0.72 60.69
7.07 2.70 M6.41 0.72 1.28 48.21
3.55 10.83 1.57 4.26 4.71 50.45
7.08 M7.17 5.06 1.25 5.23 60.23
6.67 3.38 5.61 4.98 3.72 56.51
7.10 7.14 3.05 2.18 2.25 56.91
8.78 6.52 1.19 1.83 0.96 59.25
5.48 4.25 2.15 6.05 2.09 59.57
4.94 4.14 3.53 5.14 1.91 48.80
5.16 4.71 6.11 1.15 4.78 59.88
13.50 1.99 3.11 1.19 0.79 61.65
7.99 4.60 1.44 0.76 3.90 61.68
9.83 2.41 1.19 2.93 4.85 48.80
3.02 1.58 5.14 4.76 2.67 44.34
8.04 4.78 1.82 5.60 4.25 68.75
12.78 3.98 4.10 2.60 2.84 54.55
14.43 5.11 6.78 2.23 1.83 64.57
5.42 6.70 0.83 7.54 3.57 54.73
7.41 3.12 1.95 0.73 6.56 68.11
9.44 5.23 1.09 1.83 5.44 57.22
5.61 8.31 3.90 3.64 5.38 68.63
12.73 2.87 3.60 2.51 5.14 62.22
6.85 5.28 4.81 6.33 3.49 51.92
5.77 1.52 0.55 2.79 6.10 47.68
3.28 17.93 0.97 2.55 2.56 64.34
3.47 5.52 2.59 2.12 6.59 52.66
17.97 0.42 1.58 0.75 5.21 50.44
3.12 6.23 3.04 1.94 6.49 58.14
0.93 4.73 1.32 4.49 5.89 52.97
4.75 19.97 0.68 1.60 1.35 61.73
4.65 2.49 2.99 6.13 3.04 49.07
9.84 1.25 2.93 4.51 7.45 52.04
11.12 6.27 0.90 4.87 1.40 55.88
8.16 2.25 1.35 2.11 0.29 48.74
3.13 8.32 3.94 1.55 M8.04 56.70
M4.55 0.90 4.91 1.52 2.23 42.39
6.12 3.84 2.35 3.47 1.79 58.36
12.00 3.28 2.94 6.70 4.51 60.30
4.76 7.47 6.18 2.30 M2.09 50.01
5.51 6.37 6.88 2.90 5.66 57.61
5.63 6.43 8.90 2.06 2.38 64.35
Precipitation
(Inches)
-------------------------
30% chance -------
(avg ------
will have I# of avg
----------------- daysl total
avg I less I more Iw/.11 snow
than I than I orl fall

--------- --------- -------- (morel
- ------
------
55.4 I 34.6 I 45.0 l 3.87 I 2.73 I 4.59 7 0.5
58.3 I 36.5 47.4 3.70 2.59 I 4.39 l 6 l 0.7
2 of 4 2/2/98 12:561'
ftp://ftp.wcc.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37129.txt
March 65.8 I 43.6 54.7 I 3.88 2.65 I 4.62 I 6 I 0.4
April 74.0 I 51.0 62.5 I 2.87 I 1.66 I 3.49 1 5 i 0.0
I
May 80.6 I 59.7 70.2 4.43 3.05 5.27 6 0.0
June 86.2 I 67.4 76.8 I 5.98 3.89 I 7.20 7 I 0.0
July I 89.4 I 71.6 I 80.5 I 8.13 I 5.97 I 9.55 1 9 I 0.0
August 88.3 71.0 79.7 I 6.94 I 4.69 8.30 I 8 0.0
September 84.0 I 65.4 I 74.7 5.04 I 2.81 I 6.14 1 5 I 0.0
October I 75.7 53.8 64.8 I 2.69 1.33 I 3.28 3 I 0.0
November I 67.8 44.9 56.3 I 3.11 I 1.84 I 3.78 4 I 0.0
December
---------- 59.5 I
I------- 37.6 I
I------- 48.6
I------- I 3.63
-------- 2.25
-------- 4.38 I
I-------- 5
---- 0.7
I------
----------
Annual ?-------
? ----- ?-------
I ----- ?-------
I -----
-

----
- - I--------
I ------

-------- I--------
I 50.32

?_
- ------ I--------
57.76

I-----
- -- I----

I --
?_
- -- ?------

I ----

- ----
-
--
-
-
Average -
73.8 I 53.1 63.4 ------ I ------ I - -- I -
-Total
---------
---------- I -----
-------
-------- I -----
I-------
-------- I -----
I-------
-------- I 54.26
--------
--------- I ------
--------
--------- I ------
I--------
--------- 171
I---- I 2.3
------
GROWING SEASON DATES
----------------------
---------------------?
------Probability---_i
-----------------------------------------------------
Temperature
---------------------------
24 F or higher 28 F or higher 32 F or higher
I-----------------I-----------------
Beginning and Ending Dates
Growing Season Length
2/11 to 12/20
313 days
3/ 2 to 11/28
272 days
3/20 to 11/15
241 days
50 percent *
70 percent *
2/ 4 to 12/28
328 days
2/25 to 12/ 4
283 days
3/15 to 11/20
250 days
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning
and Ending dates.
total 1933-1996 prcp
Station : NC9457, WILMINGTON WSO AP
------- Unit = inches
yr jan feb mar apr may jun
----- jul
----- aug
- sep
----- Oct nov dec annl
33 22
2 5.83 2.88 ----
4.50 -----
M3.15 1.61 7.63 6.45 8.27 0.07 0.38 0.19 43.18
34 .
15
1 3.51 4.46 1.16 5.58 3.42 3.09 5.28 7.06 0.77 7.70 3.00 46.18
35 .
89
2 1.74 1.88 1.89 0.97 2.33 15.97 10.02 5.44 0.19 3.74 5.01 52.07
36 .
00
4 5.07 10.43 1.56 0.20 3.57 4.95 4.32 4.25 7.15 3.03 6.51 55.04
37 .
26
4 5.18 1.87 6.74 2.29 3.93 6.45 4.64 2.13 1.78 6.17 2.14 47.58
38 .
26
2 0.93 1.98 4.69 3.78 5.07 11.00 5.84 16.28 1.48 0.92 3.15 57.38
39 .
23
3 5.97 2.80 1.82 4.64 4.78 7.43 7.21 2.67 3.00 0.79 1.56 45.90
40 .
16
3 5.69 1.90 2.39 3.24 5.06 1.38 14.14 1.96 1.44 1.86 2.93 45.15
41 .
62
1 3.22 3.03 2.65 0.86 5.51 7.79 6.15 1.07 0.65 0.31 6.20 39.06
42 .
06
2 4.69 5.44 0.87 6.03 4.76 3.63 10.02 3.89 5.17 0.93 2.99 50.48
43 .
70
4 0.69 4.73 2.11 3.61 5.44 10.32 5.87 2.20 0.02 1.25 3.75 44.69
44 .
3.43 6.20 6.83 3.84 2.18 2.65 5.14 6.60 2.51 7.91 2.07 2.98 52.34
45 08
2 3.38 0.26 3.10 1.84 11.74 11.92 9.56 8.96 2.06 2.43 6.62 63.95
46 .
3.85 3.00 2.08 3.52 4.22 4.27 19.14 10.33 12.26 4.52 2.76 2.10 72.05
47 18
3 0.67 M6.13 3.72 2.83 6.13 10.35 6.11 11.99 6.19 7.15 5.50 69.95
48 .
17
6 4.01 4.75 2.42 5.22 3.00 5.05 30.62
49 .
41
1 3.52 1.50 3.99 4.51 4.98 7.94 10.73 4.93 2.52 2.72 1.84 50.59
50 .
40
2 1.57 4.12 1.87 4.42 8.56 18.05 5.78 4.90 4.96 1.86 3.45 61.94
51 .
0.66 1.91 3.78 6.53 1.53 2.53 10.45 7.48 5.84 2.11 7.10 3.70 53.62
2/2/98 12:5611
3of4
ftp://ftp.wce.nres.usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37129.txt
52 1.91 5.22 5.06 1.50 1.66 2.91 4.94 8.82 5.47 3.15 5.36 2.11 48.11
53 4.56 4.43 4.14 2.81 2.60 4.63 4.28 7.04 8.91 0.17 4.79 5.67 54.03
54 3.34 1.54 4.97 3.44 5.73 1.36 4.18 3.29 2.87 5.57 1.76 2.84 40.89
55 3.34 1.91 2.37 2.54 3.62 3.17 9.25 12.29 15.51 1.43 3.29 0.48 59.20
56 1.55 4.36 2.13 2.67 9.12 4.36 3.31 5.01 2.31 7.25 0.52 1.30 43.89
57 2.32 2.31 5.54 0.33 3.29 4.54 3.59 5.08 13.25 1.26 3.75 4.84 50.10
58 3.73 3.30 4.98 6.20 4.21 6.44 4.34 8.26 10.10 5.68 0.89 5.31 63.44
59 2.11 5.04 6.48 2.74 1.36 1.41 10.90 7.58 3.00 5.11 4.72 3.28 53.73
60 3.63 4.75 7.44 3.15 5.52 3.24 10.28 4.53 9.06 2.03 1.85 2.64 58.12
61 2.12 2.99 4.52 8.21 3.70 11.79 1.65 9.21 4.25 1.19 1.85 0.78 52.26
62 5.98 2.27 5.01 5.12 2.35 12.87 5.86 4.98 5.48 0.76 5.01 1.99 57.68
63 2.54 4.20 0.94 1.22 8.68 3.86 11.74 2.73 4.02 3.87 4.83 2.72 51.35
64 7.08 6.17 2.89 1.32 5.11 5.02 7.40 3.69 3.58 9.81 1.17 4.54 57.78
65 1.29 4.83 5.72 2.40 2.76 9.38 12.09 10.58 2.90 3.44 1.12 0.81 57.32
66 6.32 5.54 2.89 1.48 7.50 9.78 15.12 5.67 6.09 1.10 0.70 3.44 65.63
67 3.89 4.14 0.93 1.15 2.58 6.03 5.78 8.13 1.55 1.07 2.24 4.67 42.16
68 3.71 1.44 0.97 3.50 2.30 2.52 9.31 1.66 1.24 4.46 4.40 2.26 37.77
69 2.80 2.53 4.60 3.41 7.32 9.31 13.46 4.69 2.59 0.95 5.23 3.86 60.75
70 1.98 2.45 7.19 1.37 3.92 4.48 5.71 13.98 2.23 4.12 2.22 3.22 52.87
71 4.97 3.51 4.57 3.46 2.29 5.60 8.08 10.42 5.04 6.05 2.22 1.49 57.70
72 4.27 4.57 3.36 0.78 3.50 3.50 6.36 4.91 6.73 0.69 7.87 5.29 51.83
73 4.37 4.85 3.48 5.32 3.48 10.70 9.33 6.42 5.60 1.52 0.49 5.60 61.16
74 2.81 4.23 2.30 2.18 5.15 5.37 8.36 13.33 5.09 1.12 3.14 3.72 56.80
75 5.06 5.09 3.15 3.90 3.11 7.11 9.76 4.52 6.06 3.14 3.00 5.20 59.10
76 2.93 1.01 2.57 0.91 4.33 12.74 8.28 9.53 4.79 3.31 2.14 5.37 57.91
77 2.94 1.83 5.66 1.43 6.75 4.26 3.25 5.85 4.88 5.73 6.33 2.83 51.74
78 6.68 1.33 2.94 3.82 3.46 2.34 7.38 4.77 1.58 1.01 3.71 4.68 43.70
79 6.23 4.21 4.82 5.60 5.27 4.74 2.82 2.48 15.17 0.38 2.01 2.35 56.08
80 4.16 1.52 6.03 1.33 4.65 2.46 5.95 3.21 5.97 1.62 1.87 5.81 44.58
81 1.09 3.08 3.02 1.43 5.02 2.45 5.23 14.06 1.07 1.39 0.78 5.76 44.38
82 5.50 6.67 1.84 4.03 2.04 7.59 8.59 3.67 7.08 2.56 1.32 6.57 57.46
83 4.90 8.74 8.09 2.09 1.13 6.71 5.53 5.63 5.59 1.02 4.49 5.20 59.12
84 2.58 4.82 4.43 3.23 6.45 0.89 9.01 4.79 18.94 0.49 1.16 1.32 58.11
85 2.01 5.08 1.66 0.71 2.76 4.56 10.34 3.63 2.75 2.43 6.74 1.35 44.02
86 2.12 2.52 4.13 0.48 7.09 5.58 11.28 11.44 0.70 3.35 4.44 6.28 59.41
87 6.49 4.42 2.70 2.96 0.95 5.24 5.19 9.35 6.42 0.51 5.67 1.35 51.25
88 5.41 2.00 4.05 3.56 7.54 2.93 14.49 9.61 2.80 1.81 3.14 0.59 57.93
89 1.60 2.64 6.70 7.60 3.58 7.55 9.93 3.93 9.54 4.61 1.91 7.06 66.65
90 2.34 2.31 5.11 2.21 8.04 2.17 6.59 11.42 1.40 7.10 2.09 2.65 53.43
9110.22 1.65 6.52 3.35 1.75 2.57 13.35 8.65 3.31 4.19 2.98 2.17 60.71'
92 5.75 3.45 5.65 3.12 7.55 7.00 3.18 13.56 2.23 3.09 7.14 4.48 66.20
93 5.83 2.96 6.34 5.78 2.82 3.70 7.04 5.66 8.09 8.29 2.58 2.67 61.76
94 7.03 3.26 8.27 0.80 2.67 2.75 4.76 6.03 7.09 8.53 3.27 6.91 61.37
95 4.93 4.47 4.35 0.16 6.47 12.03 8.74 4.08 6.92 9.31 1.56 2.09 65.11
96
Notes: Data missing in any month have a 'M' flag
Data missing for all days in a month is blank
2/2/98 12:56
4of4
M
1
After planting plan implementation, 0.05 acre plots will be within each restored ecosystem type.
approximately twenty three plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to
provide point-related data on hydrological and vegetation parameters.
1.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component supports a
species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria are
dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Specifically, a minimum
mean density of 320 characteristic trees/ac must be present for the five year monitoring period.
Characteristic tree species are those within the reference ecosystems, elements enumerated in the
planting plan, along with natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine,
black willow, and pond pine. Softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320
stem/acre requirement. In addition, at least five character tree species must be present, and no
species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental plantings will
be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
N No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria. Development of a forest canopy over several decades and restoration of
wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of desired wetland
understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover/composition of shrub
and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
1.5 STREAM
' Stream monitoring and success criteria will be established through measurement of in-stream flows,
measurement of stream geometry, and measurement of biological stream attributes.
' In-stream flows will be measured through placement of two continuos monitoring stream flow
gauges. The gauges will be capable of recording velocity (ft/second) and discharge (cubic feet per
second, CFS). Discharge is typically calculated by measuring height (or depth) of the water column
' and inputting the resulting cross-section. One gauge will be placed at a culvert located
approximately 300 feet below stream outfall from the Bank (Drainage Area: 2.5 mi2). The second
gauge will be placed within the culvert and State road crossing at the riverine wetland reference site
' in Bladen Lakes State Forest (Drainage Area: 6.7 mi2). The data will be reported as mean daily
flows for velocity (ft/second) and discharge (CFS) in tabular and graphic format.
' Stream geometry will be measured along a fixed stream reach located in central portions of the
mitigation stream reach. The stream reach will extend for a minimum of 200 feet along the restored
channel. Annual fall monitoring will include development of a channel plan view, three channel
' cross-sections, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented
in graphic and tabular format as summarized in the attached table. Data to be presented will include:
1) cross-sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth; 4) average width; 5) width/depth ratio;
' 6) meander wavelength; 7) beltwidth; 8) water surface slope; 9) sinuosity; and 10) stream substrate
composition. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate
' (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by
Page 3 of 5

1
1
1
1
1

u
I? 'I

I
comparing data between the reference stream and mitigation stream and by comparing data in each
successive monitoring year.
Biological stream attributes will be measured annually at the mitigation site and in the reference
wetland site between April 15 and May 15 of each year. Aquatic surveys will record
presence/absence of macro-invertebrate, reptile, amphibian, and fish species populations.
Presence/absence of species populations identified will be reported along with observations of
changes to in-stream aquatic habitat or species presence/absence over time.
1.6 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) stream classification; 2) target mean daily
stream flows; and 3) increased stream faunal recruitment and diversity.
Stream geometry measurements will be incorporated into the Rosgen stream classification system.
The channel and flood prone area must support characteristics supporting an E, C, or DA stream type
to fulfill the success criteria.
In-stream flow measurements must indicate that the mitigation stream reach supports average annual,
mean daily flows per unit of drainage area equal to, or exceeding the average annual, mean daily
flows per unit of drainage area within the reference stream reach. Due to potential rainfall
differences within each watershed, a five percent deviation in average annual, mean daily flows
' between the reference and mitigation stream reaches will be allowed by the MBRT. The reference
stream reach supports an approximate 6.7 mil drainage area while the mitigation stream reach
supports an approximate 2.5 miz drainage area (37% of reference). Therefore, average annual, mean
' daily flows in the mitigation reach must equal to or exceed 32% of the average annual, mean daily
flows in reference. If the mitigation reach nd/or ference reach support no measurable flow during
' a drought period, fulfillment of success criteria will be based upon mean daily flows prior to, and
following the no flow condition.
' Biological monitoring will indicate similar species diversity as compared to reference conditions or
an increase in species diversity towards reference conditions over time. Specifically, the type and
number of species populations identified in the mitigation reach must be equal to, or increasing
' towards, the type and number of species identified in the reference reach in each successive
monitoring year. However, because the Bank supports a developing stream reach, allowances may
be given and justified when evaluating future data.
t 1.7 REPORT SUBMITTAL
Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT certifying completion of implementation activities.
' Any changes to this mitigation plan will be described in this documentation. The document will be
provided within 60 days of completion of all work at the Site.
' Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to the MBRT following each assessment. Reports
will document the sample transect locations, along with photographs which illustrate site conditions.
1
Page 4 of 5

1
1
1
1
1

fl

0

C
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular/graphic format. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the growing season will be calculated at each well, within each on-site physiographic area,
and within the reference wetland site.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, characteristic tree
species mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will be
calculated. Estimates and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of understory and
groundcover species will be generated.
1.8 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring
periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and
distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period. Recommendations for
contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology
Success Criteria are achieved. Performance bonds have been established to guarantee fiscal
resources for remediation.

1

H

Page 5 of 5
1

if
te-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 15, 2000
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199704890, Barra Farm Mitigation Bank
Mr. Alan Fickett
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Mr. Fickett:
20
`?r7
Reference the Year Two Wetland Monitoring Report for the Barra Farms Wetland
Mitigation Bank describing conditions at the Bank site as of November of 1999. We have also
been provided a copy of the Progress Report that describes the additional tree planting that was
done in February of 2000 and the supplemental vegetative monitoring. It is our understanding
that the supplemental planting was accomplished with two-year old bare root seedlings.
As you are aware, we expressed considerable concern over the observed and measured tree
mortality that occurred during the year one and year two monitoring intervals. Based on these
concerns the site was replanted with approximately 43,300 two-year bare root seedlings in
February Of 2000. In addition, you have installed several corrugated metal pipes across the
northern perimeter road to remove surface water in an effort to reduce tree mortality. As the
remedial actions have been completed and the Progress Report and May 11, 2000 site visit
confirmed that the remedial planting was successful, we agree that you have met the required
success criteria and, accordingly, agree to release year two credits (36) from the Bank. As
discussed on May 11, release of stream credit is not allowed until the year one monitoring report
successfully demonstrates that you have met the stated success criteria.
It is also our understanding that you would like to commence monitoring of the Bank for
year three during the early summer of 2000 such that year three credits would be released
(provided success criteria could be met) in the fall of 2000. Based on our review of the
monitoring reports, it would be inappropriate to accelerate the monitoring schedule and release of
credits. This decision is based on our review of the last two monitoring reports that indicate that
significant tree mortality has occurred.
'.CEIVED
JllN 26 I'll
NC wF-TLANDS
RESTORATION
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions or comments may be
addressed to the undersigned in the Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Division, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies furnished:
Mr. Garland Pardue, Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mrs. Kathryn Matthews
Wetlands Section, Region IV
Water Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Bennett Wynne, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
r'
1 ? ?h
(rT
/-?/?,?,t
June 2, 2000
Mr. Scott McLendon
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Barra Farms Wetland Monitoring Report (Year 2)
COE Action Item No. 199704890
Dear Mr. McLendon,
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the Wetland Monitoring Report:
Year 2 from Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Bank. The comments which follow also
include observations from the May-W site
Hydrology
Based on evaluation of the presented data and se eral field inspections, DWQ feels that
Barra Farms has met hydrologic success criteria The DWQ appreciates the presentation
of the RDS well data in graphical format as requested in our June 22, 1999 letter for
Monitoring Report Year 1. However, as we pointed out on the May 11, 2000 site visit we
need to know the location of these wells. Evidently, the labeling of the RDS wells in the
graphical format 4i the well serial numbers, and there was no way to identify the wells
with the map. In addition, in our June 22, 1999 letter we requested that a correlation be
performed between the manual wells and the RDS wells. Upon inspection of the drainage
pipes which were installed, DWQ does not believe that these pipes are affecting drainage
of the groundwater on site.
Vegetation
The vegetation suc ess criteria is the central issue in the decision to release the next
phase of credits a , The success criteria is as follows: "...a minimum mean density o
320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stemlacre total. Softwood species
(ex: loblolly nine, pond pine, and black willow) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of
the 320 stemlacre requirement. "
J
EcoBank representatives replanted areas of deficiency (noted in our June 22, 1999 letter
concerning Monitoring Year 1 vegetation deficiencies) on February 8-11, 2000 with
l?
43,000 here seedlings. In addition, DWQ approves of the new monitoring s h6r 'e with
increased number of plots and size resulting in a larger portion of the site being sampled.
Land Manag ' ent, Inc. monito ed the new plantings in April to test for survivability at
leaf out. ?to the ntwtn s in them supplemental report, they show Barra Farms
currently meeting the vegetation success criteria. However, DWQ believes that in order
to release credits for Monitoring Year 2, monitoring of the newly planted seedlings must
be toward the end of the respective growing season.
The?DW?Q approves of the ahe
ns taken to reduce t 50-60 acre pondi. In addition,
QV appreciates the o
f the vegetation data in a plot form-aa in the
Supplemental Actions Report.
Stream
The DWQ realizes that the Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 1 report is not finalized
as yet, however, we would like to relate severs oncems noted on the May 11, 2000 site
visit. First of all, in our June 22, 1999 letterOve recommended that the flowmeter at the
outlet of the site be moved to the rear of the pipe. This would reduce the amount of
misreadings caused by turbulence at the entrance of the culvert. i
Secondly, and the main concern for DWQ, is the reference stream and the placement of
the flowmeter in one of three open culverts. As you may recall, the -wkok credit release
schedule for the stream restoration component of the bank is based on success criteria
related to the flow of the site as compared to the reference site. Tl?va?rrrent
`?c?TcrPrr, ?? ?P h t, does not believe an accurate comparison can be made between the
restoration and reference stream. herefbre,?kntil both flowmeters are-eorrect1- installed
1- i and functioning-and-the refere cn a stream conditions are appropriate, would the stream

momtormg initiate.
Recommendations
At the May 11, 2000 site visit, EcoBank Sponsors requested the immediate release of
Monitoring Year 2 (wetland) credits and after a fall monitoring, the release of Monitoring
"P? Year (3) (wetland) credits.
The DWQ feels that it is inappropriate to release Year 2 credits based upon an April
monitoring report of recently planted seedlings. However, given the recent
improvements to the site, DWQ would approve of an immediate partial release (5%) of
the credits. The DWQ recommends that to acquire the remainder of Year 2 credits
(10%), another monitoring of the site be performed no earlier than the last week of
August. Once this report is submitted and the success criteria have been met, then the
remainder of Year 2 credits may be released. However, Year 3 credits would not be
available until after the growing season in 2001.
r?=?.L`?,4f;%?

1? fnrcv?rrl *?+ 1? g of"Ou _
Respectfully,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
DWQ-Wetland Restoration Program
CC: John Dorney, DWQ-Wetlands/401 Unit
Ken Averitte, DWQ-FRO
i
? 47
_-' - r
_ - --
fJ FJil'?? ?? c r rl `7?t'l' l?.r n-,..2,??ci`1--iZ ??? ?" ?? f?.y _?t jr'• _7?<:

A
o
1

?? ?? r

C?
O
N
A
S1.
N
4!
w
A
w
dQ
Q
w
.+
w
w
yN
V
>v
n
°e
x
Is

0
C)
w
H
N
(9
H
?Q
I
fC9
M7
N
l9
N
V II II II II II II
W r W r 0 0
W In N+ W ? C
a, W N1 0?
a, w
b C
4
Y 0•
VA
N
A
V
A?
H
cn
1" r
V1
F
s

y
i
{
`V
\ to
N
R
A'+
C N A O W J sN+a N N N 1a,
a
x
I
e
H
M,
Vl
V/
N

o
a ?
?e

/
O
y
N
?
Q+
w y
r _

aawN?
Nj o. vi
Rox? r
? w?-•w?o.o C?c??
o,wvvii =moo
+ in
?
3? y ?c ?
op\ w ?
?
p o
?g
b
H
V/
r
1" r
b I Go
a?
i.

I?
tv
e
_N
1
..A

Q?
0
N
N

N
O.
?t
H
n-+
W
ti
P1
dQ
R.
ti
W
N
b7
N
N
A?
N
n
9.<Q
n
O
ti
x
N
O
K^
4J
"t
N
N
N

n
lD
O
rn
N
O? V7 +1 W N r

V

A
R
•
y
?•

fD
fD
O 1??9

1

r7
9
1
''..
cl?
o W
N
W
K
N
n

n
C
fD
x
N

IC7-\
.?Q
\ J
O
K
a
H
H
N
\ J
e
/ M
/ y
N y
N (9
0. m
co
w
W
a
to
7
c
1.11

{
I
a, o. W Nr
91r
l
11
II 11 II II II
W
+ O Q o
?
W V>t
N
•
? o
1 1I
C
\ y ??
* *
a` T C 0

fD
bIcn
u
Q ^,
?r
c
O
LV I ?...

o ?

'Z ol

N
a'

W ?
N w ? ? ? ? ?
N G G
?a
a°
n
0
x
N
n
0
y
N
n
C
K
0
N Vl
N N
Q+ y
pl
ti
aQ
a
m
H
b
1 1%

tr ??I I L° I lal?
I I,! 1! Ii
c V
0
b?
O
IS)
o.v,?wt?? RoxcnC"
u n u u u n ?? o
wv~iw 0C
Q1 w Ul w O y V1
as y
aa o

h
LA
M
?
1
LA 91
1
0 00 ll? :?
a 7 _ C, G•

co ?„d
92

• 0?0
A ?ra
co

i
w
fl+
z
G

P

n
y
ITI
N
l3.
N
Q+
n
W
P
a
w
N
w
N
N
".r
A?

0
x
n
C'
y
I
?Q
J
C
H^
4J
y
y
41
l J
C
fD7
Fir
N
N
-Is 1`

'? e
_' ~ C
A
A
y•
S y ?C.9.y
co
bl?
o?
i
V
W
r7
N
cl)
I?
}
J-
o.v,?wc.?? R°x? r ?-
u u n n u n rn

Q? W VI ? ? '?
?i
+V
i c
y ??
Op\ w ap
p
p

o ?

N

K
N

n
yq
n
C
co
x
N
I
C')
C
N
M^^
4J
?t
N
H
y
N
N

O
a ?
y
f9 N
to N
a
w
8
a
03
F.
0% VI Cl)
a u u u u n ?? o
w.-•wi+00
x
o?wv CA
N
b *,
O ?p
CA
9 b
'1
? M
b
r?•
C
}
.9
Ce

o
z
'r
_ N
P?
A
v
` l
Hil Hil 11W 1111
°e
n
x
n
c
0
Al
N
co
y
,J a,tn? W N r Roxf/]C
C"
?? II II II II It II ? ?
W ?+wr00 n???
O? W V~i W 'L O vyi C!]
H
b
fi 0? or
VJ
ro
LA ?.
fD
CAI
!'P
C/1
r *'
0
,M 1 --1
cn
Ryo
V
M
v
z
a(l
l

o to
y
Q

O '

4

I T [

n
O
l?9
n
x
n
N
d
I 2P
?Q
0
n
C)
n
y
N
o
a ?
/ n
o
/ N
? y
N (9
0. W
w
w
T
W
C.
w
w
N
? o% cn ? W N 1" Ro x Cn r
u n n u n u ?o C o
wi-+w?oo a.
? a° y ?
C
OM In, i
A
A
lD
fD
K

b ?
0 _
K
cn ?.
?• c

•f/1
v
yR
n
O
.s
x
fA
I
?.p
C^
J
O
C
N
H/?
4J
r't
A?
N
y
y

n
?• 0
/ y
N
N (p
CL y
O'Q
ti
Al
N

Iiki'I II
F f 91.6? 1 Fi I-.1.1 _ F, - I.-' I \-F<-L- I- T,
y b
J ? cn
ro
a, o
c?
d
b cn
O
1,
V]
V
IT

?p • 1
•• c
N
V
?o.v??wt.??-? Rox? r
u u u n u u G? M a
w w o o M
O? W Vt o •? y ?q ?•
CIS W
G` ?1
o ?
B ?
y w
N
w
R
A
n
O
fD
.1
x
1
I?
?Q
J
O
<
K^
4J
K
N
y
N

?d c
0 0,
'a?' stn
H• ?
r'P
O I ^'
0

V
R
fD -
.. r?
N
t
le,

C1

a

a

N (p
O. y
w
w

ov

ca.
w
w
tll
o? v? .ta w N N Ro ?+ ? t-.
n n u n u u ?? O
w
to ?+ a y p ice, /
a, t? -n jq
n
r.
by
co
>v
N
n

n
O
K
x
y
I?
.?Q
I
<
?^^t
4J
K
N
N
(9
CD
.yQ
C)
O
/ K
O
/ CA
A (A
H H
w
>v
oa
B
a
y
9
r
y
e
3
b
0
c?
d
fD
fP

II II II It II II ? ? r fD ? b
W Vl W 1? O O ?: cn
O? W V1 0 C vi, 7Q
0 0\ a ?-+ o O
as ?a y c
o to
R
V? R
A?
N
A\
n
v
5R
n
O
n
x
I H
O^`
I
O
lC0
h
t
?t
Al
N
y
y
JV?
OR
/ W
lC N
H
Q+ y
w
ara
a
w
N
W, v - v r
W ?+ W F+ O O
W lJi ?-+ W O
O? W O ? F+ (.ft
?d
A
A
M
y• Q
H•
rT
i
6
ra
0
y
O.
N
a
N
w
w
y
W
Hyy
K
N
5Q
n
C
lD
n
x
H
I
'.rQ
T^
J
Q
n
.e
sv
N
f/1
!9
N
'.rQ
J
A7
1?1
O
y
y
y
i
A?
fD
It 14 IV I I* It
c,n

v
ft
K
t1!?I
r
n?
11 11 11 II II II
w ?n?w'vto
a•w oa??
x?r
f9 ?
y c
V! +
A
f
v,
Q
O
M
N
n
n
N
n
0
x
o+
fA
n
0
n
N
O`
.. O
Q+ ?
fOq
N Vl
N (?
0+ y
W
H
T
Q+
Al
n
Al
N
4

T r'1! 1; <i 1-
i 1 d:, 11-11 I!
1_4 6rl
II 11 Ll IA W-tb6:11%
I
y
y a
** IA
fD ro
N•
?M
V
cn
CD
CD
elt.
oI

F d
O' K
O
PT
Al
,V
s
ac
411
n .A w N ?-• Ro x cn C"
cn
a, w Ln vi
a, w
o ?

P:
N
N

N

n
l9
n
x
n
N
I
?Q
J
Q
n^
4J
n
sv
y
y
y
.7Q
?? o
¢, e
n
? y
N (p
ti
dQ
G.
A
Al
N
I I ( I i

b
ruyy. ? ?ilA
H
?M
V
x
c?
!91 ?p
o
It .
In
V
A?
N

C? In ? W N r Ro ?"' ? r"+
II II II 11 11 .il (p ? O
W? W r O O ? Q' ??
w W 4 •? 6
y 7Q
C--%-
-c?
N
w
n
v
n
C
x
y
I?
l I
0
5
"tJ
^^
4
K
y
N
N

a
y
N
y
w
O.
w
ti
w
N

a+ V, ?i W N r+
u u u n u u
w`~"4
aa, w
'* b Ili :?
O a
r nCA
ce. ,,,d
N „'q
i
d
roI g?
O ''
cn
lD
Y
c
? K
a
It
cn
?xCI r
y

r b?

y A
?

5 ?
qc
.?
}M ?
?...yy
V
7 N

?d cn

cn

o ?
? S

c

I 3? 4

n
°c

y
y
W

r+ d
K
•
FFF 0
K
H•

9

o n
.}J

o
N (?

? r .
a
w
w
N

? .p W
O?
J O
I
'
11 11
it
w?w
• Cb a
0, w Vi W
?
L
n y
v
• 7
?pp
?
CP CT q'
cn
H
e'•
C1
N

V
Y
t
O

ti

971- a.
?e
H
Q+
Al
f70
a.
w
W
w
w
y
N
At
N
f'1
a
e
x
N
I
C ?
M
A?
N
N
N
n
°e
0
0
N
w " r?
11 II II II 11 II
W t+ W F-? O O
W tJi Ir W ? O
?d c
0 a cC
O,
EA
fD
1"'1-

J
J
1
1

I FO RM

0
N y
N (9
?+ N

T
?Q

d
w
w
N
C? vi? W N ?x
u u u n u u ?? o
0
Q'
o

y w
.ate M
er i? T
-p y
" \
.-.

O O (?
? N
?
n f S .

C'9J ?

d 9
n
O
ti
x
y
I
l
O
<
H^
4J
M
Al
N
(A
V1
?? o
a ?
O
i N
N CA
N (?
m
Oro
a
d
w
m
o.vi -th. w ta?+ RoxC'n r
n u u n u u C o
wv?w?? oo ?c?c
O+ W vt w H 54
w O'
a? o y
H
S' J
c
d ?
O
N
`^??
N

i

N

N
o 0
s

E3
1 i
1•
V
? ? - ? v, ? o
• a
C ? N N w
?
r^
l cn

rgr• O
F
r
il, J i

_ N - ?cn

1Xw,
I (CD
?1

?t

n
0

w
N
N
N
c
r
N
O
1"? •
cn

a°
n
??
a o
o ?

y
ry rIQ
t3+
n ?
Uri
a
w
w
u u u u u u r?o ? o `
wv?+iw ?•oo n??vn
o. w In " ? ° H ?Q .r Qq-
rA
o tad
?
B
K
6
s
T?
n N

?
y

9 N
m
N v
1

F
2 ?a
A
A
O-
n
x
N
I
?a
0
M
0
M
A?
N
N
N
N
?a

(7
°

a e
?

0

N
fC
41 N
(p
Q+ N
Al
ti
Al

?
Q
?
D
a
w
N
W W Fi C G
1 1 ' W ?, O
b
fp
N'
rT
CA
C11
l9
f9
' G
l

r",
I

to
N
Sv
n
K
N
A
?Q
n
O
A
n
x
n
C
y
I
t J
f9
/n
4
n
A?
y
N
R
N
I
O
d
/ M
/ 0
[E Vl
N (p
O. N
P1
N
dQ
Q+
Al
N

IJO 114) 11 ut - -A LC-N e%.
11111 ?
I lit 1-f 1, 1' 11
C
r-
A?: fjj`4W.
I
O? cn t? W N f + fb x Cll t-
u u u n u u /`? co ? o
w w o o C
O? W lJl c ? ? y ? 5Q ?
aa°?aa°a° y ?-
oro??
i++
• N ?
1" r
bI4
o ?^p
r.n
g f/
Os
G
K
r?
^1
Y
1 '

C)
0
y
'T1
h
Qr
y
to
N
m
K
N
n
v

n
O
(?D
re
x
Ul
I
?Q
J
O
C
f9
M^
4J
h
Al
y
y
fD
y
54
n
O
a
O
y
fND
y? va y+ ?-
W ?./1 N (a O 0
?d c
o` c? C
Pt
?nn fE ro
V' ?? ?t
EGA
V ? H
nl?j'
C ?
N
?• P'F

c
K
K
• N
1?
c?t
X N
` .r
?ro
C?
0
x
N
l
C
h
n
n
N
N
N
G. ?
a
C9 N
N ry
R+ N
•T
P1
0.
w
n
N
(/? N W O O
W VI F+ W C
o ce
x?
A
f?D ro
?•
t?1 r, 0
?H
V
r'P
fD
ro g'
o
v? •
? S
Q
c C7
Q• ?
o
eY
?• 1
C
4-1

V
0
'.7
y
Q.
X
A
N
Or
w
A
w
rI
I/V
Q+
w
w
N
to
y
A?
.7
w
n
ti
A'+
A
"JCQ
C)
OCC
n
x
I y
.7Q
l J
C
l9
n
4 J
n
w
H
N
N
y

J
O
O
U)
(D
N
p? vl .F? W N f-`
11 11 II 11 II II
W In F+ W In C
a, w
ro
?C§
rf r.L
N ?
A ??
A
y•
y•
1" r

w
ti

o ?
H A:
A?
Al
A

x
N
I
.7Q
1
O
h
y
y
H
C1•
A
N
Qr
w
w
00
O.
w
w
N
?Q
l
O
M7
F?
O
(D
fA
W
a

aw??a°ro c
o. vi A W NN
u u u n u u RIO= r
? o
C) a-
wvtw?oo t =* ccn
c, w v`-q
C, w *
/ V/
A
A
i
cn
blc

w
H
f9

o w
?n R
W W
s
17S

n
O
n
x
N
I
n
co
P?
N
N
N
.7Q
t n
f9 ?
a ?
h
f9 N
N (?
to N
et
.'T
f14
p.
P1
.r
Al
G
N
?d c
Lia
A
A
n?
p1 ?.r
Vn
m
CD
P'r
o td
A?
N
n
v

n
O
C
K
x
H
n
0
K
w
N
N
y

S°. O
a ?
fOA
f9 (A
y N
O.
Al
ti
Al
ClQ
U
t1.
H
Fi I I ?1_' I

w?w?oo G?Q.?c
o.wv~i c 'n? y 3
b C
c a .
N, 1
y
bI ?
O ^
cn ?.

C d
O
K
cn
IC
I
i
r
r
r`
o ?
r
x- n
G
N
? S
S
N ? N( N 1 ? S (? t
SR
n
O
c?9
x
l9
O"
to
I
.7Q
l /
C?9
n
ry
P?
to
H
lD
N

O
a
N
fC fd
H
Q+ H
N
dQ
fl+
Iy
4l
1 1% lll?
o. vi ? w N Ro x cn t
u n u n u u ?? o
wv~iw ;+oo ?°7+?c?i?
O? W v~i ? Ln.. 'vii y Oa ?
b
°^ as ?
? y
A
?y• Q
S ?
PT

r?
t

'r
June 22, 1999
Mr. Scott McLendon
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: Barra Farms Wetland Monitoring Report (Year 1)
Dear Mr. McLendon,
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the Wetland Monitoring Report:
Year 1 from Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Bank. The comments which follow also
include observations from a May 5t' site visit:
Hvdrolga
Based on evaluation of the presented data and several field inspections, DWQ feels that
Barra Farms has met hydrologic success criteria. However, DWQ would like to make
several recommendations with regard to the presentation of the hydrologic data. First of
all, it was apparent from the Year 1 report that no RDS well data was reported. Evidently
the wells were malfunctioning, but have since been replaced (prior to 5/5/99) and are now
being monitored. DWQ would like to see the hydrographs from the RDS wells presented
in the Year 2 report. In addition, for the Year 2 report, DWQ would like to see
correlations with hand read wells and the reference site wells.
Stream
On the May 5t' site visit, it was noted that the stream flowmeter was in place at the
exiting culverts on site. In addition, it was apparent that of the three culverts present, two
had been blocked off. However, upon further consultation with our resident hydrologist
(Jeff Jurek), we recommend that the flowmeter be moved to the other end of the culvert
(exiting end). The turbulence caused by the water attempting to flow into the single
culvert would cause false readings at the head of the culvert.
DWQ would also like to see the reference stream and flowmeter, perhaps a meeting could
be set up with yourself or a bank representative in the near future.
Vegetation
The vegetation success criteria is the central issue in the decision to release the next
phase of credits (10%). The success criteria is as follows: "...a minimum mean density of
320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Softwood species
(ex: loblolly_pine, pond pine, and black willow) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of
the 320 stem/acre requirement. "
Tables 2 and 3 were offered in the Year 1 report as evidence of the bank meeting the
above vegetation success criteria. However, DWQ does not feel that the Tables reflect
the proper interpretation of the data. At the site visit on May the 5"', the MBRT members
were handed the plot data gathered by EcoScience, Inc. Upon further review of the plot
data DWQ found that when the plots were examined individually, 46% passed the
minimum number of stems with recruitment and 43% passed the minimum number of
planted species (Table 1). The plots would need to have at least a 60% passage rate
before the minimum number of stems could be considered "successful".
In addition to looking at the plots individually, we examined the plots by physiographic
region. We examined the sample plots present in the Headwater Slope wetlands,
Riverine wetlands, and the Groundwater flats. The results of finding at least 16 stems
present for each .05 acre plot were as follows: 1)headwater slope - 83% passed, 2)
riverine wetlands - 0% passed, and 3) groundwater flats - 37% passed (Table 2).
The vegetation success criteria also calls for diversity within the plan, however, since the
success criteria was not met for the minimum number, DWQ feels that it is nebulous to
comment on the diversity of the species at this time. Moreover, DWQ feels that the bank
will not be able to meet the diversity criteria on a per plot basis. Therefore, a
restructuring of the vegetation success criteria regarding species diversity would have to
be addressed by the bank and the MBRT. Perhaps species diversity could be addressed
on a physiographic region basis.
In addition to the minimum number plot data, the May 5t' site visit revealed areas which
were more than one or two acres in size where no planted trees appeared to survive.
These areas were not picked up to a great extent by the sample plots because the
sampling scheme was too small (26 plots @ .05 acres = 1.3 acres or .21% of site
sampled).
The site visit on May 5 h also revealed a rather large section (approximately 50-60 acres)
of the bank (roughly 10% of the bank area) exhibited a freshwater marsh habitat. Of
course, DWQ recognizes the high value of freshwater marsh wetlands, however, the
bank's restoration plan did not call for any marsh restoration. DWQ recommends,
routing the water from this marsh habitat so that the marsh area is no more than 20 acres.
Table 1
Numbers
Plot survived/plant recruitment 10% total + recruitment
ed recruitment
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-B 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 16 30 3 19
(W3)
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
P6 0 0 0 0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
P8 10 0 0 10
P9 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
P13-A 0 11 1.1 1.1
P 13-B 5 9 0.9 5.9
P14 1 34 3.4 4.4
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
P18 2 51 5.1 7.1
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
P21 0 160 16 16
P23 0 60 6 6
P24-A 9 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B 6 11 1.1 7.1
13.59259259 19.14814815 1.914814815 15.50740741
15 of 26 plots did not meet min. # of planted species (57%0)
14 of 26 plots did not meet min. # with 10% recruitment (54%)
26 plots @.05 acres =1.3 acres
1.3/623 = .21 % of site sampled
Table 2
Headwater Slope Recruitment 10% Total number
Wetlands Planted Recruitment
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 16 30 3 19
(W3)
P9 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5
83% of plots pass basic criteria*
Riverine Wetlands
P14 1 34 3.4 4.4
P18 2 51 5.1 7.1
0% of plots pass basic criteria
Groundwater Flats
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-13 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
P6 0 0 0 0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
P8 10 0 0 10
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
P1 3-A 0 11 1.1 1.1
P13-B 5 9 0.9 5.9
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
P21 0 160 16 16
P23 0 60 6 6
P24-A 9 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B 6 11 1.1 7.1
7 of 19 pass
37% of plots pass basic criteria
Based upon the above interpretations, DWQ feels that a total release of the 10% available
credits is not wholly justified. DWQ recommends a release of 5% of the credits based on
the fact that the vegetation success criteria were not met.
DWQ recommends using the existing plots and increasing their size to one acre.
Basically, this changes the radius of the existing plot from 26 feet to 117 feet. The
increase in size should not represent a considerable increase in sampling costs and the
total sampled area will increase from .21% of the area to 4% (or 1.3 acres to 26 acres).
In addition, prior to the next reporting period, DWQ recommends that the bank:
1. Report RDS hydrological data in graphical format;
2. Correlate RDS data to hand sampled wells;
3. Increase size of sample plots; and
4. Move flowmeter to exit portion of culvert.
Areas where DWQ recommends replanting include: the area just east of P8, the area
around P6, and areas around P 13 A-B, P 14, P 18, P21, P23, and P24 A-B.
DWQ would the release of the remaining 5% credit when the following remedial actions
have been met:
1. Replant specified areas of bank;
2. Reroute some water from marsh area to stream area; and
3. Report data in next report in plot specific format.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
DWQ-Wetland Restoration Program
June 22, 1999
Mr. Scott McLendon
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: Barra Farms Wetland Monitoring Report (Year 1)
Dear Mr. McLendon,
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the Wetland Monitoring Report:
Year 1 from Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Bank. The comments which follow also
include observations from a May 5th site visit:
Hydrology
Based on evaluation of the presented data and several field inspections, DWQ feels that
Barra Farms has met hydrologic success criteria. However, DWQ would like to make
several recommendations with regard to the presentation of the hydrologic data. First of
all, it was apparent from the Year 1 report that no RDS well data was reported. Evidently
the wells were malfunctioning, but have since been replaced (prior to 5/5/99) and are now
being monitored. DWQ would like to see the hydrographs from the RDS wells presented
in the Year 2 report. In addition, for the Year 2 report, DWQ would like to see
correlations with hand read wells and the reference site wells.
Stream
On the May 5 h site visit, it was noted that the stream flowmeter was in place at the
exiting culverts on site. In addition, it was apparent that of the three culverts present, two
had been blocked off. However, upon further consultation with our resident hydrologist
(Jeff Jurek), we recommend that the flowmeter be moved to the other end of the culvert
(exiting end). The turbulence caused by the water attempting to flow into the single
culvert would cause false readings at the head of the culvert.
DWQ would also like to see the reference stream and flowmeter, perhaps a meeting could
be set up with yourself or a bank representative in the near future.
Vegetation
The vegetation success criteria is the central issue in the decision to release the next
phase of credits (10%). The success criteria is as follows: "...a minimum mean densi& of
320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Softwood species
(ex: loblolly pine, pond pine, and black willow) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of
the 320 stem/acre requirement. "
Tables 2 and 3 were offered in the Year 1 report as evidence of the bank meeting the
above vegetation success criteria. However, DWQ does not feel that the Tables reflect
the proper interpretation of the data. At the site visit on May the 5a', the MBRT members
were handed the plot data gathered by EcoScience, Inc. Upon further review of the plot
data DWQ found that when the plots were examined individually, 46% passed the
minimum number of stems with recruitment and 43% passed the minimum number of
planted species (Table 1). The plots would need to have at least a 60% passage rate
before the minimum number of stems could be considered "successful".
In addition to looking at the plots individually, we examined the plots by physiographic
region. We examined the sample plots present in the Headwater Slope wetlands,
Riverine wetlands, and the Groundwater flats. The results of finding at least 16 stems
present for each.05 acre plot were as follows: 1)headwater slope - 83% passed, 2)
riverine wetlands - 0% passed, and 3) groundwater flats - 37% passed (Table 2).
The vegetation success criteria also calls for diversity within the plan, however, since the
success criteria was not met for the minimum number, DWQ feels that it is nebulous to
comment on the diversity of the species at this time. Moreover, DWQ feels that the bank
will not be able to meet the diversity criteria on a per plot basis. Therefore, a
restructuring of the vegetation success criteria regarding species diversity would have to
be addressed by the bank and the MBRT. Perhaps species diversity could be addressed
on a physiographic region basis.
In addition to the minimum number plot data, the May 5"' site visit revealed areas which
were more than one or two acres in size where no planted trees appeared to survive.
These areas were not picked up to a great extent by the sample plots because the
sampling scheme was too small (26 plots @ .05 acres = 1.3 acres or .21% of site
sampled).
The site visit on May 5 h also revealed a rather large section (approximately 50-60 acres)
of the bank (roughly 10% of the bank area) exhibited a freshwater marsh habitat. Of
course, DWQ recognizes the high value of freshwater marsh wetlands, however, the
bank's restoration plan did not call for any marsh restoration. DWQ recommends,
routing the water from this marsh habitat so that the marsh area is no more than 20 acres.
Table 1
Numbers
Plot survived/plant recruitment
ed
P1
P1-B
P2
P3
NSF-1
(W3)
P4
P5
P6
P6-B
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13-A
P 13-B
P14
P15
P16
P17
P18
P20
P21
P23
P24-A
P24-B
30
16
13
20
16
10%
recruitment
0 0
0 0
1 0.1
0 0
30 3
total + recruitment
30
16
13.1
20
19
9 0 0 9
15 0 0 15
0 0 0 0
11 0 0 11
24 0 0 24
10 0 0 10
9 3 0.3 9.3
35 32 3.2 38.2
17 42 4.2 21.2
23 0 0 23
0 11 1.1 1.1
5 9 0.9 5.9
1 34 3.4 4.4
34 10 1 35
16 45 4.5 20.5
12 12 1.2 13.2
2 51 5.1 7.1
34 2 0.2 34.2
0 160 16 16
0 60 6 6
9 4 0.4 9.4
6 11 1.1 7.1
13.59259259 19.14814815 1.914814815 15.50740741
15 of 26 plots did not meet min. # of planted species (57%)
14 of 26 plots did not meet min. # with 10% recruitment (54%)
26 plots @ .05 acres =1.3 acres
1.3/623 = .21 % of site sampled
Table 2
Headwater Slope Recruitment 10% Total number
Wetlands Planted Recruitment
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 16 30 3 19
(W3)
P9 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5
83% of plots pass basic criteria*
Riverine Wetlands
P14 1 34 3.4 4.4
P18 2 51 5.1 7.1
0% of plots pass basic criteria.
Groundwater Flats
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-B 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
P6 0 0 0 0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
P8 10 0 0 10
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
P13-A 0 11 1.1 1.1
P 13-B 5 9 0.9 5.9
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
P21 0 160 16 16
P23 0 60 6 6
P24-A 9 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B 6 11 1.1 7.1
7 of 19 pass
37% of plots pass basic criteria
Based upon the above interpretations, DWQ feels that a total release of the 10% available
credits is not wholly justified. DWQ recommends a release of 5% of the credits based on
the fact that the vegetation success criteria were not met.
DWQ recommends using the existing plots and increasing their size to one acre.
Basically, this changes the radius of the existing plot from 26 feet to 117 feet. The
increase in size should not represent a considerable increase in sampling costs and the
total sampled area will increase from .21% of the area to 41/o (or 1.3 acres to 26 acres).
In addition, prior to the next reporting period, DWQ recommends that the bank:
1. Report RDS hydrological data in graphical format,
2. Correlate RDS data to hand sample&wells;
3. Increase size of sample plots; and
4. Move flowmeter to exit portion of culvert.
Areas where DWQ recommends replanting include: the area just east of P8, the area
around P6, and areas around P13 A-B, P14, P18, P21, P23, and P24 A-B.
DWQ would the release of the remaining 5% credit when the following remedial actions
have been met:
1. Replant specified areas of bank;
2. Reroute some water from marsh area to stream area; and
3. Report data in next report in plot specific format.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
DWQ-Wetland Restoration Program
June 22, 1999
Mr. Scott McLendon
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: Barra Farms Wetland Monitoring Report (Year 1)
Dear Mr. McLendon,
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the Wetland Monitoring Report:
Year 1 from Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Bank. The comments which follow also
include observations from a May 56' site visit:
Hydrology
Based on evaluation of the presented data and several field inspections, DWQ feels that
Barra Farms has met hydrologic success criteria. However, DWQ would like to make
several recommendations with regard to the presentation of the hydrologic data. First of
all, it was apparent from the Year 1 report that no RDS well data was reported. Evidently
the wells were malfunctioning, but have since been replaced (prior to 5/5/99) and are now
being monitored. DWQ would like to see the hydrographs from the RDS wells presented
in the Year 2 report. In addition, for the Year 2 report, DWQ would like to see
correlations with hand read wells and the reference site wells.
Stream
On the May 50' site visit, it was noted that the stream flowmeter was in place at the
exiting culverts on site. In addition, it was apparent that of the three culverts present, two
had been blocked off. However, upon further consultation with our resident hydrologist
(Jeff Jurek), we recommend that the flowmeter be moved to the other end of the culvert
(exiting end). The turbulence caused by the water attempting to flow into the single
culvert would cause false readings at the head of the culvert.
DWQ would also like to see the reference stream and flowmeter, perhaps a meeting could
be set up with yourself or a bank representative in the near future.
Vegetation
The vegetation success criteria is the central issue in the decision to release the next
phase of credits (10%). The success criteria is as follows: "...q minimum mean density of
320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
Wecies can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Sowspecies
(ex: loblolly pine, pond pine, and black willow) cannot comprise more than 10 percent o?
the 320 stem/acre requirement. "
Tables 2 and 3 were offered in the Year 1 report as evidence of the bank meeting the
above vegetation success criteria. However, DWQ does not feel that the Tables reflect
the proper interpretation of the data. At the site visit on May the 5th, the MBRT members
were handed the plot data gathered by EcoScience, Inc. Upon further review of the plot
data DWQ found that when the plots were examined individually, 46% passed the
minimum number of stems with recruitment and 43% passed the minimum number of
planted species (Table 1). The plots would need to have at least a 60% passage rate
before the minimum number of stems could be considered "successful".
In addition to looking at the plots individually, we examined the plots by physiographic
region. We examined the sample plots present in the Headwater Slope wetlands,
Riverine wetlands, and the Groundwater flats. The results of finding at least 16 stems
present for each .05 acre plot were as follows: 1)headwater slope - 83% passed, 2)
riverine wetlands - 0% passed, and 3) groundwater flats - 37% passed (Table 2).
The vegetation success criteria also calls for diversity within the plan, however, since the
success criteria was not met for the minimum number, DWQ feels that it is nebulous to
comment on the diversity of the species at this time. Moreover, DWQ feels that the bank
will not be able to meet the diversity criteria on a per plot basis. Therefore, a
restructuring of the vegetation success criteria regarding species diversity would have to
be addressed by the bank and the MBRT. Perhaps species diversity could be addressed
on a physiographic region basis.
In addition to the minimum number plot data, the May 5th site visit revealed areas which
were more than one or two acres in size where no planted trees appeared to survive.
These areas were not picked up to a great extent by the sample plots because the
sampling scheme was too small (26 plots @ .05 acres = 1.3 acres or .21% of site
sampled).
The site visit on May 5th also revealed a rather large section (approximately 50-60 acres)
of the bank (roughly 10% of the bank area) exhibited a freshwater marsh habitat. Of
course, DWQ recognizes the high value of freshwater marsh wetlands, however, the
bank's restoration plan did not call for any marsh restoration. DWQ recommends,
routing the water from this marsh habitat so that the marsh area is no more than 20 acres.
Based upon the above interpretations, DWQ feels that a total release of the 10% available
credits is not wholly justified. DWQ recommends a release of 5% of the credits based on
the fact that the vegetation success criteria were not met.
DWQ recommends using the existing plots and increasing their size to one acre.
Basically, this changes the radius of the existing plot from 26 feet to 117 feet. The
increase in size should not represent a considerable increase in sampling costs and the
total sampled area will increase from .21% of the area to 4% (or 1.3 acres to 26 acres).
In addition, prior to the next reporting period, DWQ recommends that the bank:
1. Report RDS hydrological data in graphical format;
2. Correlate RDS data to hand sampled wells;
3. Increase size of sample plots; and
4. Move flowmeter to exit portion of culvert.
Areas where DWQ recommends replanting include: the area just east of P8, the area
around P6, and areas around P13 A-B, P14, P18, P21, P23, and P24 A-B.
DWQ would the release of the remaining 5% credit when the following remedial actions
have been met:
1. Replant specified areas of bank;
2. Reroute some water from marsh area to stream area; and
3. Report data in next report in plot specific format.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
DWQ-Wetland Restoration Program
Table 1
Numbers
Plot survived/plant recruitment
ed
P1
P1-B
P2
P3
NSF-1
(W3)
P4
P5
P6
P6-B
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13-A
P 13-B
P14
P15
P16
P17
P18
P20
P21
P23
P24-A
P24-B
30
16
13
20
16
10%
recruitment
0 0
0 0
1 0.1
0 0
30 3
total + recruitment
30
16
13.1
20
19
9 0 0 9
15 0 0 15
0 0 0' 0
11 0 0 11
24 0 0 24
10 0 0 10
9 3 0.3 9.3
35 32 3.2 38.2
17 42 4.2 21.2
23 0 0 23
0 11 1.1 1.1
5 9 0.9 5.9
1 34 3.4 4.4
34 10 1 35
16 45 4.5 20.5
12 12 1.2 13.2
2 51 5.1 7.1
34 2 0.2 34.2
0 160 16 16
0 60 6 6
9 4 0.4 9.4
6 11 1.1 7.1
13.59259259 19.14814815 1.914814815 15.50740741
15 of 26 plots did not meet min. # of planted species (57%)
14 of 26 plots did not meet min. # with 10% recruitment (54%)
26 plots @ .05 acres =1.3 acres
1.3/623 = .21 % of site sampled
Table 2
Headwater Slope Recruitment 10% Total number
Wetlands Planted Recruitment
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 16 30 3 19
(W3)
P9 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5
83% of plots pass basic criteria*
Riverine Wetlands
P14 1 34 3.4 4.4
P18 2 51 5.1 7.1
0% of plots pass basic criteria
Groundwater Flats
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-B 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
P6 0 0 0 0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
P8 10 0 0 10
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
P13-A 0 11 1.1 1.1
P 13-B 5 9 0.9 5.9
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
P21 0 160 16 16
P23 0 60 6 6
P24-A 9 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B 6 11 1.1 7.1
7 of 19 pass
37% of plots pass basic criteria

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 27, 2000
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199704890, Barra Faun Mitigation Bank
Mr. Alan Fickett
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Mr. Fickett:
Reference the Remedial Actions and Supplemental Planting Plan for the Barra Farms
Wetland Mitigation Bank, dated October 8, 1999, and in which you describe the remedial actions
to be undertaken at this Bank. It is our understanding that the remedial planting will occur on
February 7 and 8, 2000 and that once leaf-out has occurred, ECOBANK will prepare an interim
monitoring report that describes the survival of the newly planted trees.
Notwithstanding our comment below, we agree that you have satisfied our requirements as
outlined in our meeting held on September 28, 1999, and our letter dated July 8, 1999.
Accordingly, year one credits (24) from the Bank are available for use. As always, future
decisions concerning the acceptability of the use of this bank to mitigate for the impacts of any
particular permit will be made during the permit review process of that permit.
We note that the plan describes the installation of several flash-board risers on the north
side of the restoration area. Historically, we have prohibited the use of artificial measures to
manipulate water levels on mitigation sites. This is due to necessary future maintenance and
because these strictures can be tampered with easily. For these reasons, all flash-board risers
will need to be removed once the trees have grown such that they will not be inundated with.
ponded water. We again suggest you evaluate the affect the berm on the south side of the site is
having on the retention of surface water in the former agricultural fields.
R cc,
V
FFR 7 2o0o
NC VV RfNDDIS
RESTORATI&UP4
A.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions or comments may be
addressed to the undersigned in the Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Division, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Specialist
Copies furnished:
Mr. Garland Pardue, Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mrs. Kathryn Matthews
Wetlands Section, Region IV
Water Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Bennett Wynne, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
2
Numbers Diversity
Plot survived/planted recruitment 10% recruitment total + recruitment planted
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-B 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 (W3) 16 30 3 19
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
0 0. 14
0
0
0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
10 0 0 10
fawl- 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
- . ? 11 1.1 1.1
1?t _.9 0.9 5.9
34 3.4 4.4
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
51 5.1 7.1
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
0 160 16 16
Zs... 0 60 6 6
24 A_,_ '_ 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B P 11 1.1 7.1
13.59259259 19.14814815 1.914814815 15.50740741
15 of 26 plots did not meet min. # of planted species (57%)
14 of 26 plots did not meet min. # with 10% recruitment (54%)

26;plots @ .05 acres =1.3 acres

1:3/623 = .21 % of site sampled

Numbers
Plot survived/planted recruitment 10% recruitment total + recruitment
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-B 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 (W3) 16 30 3 19
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
P6 0 0 0 0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
P8 10 0 0 10
P9 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
P13-A 0 11 1.1 1.1
P13-B 5 9 0.9 5.9
P14 1 34 3.4 4.4
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
P18 2 51 5.1 7.1
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
P21 0 160 16 16
P23 0 60 6 6
P24-A 9 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B 6 11 1.1 7.1
13.59259259 19.14814815 1.9148148-1-5 15.50740741
15 of 26 plots did not meet min. # of planted species (570/6)
14 of 26 plots did not meet min. # with 10% recruitment (54%)

26 plots @ .05 acres =1.3 acres

1.31623 = .21 % of site sampled

i
i
i
i
i
3
v
m
a
a
0
m
w
J
i

#1

N
W013
P16
0
P16
0

V

.
71
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (24)
24'inch Monitoring. Well (23) ?
RDS24 Continuous Monitoring Piezometer (2)
PhysioQraphic Landscape Units
® Riverine Floodpiain
® Headwater Slope
Uplands
Groundwater Flats
Lit,
Q
r
.iY ? 1 t I y, ?.
FEET 0 600 1200 /? I' i i iI i ?? ?`.??•
METERS 0 0 200
M v •-
o00
I ?
N W
O
m ?
L
? a` o
0
?o
II
m
0
? o
? U t!
M o
r 0:
u-
0
Y
C
a
m
c
00
_L
0 C ?
a 0
?Z
a)
,0,`00
?IiU
? ac
pO
U(D
0
m
0 $4
41
a?
M I
?a
WU

Headwater S lope Wetlands
P3 20 0 0 20
NSF-1 (W3) 16 30 3 19
P9 9 3 0.3 9.3
P10 35 32 3.2 38.2
P15 34 10 1 35
P16 16 45 4.5 20.5

83% of plots pass basic criteria*

Riverine Wetl ands
P14 1 34 3.4 4.4
P18 2 51 5.1 7.1

0% of plots pass basic criteria

Groundwater Flats
P1 30 0 0 30
P1-B 16 0 0 16
P2 13 1 0.1 13.1
P4 9 0 0 9
P5 15 0 0 15
P6 0 0 0 0
P6-B 11 0 0 11
P7 24 0 0 24
P8 10 0 0 10
P11 17 42 4.2 21.2
P12 23 0 0 23
P13-A 0 11 1.1 1.1
P13-B 5 9 0.9 5.9
P17 12 12 1.2 13.2
P20 34 2 0.2 34.2
P21 0 160 16 16
P23 0 60 6 6
P24-A 9 4 0.4 9.4
P24-B 6 11 1.1 7.1
7 of 19 pass
37% of plots pass basic criteria

Basic criteria is simply 320 trees suriviving per acre, since plots are .05 acre, then the plots mus t show
16 trees per plot to pass the test.
0A G
f /0",
I de (1-5 -
1 01-
3 O
--- _ _ - - - 3 -- -- - - a zd -- --- .3 - _a! ---- -- - --3 - = - - --
OVV
v
i
---- - - , -'Z -- '- ----- - -- -- c' --- -- -.3
Pig. te? b -

ff ?t
-r?
4?1
Y/%
"> lof.)
I

[J

1

?r -
-T

Well (23) I
Monitoring Piezometer (2).
0P16
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (24)
Physiographic Landscape Units
® Riverine Floodplain
E-M Headwater Slope
0
a
7
Y
Uplands
Groundwater Flats

ph,tograph
4
1
o00
N ?1 O
a. z
C V
7
0
CL '
?+ u
m
m o
0
U o
0 0
O U N
Y
c
0
m
0 0
+, C
0 '0
v+
?v
?U
- L
C v ++
cc d
Y-. 2
C" z
0
c? N
'C c
0
oU-U
Sao
U?
`3
v
U- U
v
m
1
4f
2 ? f (0? 0

C410 5,,? 0 f /, ,
?r
a• + 6
i
e/

* 4 14k.
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan will consist of a comparison between hydrology model predictions,
reference wetlands, and wetland restoration areas on the Site. Monitoring of wetland
restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, vegetation and hydrology. Wetland soils
currently exist within restoration areas and monitoring is not considered necessary to verify
hydric soil requirements for a jurisdictional determination.
7.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
After hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will
be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing
Monitorina Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) will be installed at the Site to
provide representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the three
physiographic landscape areas (Figure 14). Four monitoring wells will also be placed within
the reference wetland site in similar landscape positions, where available. Three continuous
recording (RDS24) wells will also be installed on-site to provide continuous data that can be
extrapolated to manual recording devices.
Hydrological sampling will be performed on-site and within reference during the growing
season (17 March to 12 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success
criteria within the designated physiographic area (EPA 1990). In general, the wells will be
sampled weekly through the Spring and early Summer and intermittently through the remainder
of the growing season, if needed to verify success.
7.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using a potential combination of three
different methods: 1) regulatory wetland hydrology criteria; 2) reference groundwater
modeling; and 3) reference wetland sites.
Regulatory Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within one foot of
the soil surface for 12.5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In
some instances, the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between 5 and 12.5% of
the growing season.
Reference Groundwater Model
The reference groundwater model forecasts that the wetland hydroperiod in interior areas of
the Site will average 22% of the growing season in early successional phases. As steady
state forest conditions develop, the average wetland hydroperiod is forecast to encompass
36
? Y
40% of the growing season. Over the 31 year modeling period, the annual hydroperiod
fluctuated from less than 12.5% to over 44% dependent upon rainfall patterns and
successional phase. In addition, the on-site landscape includes diverse wetland
geomorphology, especially near uplands and the stream channel, which are not characterized
by the model.
Due to wide fluctuations in modeled annual hydroperiod (< 12-44+ %), the groundwater model
cannot provide a specific hydrology success criteria above the regulatory criterion (12.5 %) on
an annual basis. A specific success criteria such as a 22% target hydroperiod will fail in 50%
of the years sampled. A success criteria of 12.5% (the regulatory criteria) will also fail in 10%
of the years sampled in reference wetlands.
Reference Wetland Sites
Four monitoring wells will be placed in the groundwater flats reference wetland located in the
northwestern periphery of Barra Farms. Wells will be also be placed in a riverine reference
wetland in the Bushy Lake/Horse shoe Lake natural area dependent upon contact with the
North Carolina Park and Recreation Service. These wells will provide annual hydroperiods on
the organic soil flat, and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Site. The headwater
slope physiographic area may be interpolated between the two systems. Transition zones from
uplands towards the wetland interior will not be represented. Therefore, these wells will
provide comparative information on interior wetlands only.
The hydrology success criteria for this Site will require saturation (free water) within one foot
of the soil surface for at least 50% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wetland.
Based on groundwater models, average wetland hydroperiods in groundwater flats will exhibit
a steady, non-linear increase from 22% to 40% of the growing season during forest (post-
farmland) development. This trend includes a hypothetical reduction in hydraulic conductivities
and a 50% increase in surface water storage through the first 15 years of wetland
development. Therefore, a goal of 50 +/-% hydroperiods relative to reference wetlands is
warranted for the five year monitoring period. This 50% goal may not apply in non-organic
soils as evapotranspiration may play a greater role in early successional hydroperiods than
surface water storage.
7.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general
discussion of the monitoring program.
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.
37

During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 31 after each
growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
After planting plan implementation, 0.1 acre plots will be within each restored ecosystem type.
Twenty three plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-
related data on hydrological and vegetation parameters.
7.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic trees/ac must be present for the
five year monitoring period. Characteristic tree species are those within the reference
ecosystems (Section 5.3), elements enumerated in the planting plan, along with natural
recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine, and pond pine. Loblolly or
pond pine (softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320 stem/acre
requirement. In addition, at least five character tree species must be present, and no species
can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental plantings will
be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part
of the vegetation success criteria. Development of a forest canopy over several decades and
restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of
desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent
cover/composition of shrub and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported
for information purposes.
7.5 REPORT SUBMITTAL
Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT certifying completion of implementation
activities. Any changes to this mitigation plan will be described in this documentation. The
document will be provided within 60 days of completion of all work at the Site.
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to the MBRT following each assessment.
Reports will document the sample transect locations, along with photographs which illustrate
site conditions.
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular/graphic format. The duration of wetland
hydrology during the growing season will be calculated at each well, within each on-site
physiographic area, and within the reference wetland site.
38
,Y 4.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, characteristic tree
species mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will
be calculated. Estimates and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of understory
and groundcover species will be generated.
7.6 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended
monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum
species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies
if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
monitored until the Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved. Performance bonds have been
established to guarantee fiscal resources for remediation.
39
UNITED S'T'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
• A •
4Wtit-WCWQG/KM
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W
.-Atlanta, Geor-ia 30303 - 8960
APR 1 9 1999 i+f 'P

Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth /
District Engineer
ATTN: Mr. Scott McLendon % 6
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington North Carolina 28402-1890
X
`I
. .?,
A R R SUBJ: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank; First Annual Monita`

Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the `Wetland V?onitoring
Report: Year 1 ("monitoring report"), dated November 1998, for the Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank. We regret that we will be unable to attend the May 5, 1999 field O? s A-
meeting, but we would like to submit the following comments: v,'r?
EPA is concerned that the vegetation monitoring daia for indiv' i
-p ed, and that the data for all plots was averaged to provide the information in Tables 2 and 3.
EPA is curious as to the density of tree stems in plots where only one species was planted, such as
Atlantic White Cedar (AWC). If there are only 11 AW-C stems per acre present, is this particular
area practically bare of vegetation, or are there other species in the same plot`? Without such
information, it is difficult for EPA to determine our position on success of the site. If certain plots
in the restoration areas have less than 320 stems per acre, then EPA is of the ol?i inn rh r +?? ye--?? _
p s are n_ot successful. We trust that the resource agencies will be able to receive such 00 tea"'
information or view these areas during the May 5 site visit. jfv? !?? PLUS
IN Furtier, Table 2 of the monitoring report indicates that Scalix nigru (Black -,villow), a s wss
softwood species, represents more than 10% of the total number of trees per acre in the former
cropland area. Table 3 indicates that Accr rubrum (Red mark;) exceeds 2001 of tho total treeS 11
the supplemental planting area. Although EPA recognizes that more than the required 320 stems
per acre (averaged over plots) have been documented in both areas (even without including the
two species mentioned above), we are concerned that almost half of the tree species planted on
the forme cropland contribute less than i0 trees per acre each. Eleven desirable planted and
volunteer species cumulatively contribute only 7% of the total tree species. Although we are
uncertain as to how many of each species were planted, it appears that the. majority of certain
species of planted trees were almost completely decimated this year, and that the remainder may

not survive the required five years. EPA recommends that the sponsor closely monitor the
mitioation areas to ensure that the softwood and volunteer species do not overpower the other
desirable species. Further, thinning of softwood and over-dominant volunteer species, and
planting of additional desirable trees may be warranted at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions
concerning our comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at [phone].
iilli ere t am L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
cc: USACE, Wilminaton.
USFWS, Raleigh
NCDWQ, Raleigh
NCWRC, Raleigh
Barra Farms
Subject: Barra Farms
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:38:13 -0400
From: "McLendon, Scott C SAW" <Scott. [e-mail]. army. mil>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]. nc.us, [e-mail],
[e-mail], Kevin [e-mail],
[e-mail]. state. nc.us
CC: "Jahnke, Ernest W SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"Franklin, David SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"Timpy, David L SAW" <[e-mail]>
Greetings,
It is my understanding that you have been provided a copy of the yearly
monitoring report for this Bank. A site visit has been scheduled for May
5, 1999 at 10:OOAM to inspect the site and to address any questions you may
have concerning the report.
Scott McLendon
1 of 1 4/14/99 12:54 PM
[Fwd: Barra Farms II]
Subject: [Fwd: Barra Farms HI
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:11:58 -0500
From: "Ron Ferrell" <[e-mail]. state.nc.us> hiter nl
Organization: NCDWQ-Wetlands Restoration Program
To: Mac Haupt <[e-mail]. nc.us>
The chips are beginning to fall and it appears that we may have to "Keep
on smiling through the pain" as Wet Willie used to sing. Please ask
Jeff to determine if we have received any payments within the Barra
Farms Service Area. Also determine the counties within the service area
and ask Bonnie M to find out the acres of impact during the last 2
fiscal years. I need this info ASAP.
P.S. It appears decisions have been made so regardless of our opinion
we need to support those decisions. Thanks
Subject: Barra Farms H
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:05:20 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bill Holman)
To: [e-mail] (Preston Howard),
[e-mail], ron [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail] (Craig Deal),
Sherri [e-mail]. state.nc.us (Sherri Evans-Stanton)
David King & I met with Joe Thomas of EcoBank to discuss the Barra
Farms II project. S Atlantic District of the Corps has approved the
MBI for Barra I; EcoBank is raring to go on Barra II.
I asked DOT to project how many credits they'll need from Barra I and
Barra II. We'll discuss this more at the DOT/DENR meeting on 2/22.
Shortly thereafter David & I will convene WRP and DOT staff on the
project. Ron, we'd appreciate your estimates of what other credits
might be needed from other projects in the service area.
1 of 1 2/19/99 8:
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Preston Howard
FROM: Ron Ferrellx<f
SUBJECT: Barra Farms Wetland Mitigation Bank
DATE: February 17, 1999
Attached is the final Mitigation Banking Instrument for the Barra Farms
Mitigation Bank in Cumberland County. I have coordinated the review of this proposal
with the Wetlands/401 Unit and they concur that the proposed bank will provide
acceptable mitigation for the loss of non-riparian wetlands and a limited amount of
riparian wetlands. Your signature on this document only means that it can be
considered as compensatory mitigation. Use of the bank for a particular permit must be
approved as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification review process.
If you have any questions concerning this document or the review and approval
process I am available at your convenience to discuss. Otherwise, please sign the two
signature pages as indicated by the blue sticker and return to me. Thanks.
?-F a?
f7\

[Fwd: Barra Farms]
Subject: [Fwd: Barra Farms]
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:29:20 -0400
From: "Larry Hobbs" <[e-mail]> Internal
To: Mac Haupt <[e-mail]>
FYI
Subject: Re: Barra Farms
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:39:33 -0700
From: kevin [e-mail]
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]. nc.us>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <Scott. [e-mail]. army. mil>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <howard [e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail], mil>,
<[e-mail]>, <howard [e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <john [e-mail]>
A site visit would be great. This appears to be the appropriate venue
for discussing the Corps' role as MBRT lead after a bank has been
authorized.
Last month, when a potential problem at Barra Farms was discovered and
reported by the Service, it was disconcerting to be told, in effect,
that the Corps needs comments from the agencies before it can decide
whether or not a monitoring report is adequate.
In our quick site visit, we discovered that the drainage ditch and
artificial levee in the area that feeds surface runoff to the stream
were intact and apparently affecting hydrology. I thought the ditch
and levee were to have been filled and leveled. This was not described
in the report, and my concern may be the result of a misunderstanding.
If it is the Corps' intent to manage mitigation banks like permits are
processed, where the Corps views it's job as facilitating banks, and
the burden of proof is on the resource agencies, it does not appear
reasonable to let the Corps assume full responsibility. A frank
disclosure of the Corps' management philosophy and goals will allow us
to put realistic checks and balances into future agreements.
Regards, KMoody
Reply Separator
Subject: Barra Farms
Author: "McLendon Scott C SAW" <[e-mail]> at
INTERNET
Date: 04/14/1999 9:38 AM
Greetings,
It is my understanding that you have been provided a copy of the yearly
monitoring report for this Bank. A site visit has been scheduled for May
5, 1999 at 10:00AM to inspect the site and to address any questions you may
have concerning the report.
Scott McLendon
1 of 1 5/4/99 1:41 PM
6 _.%
7.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan will consist of a comparison between hydrology model predictions,
reference wetlands, and wetland restoration areas on the Site. Monitoring of wetland
restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled.
Monitoring is proposed for two wetland components, vegetation and hydrology. Wetland soils
currently exist within restoration areas and monitoring is not considered necessary to verify
hydric soil requirements for a jurisdictional determination.
7.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
After hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will
be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing
Monitorina Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) will be installed at the Site to
provide representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the three
physiographic landscape areas (Figure 14). Four monitoring wells will also be placed within
the reference wetland site in similar landscape positions, where available. Three continuous
recording (RDS24) wells will also be installed on-site to provide continuous data that can be
extrapolated to manual recording devices.
Hydrological sampling 'will be performed on-site and within reference during the growing
season (17 March to 12 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success
criteria within the designated physiographic area (EPA 1990). In general, the wells will be
sampled weekly through the Spring and early Summer and intermittently through the remainder
of the growing season, if needed to verify success.
7.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using a potential combination of three
different methods: 1) regulatory wetland hydrology criteria; 2) reference groundwater
modeling; and 3) reference wetland sites.
Regulatory Wetland Hydrology Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within one foot of
the soil surface for 12.5 percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In
some instances, the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between 5 and 12.5% of
the growing season.
Reference Groundwater Model
The reference groundwater model forecasts that the wetland hydroperiod in interior areas of
the Site will average 22% of the growing season in early successional phases. As steady
state forest conditions. develop, the average wetland hydroperiod is forecast to encompass
36
40% of the growing season. Over the 31 year modeling period, the annual hydroperiod
fluctuated from less than 12.5% to over 44% dependent upon rainfall patterns and
successional phase. In addition, the on-site landscape includes diverse wetland
geomorphology, especially near uplands and the stream channel, which are not characterized
by the model.
Due to wide fluctuations in modeled annual hydroperiod (< 12-44+ %), the groundwater model
cannot provide a specific hydrology success criteria above the regulatory criterion (12.5%) on
an annual basis. A specific success criteria such as a 22% target hydroperiod will fail in 50%
of the years sampled. A success criteria of 12.5% (the regulatory criteria) will also fail in 10%
of the years sampled in reference wetlands.
Reference Wetland Sites
Four monitoring wells will be placed in the groundwater flats reference wetland located in the
northwestern periphery of Barra Farms. Wells will be also be placed in a riverine reference
wetland in the Bushy Lake/Horse shoe Lake natural area dependent upon contact with the
North Carolina Park and Recreation Service. These wells will provide annual hydroperiods on
the organic soil flat, and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Site. The headwater
slope physiographic area may be interpolated between the two systems. Transition zones from
uplands towards the wetland interior will not be represented. Therefore, these wells will
provide comparative information on interior wetlands only.
The hydrology success criteria for this Site will require saturation (free water) within one foot
of the soil surface for at least 50% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wetland.
Based on groundwater models, average wetland hydroperiods in groundwater flats will exhibit
a steady, non-linear increase from 22% to 40% of the growing season during forest (post-
farmland) development. This tread includes a hypothetical reduction in hydraulic conductivities
and a 50% increase in surface water storage through the first 15 years of wetland
development. Therefore, a goal of 50 +/-% hydroperiods relative to reference wetlands is
warranted for the five year monitoring period. This 50% goal may not apply in non-organic
soils as evapotranspiration may play a greater role in early successional hydroperiods than
surface water storage.
7.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general
discussion of the monitoring program.
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.
37
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds. Subsequently, quantitative
sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 31 after each
growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
After planting plan implementation, 0.1 acre plots will be within each restored ecosystem type.
Twenty three plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-
related data on hydrological and vegetation parameters.
7.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic trees/ac must be present for the
five year monitoring period. Characteristic tree species are those within the reference
ecosystems (Section 5.3), elements enumerated in the planting plan, along with natural
recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine, and pond pine. Loblolly or
pond pine (softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320 stem/acre
requirement. In addition, at least five character tree species must be present, and no species
can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental plantings will
be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part
of the vegetation success criteria. Development of a forest canopy over several decades and
restoration of wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of
desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent
cover/composition of shrub and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported
for information purposes.
7.5 REPORT SUBMITTAL
Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT certifying completion of implementation
activities. Any changes to this mitigation plan will be described in this documentation. The
document will be provided within 60 days of completion of all work at the Site.
Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to the MBRT following each assessment.
Reports will document the sample transect locations, along with photographs which illustrate
site conditions.
Surficial well data will be presented in tabular/graphic format. The duration of wetland
hydrology during the growing season will be calculated at each well, within each on-site
physiographic area, and within the reference wetland site.

38
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, characteristic tree
species mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will
be calculated. Estimates and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of understory
and groundcover species will be generated.
7.6 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended
monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum
species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies
if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period.
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and
monitored until the Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved. Performance bonds have been
established to guarantee fiscal resources for remediation.
39
EcoScience
10 December 1998
Ron Ferrell
N.C. Wetland Restoration Program
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
J W
Re: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Cumberland County
Dear Ron:
On behalf of ECOBANK, we are pleased to provide you with a final copy of the Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI) for the above referenced project. Changes and comments discussed at the 13
November 1998 Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT) meeting in Wilmington have been
incorporated into this final document. Copies of the MBI have been forwarded to all members of
the MBRT. We assume the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will take the lead Tole in having the
document signed by MBRT members.
In addition, we are including the Year 1 - Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) for the
Barra Farms project. In summary, the project has fulfilled success criteria for all wetland parameters.
Stream restoration criteria will be fully evaluated for success as part of the Year 2 - AWMR at the
end of 1999.
Sincerely,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
Jerry McCrain, Ph.D., CEP
President
cc: Kevin Moody, USFWS
Scott McLendon, USACE
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC
Alan Fickett, ECOBANK
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Frank McBride, NCWRC
Cherry Greed, USFWS
612 Wade Avenue Suite 200
F
K "E
DEC ' 4 1998
N0 VVETL ANDS
RESTORATION
i
Mr. Scott McLendon
Regulatory Specialist
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: Barra Farms Wetland Mitigation Bank
Action Item No. 199704890
Wetland Monitoring Report (Year 2)
Dear Mr. McLendon:
Pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for the above referenced
regional mitigation bank, the Year 2 Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR), is hereby
submitted.
You have scheduled an on-site review for May 11, 2000. We hereby confirm our attendance and
look forward to meeting with you on the I Vh.
Sincerely,
l7)
Alan G. Fickett, Ph. D.
ECOBANK
RECEIVED
c:/js/mc1endon/ficketU45.99
c: William Gilmore, P.E.
JeffJurek
Kathy Matthews
Kevin Moody
Bennett Wynne
APR 1'7 2000
No 1METLANDS
RESTORATION
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD , WINTER PARK. FLORIDA 32789
[phone] - FAX [phone]

At 6/)&e Am 2522
ftmaytan, .A" %6ok-w 28402
d'. 9Y0-452-000Y
9?o&d 2. Anal
Z., g
°N! ?leJelien .?ouiaon
`? Jug
Mr. Ron Ferrell
NCDENR
N.C. Wetland Restoration Program
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
May 5, 2000
RE: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
Enclosed please find the following documents:
9'? M
-T0f . 916k
8805 Wiial? .venue
Wdmi, &n, M ,28408
?00
011
404'Aee
Supplemental Actions Taken at Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank,
1999-2000. This document summarizes the actions taken by ECOBANK to improve
monitoring techniques and achieve success criteria. Pictures of drainage pipes and
supplemental planting that occurred in February, 2000 are included.
Progress Report: Results of April, 2000 vegetation monitoring at Barra Farms Cape
Fear Regional Mitigation Bank. A third vegetation survey was conducted in April of 2000
to monitor natural recruitment of vegetation at Barra and evaluate the survival of seedlings
planted in February. This report summarizes the results of this survey and compares the
data to the drastically different results of the vegetation survey conducted in November of
1999. Because of natural recruitment, supplemental planting, and the installation of
drainage pipes to control water levels, Barra Farms now meets and exceeds the vegetation
success criteria required in the mitigation plan.
M J Ob
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Page 2
If you have any questions or comments regarding these reports, please do not hesitate to give me
a call.
Sincerely,
Kim Williams
Wetland Scientist
cc: Mr. John Dorney, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. Ron Ferrell, N.C. Wetland Restoration Program
Mr. Alan Fickett, ECOBANK
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Mr. Scott McLendon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Kevin Moody, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Bennett Wynne, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
r
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN AT
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
1999-2000
Prepared for:
Ecobank
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington, NC
March, 2000
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN AT
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
1999-2000
The following is a list of actions that have been taken to improve the quality of monitoring and
insure future mitigation success at Barra Farms:
1. Installation of six 18" diameter drainage pipes along the north section of Barra to alleviate
ponding (Figure 1). The pipes were installed in October of 1999 to reduce the standing
water created by rainfall from hurricanes and from any future heavy rain events. Ponded
water will be lowered only during and/or after extreme climatic rainfall events after which
ponding could be detrimental to the growth of survival of character species. The pipes will
not allow groundwater levels to recede below the wetland hydrology thresholds and can
be plugged in dry periods to allow percolation into the wetland before standing water is
released.
2. The percentage of Barra being sampled for vegetation was increased in Year 2 monitoring.
In Year 1 monitoring, 24 plots, each 0.05 acre in size, were sampled resulting in a total of
1.2 acres surveyed. In order to get a larger sample of representative vegetation and to
pinpoint the location of areas not meeting the vegetative success criteria, the sampling
area was increased in 1999. In Year 2 monitoring, 34 plots that were each 0.1 acre in size
were sampled resulting in 3.4 total acres surveyed. This is a 283% increase in sampling
size between Year 1 and Year 2. These 34 plots include 19 of the original 24 plots plus an
additional 15 plots randomly placed in areas generally lacking plots.
3. In December of 1999, a subcontractor hired by ECOBANK installed 3 new RDS
monitoring wells at Barra to get a more precise and continuous account of hydrology. A
total of five RDS wells now read hydrology data on-site and 2 RDS wells are located at
reference sites.
4. In January of 2000, the mouth of the mitigation stream at Barra was cleaned of debris
such as fallen limbs and snags to increase stream flow and further reduce standing water in
this area (Figure 2).
5. Supplemental planting at the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank was performed February 8-11,
2000. Twelve species that have shown an ability to survive at Barra (Table 1) were
planted across the groundwater flats and headwater slope habitats, which comprise
approximately 362 acres of this site (Figure 3). Seedlings that were approximately 2 years
old were purchased from the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources Nursery in
Goldsboro, NC (Figure 4) and were evenly distributed across the former crop land at
Barra (Figures 5 and 6). However, in wetter areas, such as the headwater slope habitat, a
greater number of bald cypress and water tupelo were planted, since these species are
better adapted to wet conditions. Planting actions were closely monitored by Land
Management Group, Inc. personnel. A total of 43,300 seedlings planted across 362 acres
resulted in approximately 120 trees/acre (- 20-foot spacing). Since an average of 241
characteristic trees/ac (average of groundwater flats and headwater slope habitats) were
observed in Year 2 monitoring, this supplemental planting increased tree density to 361
trees/acre. These trees, in addition to new volunteers and the established trees already
present, will help Barra achieve the vegetative success criterion of 320 characteristic
trees/acre over the required monitoring period.
Table 1. Number and species of trees planted at Barra Farms during the winter of 2000.
Common Name Scientific Name Number Ordered
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 4000
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 6000
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 1000
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 800
Green Ash Fraxinus penmylvanica 2500
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 2000
Swamp Blackgum Nyssa biflora 6500
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 2000
Water Oak Quercus nigra 6000
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica 5600
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5900
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1000
TOTAL 43,300
6. Since the continuous monitoring stream gauges placed in the reference and restoration
streams in 1999 have been somewhat unreliable, staff gauges will be replaced and used as
a backup measure of stream flow. The staff gauges will insure continuous collection of
flow data and will allow a more accurate assessment of stream mitigation.
w e• J ?y '?• ?"-
.t'• + '1?? i.ib,?'ik"'?f. r?!" ;! ??Mp??'..r-,-: i_N..,?tFA??.s? ?.•t?f.??.?Rr Y ?. °? ,
?'y. r L -iT`SS ter.: ^? O"??+otii' ?..?.
01 VIP

,tt e 1 ... R ? y?• y .
Figure 1. Six drainage pipes were installed under the
road/berm to alleviate ponding.
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Ecobank
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
z
f
..4?'
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Figure 2. In January of 2000, the mitigation stream was Ecobank
cleaned of debris to improve flow. Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
7
O
O
O
C14
a
0
C)
r
AO
O
O
LU
J
O C.)
L
O
m
o ?
? o
ct
9 V-
? O
O Z
Q?
x?
?o
?U
U y
U
c?
c?
m
0
O
N
s.
y
C
CL
t;
y
N
C1,
CS.
n
J
y
s,
:C3
75
cn
c3
y
Q
C15
a?
on
w
U
C
C1
O
rL^
V
G
c

G.?
a

s
i/•
?.. y, . ? _ ti 4
`yam

1
.

.. - ..??..?.
?y r1 * f
? dry .
..

?r ? h
s)

Y
• ?f
P
+4
t t x .? F J?7i ?y? -

Figure 4. A total of 43,300 seedlings, which included Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
12 species, were purchased from the NC Division of Ecobank
Forest Resources o Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

I

W

7r k .
m > 1 ._
Y
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Figure 5. Trees were planted at approximately a 20-foot Ecobank
spacing within the former crop land at Barra Farms. Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
.max`' „ r e: ,
A'
14
S? r t

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Figure 6 Seedlings planted at Barra Farms. Ecobank
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
PROGRESS REPORT:
Results of April, 2000 vegetation monitoring
at Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Prepared for:
Ecobank
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington, NC
May 1, 2000
Success criteria for the Barra Farms Mitigation Plan include a minimum mean density of
320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
hardwood species can comprise more than 20 percent of the total number of stems/acre total.
Softwood species cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the total number of stems/acre. The
Year 2 Monitoring Report found that neither the groundwater flats nor headwater slope
community types met these vegetation success criteria. Supplemental planting of 43,300 seedlings
occurred during February of 2000 to increase survivability to acceptable levels. A third
monitoring survey was conducted in April of 2000 to monitor the progress of these seedlings. The
results of both surveys are given below.
November, 1999 SURVEY (2' Monitoring Report)
Groundwater Flats
Within the groundwater flats habitat, 27 woody species were surveyed among the 29
plots. Of the 27 species, 19 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree
species, 11 were planted and 8 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common
species included bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica). The
vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 269 stems/acre with approximately
128 stems/acre from planted species. Because 435 stems/acre were planted in these areas
in the winter of 1998, the survival rate is estimated at approximately 29% after the second
growing season. When using the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the
total number of stems/acre criterion (<_ 20% of 320 stems/acre for hardwoods and <_ 10%
of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per acre is
255.4 (see Table 4, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 8 woody species were found within this habitat, of which 4 were planted and 4
were volunteer. The most common species include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). This vegetation averaged 317 stems/acre, with 130
stems/acre from planted species. Therefore, the survival rate of trees planted in the
headwater slope is 30%.When success criteria percentages are used (_< 20% of 320
stems/acre for hardwoods and <_ 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number
of trees that can be counted per acre is 227.5 (see Table 5, column 5).
April, 2000 SURVEY (3rd Monitoring Report)
Groundwater Flats
Within the groundwater flats habitat, 26 woody species were surveyed among the 30
plots. Of the 26 species, 18 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree
species, 11 were planted and 7 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common
species included bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa Mora, N. aquatica). The
vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 485.1 stems/acre with
approximately 259 stems/acre from planted species. When using the number of trees/acre
by species that can be applied to the total number of stems/acre criterion (_< 20% of total
stems/acre for hardwoods and s 10% of total stems/acre for softwoods), the total number
of trees that can be counted per acre is 456.6 (see Table 6, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 14 woody species were found within this habitat, of which 9 were planted and 5
were volunteer. The most common species include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). This vegetation averaged 612.5 stems/acre, with 300
stems/acre from planted species. When success criteria percentages are used (s 20% of
total stems/acre for hardwoods and _< 10% of total stems/acre for softwoods), the total
number of trees that can be counted per acre is 436.2 (see Table 7, column 5).
Summary
In 11/99, a mean density of 255.4 stems/acre was found across 27 character wetland
species within the groundwater flats habitat, with an average of 3.9 species/plot. In 4/00,
a mean density of 456.6 stems/acre (adjusted) was observed across 26 character wetland
species, with an average of 6.6 species/plot. In the headwater slope habitat in 11/99, a
mean density of 227.5 stems/acre was found across 8 wetland species, with an average of
4 species/plot. In April, 2000 the headwater slope habitat had a mean density of 436.2
stems/acre (adjusted) across 14 wetland species, with an average of 7.5 species/plot. Both
habitats doubled their stem counts as well as their species diversity. As a result of natural
recruitment, supplemental planting, and the installation of drainage pipes to control water
levels, both habitat types now contain more than 320 stems/acre and over 5 wetland
species/plot. Therefore, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank has met and exceeded the
wetland vegetation success criterion.
2
Vf
4-4
O V O
?D
10
00
[-
t!1
h
h
?
M

h
O CA O
S
00
N
M
t-
tf)
M
t-
V
O
-
O
00
N
-'
•-•
N
00
M _
O

N
C
M
m
.

y N O N d N N N rt N

? 00 N N M v°O <D
00 C>
N
^?
i
r
E
N
v
i
i

et to 10 t- 00 0, N M ?t V) IO t- 00 0%
0 N d N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M
a+ a
N
•
y ? 00 W) 00 :' ? ? ?O V1 N t` a1 a, M N tn

y
W d O
00
N
r-
M
t`
N
p
01
et
H V1 V) M 00 N M N N M M M 00 (n r- .-y M N
•
0
y V M N N N M W) W) 00 '--i N kn ?p

y
W d
w
ma

W

ON

N

M

ON

--?

W)
M

\0
.?
N
N
M
O\
00
M
.-.
M
.?
N
y
.
F W )
.. rl N M ?0 ?i l? 00 0%
. •--?
O
O
'O
«i
N
bl
C
7
b
O
O
N
Y
?F-
C
L
d
z
Cd
E-•
M
O

C 3

N

U ° cis
U O O

cri ca 3 0 m
as
b o
o 3
pq o u U C o o °

• 0
-a
a
a?
U
?..?
a?
v O cc
O 3 O Gn U 3 ? r~ E"

> 3 > u 3 0 sO
"0 0
a 0 > a
x a ;o F a ;

a
a
3 o
p H ?, 3
°? >
c

O a a - q
-

v H 0 o a
U N U a ai ai ai c; p a a "?

H ? ¢ ? aS 3 a H ? H ? rz a? a H H a

y d M W) N N (14 M V') ?Y ?O Vl 00 r• N N ?10

y
0 40
It
110
Q%
Cl) W)

b

N

M
all

M

N

d CA
Y
ftS ti
Y
C? [n
Y
CCS

N N
Y
CAS ti
Y
CC VJ
Y
C? Cn
Y
C? rn
Y
RS [n
Y
ttY

N N
Y
CO V1
Y
C? (A
Y
as m
Y
t4 rn
Y
CCS
w w w o w w r= w w w o o w w w w w
Y Y Y Y Y
i1.+ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cd ° ° 0 Cd ° 0
°

t/
?./ II??
-11
ISM
?/
?/
`/
\? ?
\/ ??
V 11??
11
F4 FF{
11
Fil
? ??
V/ F-?
?? ?rI
?
V
i"1
`/

Vl
p t- 00 a,

. , Cf)

r, r- c>

N
•
i a ?p
? a
Cd
H
,It

a?
w o

mo . ? a
.
d

3
U ? 3 as
o
7EL
H

W

dq„ ? ?, U ? w c -. 3

as
3 Y
a°i

1

O

a

GQ

• 9
U
t?.
x 3 _ o a ? a?

U 00
b w * a
3 2s p, -ago 3

m
? C H se H w H ¢ 3 ,0
°
o >, ° C* o a o cc cc cts
in -o

cc o
a
°

i
>
y
3

S
a?
a?
a? o
a>
;
ci
a?
' .
°
E-?
3
E--?
°
x
as m a H x a o va a x w x a a
c a c
?.
y N N r r N N D\ N "T N

m
O Q

H
pp

)
00

-
N
N
tM

N
?p
O
r
00
N

N
?°
V1

'"
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
?, w w w o w w w w w w w w w w w w
145
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
03
Y
QS
3
Y
C?
3
Y
CCS
3
3"'
y
Y
CC
3
Y
0.i
3
Y
CC
3
Y
L?
3
Y
C?
3
Y
CC3
3
Y
f?
3
C?
3
C?
3
C?
3
RS
3
C?
3
? -? -o -d ? o -d b b b ? b -o b b
0 b
0 -o
x 0 0 0 co 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0
C7 C7 C7 x C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7

d'
N Q N
N ?o
N r
N oo
N
N O
M •--?
M N
M M
M
M v'?
M ?O
M l
M 00
M
a ?,
N ?
H
V*)

o a?
¢ o .? ? 3
?o
O O p

a
C7
?
`;
O
?
o? 3
?
?
? O
a
b
? 3 > ? 3 3 ? ?
o U ? ? as

N cii

as

3

o
O
C, ?,
3 b
° ?, ,, as
o ¢ a Sri

3
°'
?
3
O
a
0
O?
?
?
°
c
3 o' u
°'
~o
d
o E i - °
° a o -o U a U a

°, a U c 3 ?Q cn rn
b
O o 3
3
>
i
3
3
d . o
° 2.
t
3 ° o 3
; 3
3° 3 y ¢
; 3 0 co c7 H H 3 a a
? ° 0 N ? 3 Q' °' ;

9- 4) Cs ai O a - '? a1

o 1
U
U
> w
" g O '!2 v O O° -? > '0 3 3 a?i 5 3 a?i o
as 3 ?: o LI) cn (A aS x a
a a (s u
)
c
3
a
a
U

H H? ? ¢3 H ai 3? ? ? H rz H ? ? ?? H H
'
y ?O 00 W) 00 ? ?.o " Vf vl C1 01 M v? ?n

Q
4w U
E

tn

W)

M

00

N

M

N

M

M

M

00

tn

r-

M

N
uJ ti ul y y
- N
?+ ti y
Y ti
i+
?
?, C?
w Cd
w ftS
w N
o CC
w C?
w R3
w ?
w C?
w ft1
w N
o N
o (d
w CC3
w C?
w Rf
w Cd
w
.?
3 .?
3 3 °? 3 3 +
3 3 3 3 °? °? 3 3 3 3 3
? ? 3 ? ° ? ? a 3 3
0 ° a
??' o
r C o 0 o 0 0
t~ 0 Cc C*
7
7
}-' o
7 0
7
C7 C7 U x C7 C7 C7 C7 U C7 x x C C U C C
•? ?i N M It Vl ? t- 00 ON
N
a
Cd
110
O
O ?
? ¢ En CQ i a
v M x 3
w U O ?? o
a
i
o U on ?' GA 3 a
3 U ? ? oa

a c, ? U 3 3 d o .b
o ? ?
3b
b o 3

b °
0
'd
3 r?
p
-d
E-'
c.7
w 3
o
3
?
" o
O a ,
?
Q

a

aUi

E 19

U
O
u
o.
O

a?'i
3
? ° H 0 U
o al 0 ?. 3 3 ? o
C's U
'" a ?•o ¢ 3 D al
'
a
U 0 y o - a' ? U o o U a _o
-o U b a 3
?n _
~ -a in.
o o
3 o ° o
¢
as ? m
H ,?
H
H
3
as
H
a
as

"
,?
H
N
" 4;~

o

o o

r?

o

c

?

IS

0
7Z3. w
~ 5as ~
=s
L
~
as
C C
Fr
1:4
3 N
o, Qr 3 Cc 3 v o -o x -o u -o a, • -cs
ai H ?H ai O v?? ca cG go gE4 c? H h ?c7 as
•
? V t? ?' 01 to 01 V7 IC 1.0 00 V) m m

y
W
H
00
N
M
r
to
M
l-
V
O
O
l?
00
a1
N
.-.
(-I
00
N
M
O
M
M
r-
?0
•--?
N

Q U7
Y !A
Y U1
Y V]
Y V7
Y w
w W
Y m
Y m
Y n
Y Vi
Y h
Y to
Y VI
Y !A
Y N
Y
?, w w w o w w w m k4 w m m m w w w w

Y
3 Y
3 Y
3
°? Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3 Y
3
;? es v -o ? -a v -o es -o -o -o -o -b b b b Ts
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C7 C7 C7 x t7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7

?
N Q V)
N I'0
N r-
N 00
N 01
N O
M
M N
Cl) M
M d'
M Ln
M 1.0
Cl) r
M 00
Cl) 0,

M
W N
rl-
Tahla A Nnmh-r of eanh cnPCies found within the Groundwater Flats habitat during the 11/99 survev.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 53.1 19.7 53.1 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 45.5 16.9 32 softwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 36.6 13.6 36.6 hardwood/volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 32.8 12.2 32.8 hardwood
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 24.8 9.2 24.8 mostly from 1 plot
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 16.2 6.0 16.2 hardwood
Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 13.1 4.9 13.1 shrub
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 10.7 4.0 10.7 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 5.5 2.0 5.5 hardwood
Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasianthus 3.1 1.2 3.1 hardwood
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 3.1 1.2 3.1 shrub
Red Bay Persea borbonia 3.1 1.2 3.1 hardwood
Titi Cyrilla racemiora 3.1 1.2 3.1 shrub
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 2.4 0.9 2.4 hardwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2.4 0.9 2.4 hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 2.4 0.9 2.4 softwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia 1.7 0.6 1.7 shrub
Water Oak Quercus nigra 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe 1.4 0.5 1.4 shrub
Alder A1nus serrulata 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Bayberry Myrica heterophylla 1.0 0.4 1.0 shrub
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 0.7 0.3 0.7 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 0.7 0.3 0.7 hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 0.7 0.3 0.7 softwood
Cherrybark Oak Pinus pagoda 0.3 0.1 0.3 hardwood
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Total 268.9 100 255.4
TAIP. S M im1wr of Pach cnecie, found within the Headwater Slone habitat durine the 11/49 survev.
Common name Scientific Name Average
# of
trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac % of total /
ac allowed in
criteria Comments
Black Willow Salix nigra 105 33.1 32 volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 75 23.6 64 planted hardwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 70 22.0 64 volunteer hardwood
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 45 14.2 45 planted hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 7.5 2.4 7.5 volunteer hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 7.5 2.4 7.5 planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 2.5 0.8 2.5 planted hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 2.5 0.8 2.5 volunteer hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe sp. 2.5 0.8 2.5 shrub
TOTAL 317.5 100 227.5
Tnhle fi Nnmher of each gnecies found within the Groundwater Flats habitat during the 4/00 survey.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 86.3 17.8 86.3 hardwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 79.0 16.3 79.0 hardwood/volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 78.7 16.2 78.7 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nfgra 77.0 15.9 48.5 softwood
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 22.7 4.7 22.7 mostly from 1 plot
Willow Oak (known) Quercus phellos 21.7 4.5 21.7 hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 17.3 3.6 17.3 hardwood
Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 15.3 3.2 15.3 shrub
Water/Willow Oak Q. nigra1Q. phellos 14.7 3.0 14.7 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 14.3 2.9 14.3 hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 12.3 2.5 12.3 hardwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia 9.0 1.9 9.0 shrub
Titi Cyrilla racemiflora 5.7 1.2 5.7 shrub
Red Bay Persea borbonla 5.7 1.2 5.7 hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5.3 1.1 5.3 hardwood
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 3.3 0.7 3.3 hardwood
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 3.3 0.7 3.3 softwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 3.3 0.7 3.3 hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 2.3 0.5 2.3 softwood
Alder Alnus serrulata 1.4 0.3 1.4 hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1.3 0.3 1.3 hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe 1.3 0.3 1.3 shrub
Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasianthus 1.3 0.3 1.3 hardwood
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 1.0 0.2 1.0 shrub
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 0.7 0.1 0.7 hardwood
Bayberry Myrica heterophylla 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 0.3 0.1 0.3 softwood
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Total 485.1 100 456.6
10
Tahle 7_ Number of each snecies found within the Headwater Slooe habitat during the 4/00 survey.
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 210.0 34.3 122.5 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 150.0 24.5 61.2 softwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 90.0 14.7 90.0 hardwood/volunteer
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 45.0 7.3 45.0 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 35.0 5.7 35.0 hardwood/volunteer
Water/Willow Oak Q. nigra1Q. phellos 35.0 5.7 35.0 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 17.5 2.9 17.5 hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10.0 1.6 10.0 hardwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia 5.0 0.8 5.0 shrub
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 5.0 0.8 5.0 hardwood/volunteer
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 5.0 0.8 5.0 hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 2.5 0.4 2.5 hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2.5 0.4 2.5 hardwood
Total 612.5 100 436.2
11
i
WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 2)
' BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:

r

1

Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
[phone]
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
March, 2000

'
TABLE
OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1
' 2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING ......................................... 3
2.1 Monitoring Program ............................................... 3
' 2.2 Monitoring Results ......
..... 3
Groundwater Flats (GF) .....
..................................... 5
Riverine Floodplains (RF) ........................................ 5
' Headwater Slopes (HS) ........................................... 5
2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ........................................ 6
' 3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ......................................... 9
3.1 Monitoring Program ............................................... 9
' 3.2 Monitoring Results ..... 10
Herbaceous Vegetation 10
..........................................
Groundwater Flats ................................... 1()
' Headwater Slope ............................................... 10
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria 11
' 4.0 STREAM MONITORING 14
.............................................
4.1 In-Stream Flows . 14
4.2 Biological Stream Attributes ........................................ 14
' 4.3 Stream Geometry ................................................. 15
5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT ...... 19
' 5.1 Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1999-January 2000) ............... 19
5.2 Photographs of Barra Farms 1999-2000 ............................... 21
1 6.0 SUMMARY ........................................................29

h
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mitigation Credit Release Schedule
Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs
Appendix C: Wetland Vegetation Data
Appendix D: Summary of Monitoring Plan
Appendix E: Supplemental Actions Taken at Barra Farms 1999-2000
i

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map .................................................................................................... 2
' Figure 2. Revised plot and well locations for year 2 monitoring ....................................... 4
Figure 3. Comparison of stream velocity .......................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Comparison of stream discharge ....................................................................... 16
1
H

LIST OF TABLES
' Table 1. Summary of hydrology monitoring data .............................................................. 7
Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat .............................................. 12
' Table 3.
Table 4. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat ...:::::.... ............................
Summary of biological attributes in streams . 13
17
Table 5. Summary of stream geometry measurements from 1998 ..................................... 18

C

11

n

ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 2)

i
I

BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ECOBANK, a private sector mitigation banking company, has established the Barra Farms Cape
Fear Regional Mitigation Bank (USACOE Action ID No. 199704890) within the Coastal Plain
region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The bank comprises 623 acres located along the headwaters
of Harrison Creek in Cumberland County (Figure 1). Stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement activities were completed in the winter of 1997-1998 as described in the
detailed mitigation plan. A mitigation banking instrument has also been prepared and approved
through ongoing coordination with the mitigation banking review team (MBRT) as outlined in the
Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 FR 12286-
12293, 1995).
Hydrological and vegetation monitoring are important components of a successful mitigation plan
and are required for release of compensatory mitigation credits. The Barra Farms monitoring plan
requires annual monitoring for a five year period and analysis of the data to evaluate success in
the establishment and maintenance of diagnostic stream and wetland parameters. In the Year 2
Monitoring Report, certain changes have been made to the monitoring protocol in order to more
accurately evaluate success criteria. In 1999, a larger percentage of Barra was sampled for
vegetation and three-more RDS continuous-monitorina wells were installed to Lyather additional
data. It is proposed that the manual monitoring of hydrology be phased out and
v these RDS wells. Finally, evaluation of the stream..mitijzatian m-U bz-=dQr=d in a
' separate effort due April 2000, after one dull year of stream flow data has been collected.
This document represents the Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) for Year 2 of the
monitoring plan. Monitoring has been performed throughout the 1999 growing season for
hydrology, vegetation, and stream parameters, consisting primarily of a comparison between
hydrology model predictions, reference wetlands, and wetland restoration areas in the Bank.
' Subsequently, the success criteria are analyzed and verified to facilitate issuance of mitigation
credit designated in the MBI at the end of Year 2 monitoring.
' Since the restoration at Barra Farms began, standing water has accumulated on certain sections of
the site. This ponding was primarily caused by heavy rainfall in both 1998 and 1999, aeration and
compaction of the soil, and natural swales in the topography. Steps have been taken to alleviate
' this ponding, including the installation of six drainage pipes and clearing debris from the mouth of
the mitigation stream. Because it was anticipated that seedling survivability would be low due to
this ponding, Year 2 monitoring was used to pinpoint areas at Barra Farms that may require
' supplemental planting, in addition to evaluating success criteria.
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
G . r ; E - rPow! ,?-: -i •ur;uo ° ii - '/ '??v° w p. !?
f/ ,•?? ,. ?/« ' ? y to ?•}\
`/ ' ? if i, '?' n ? Sr4•a 'w by ^+? 1`? a' ?t yam! ??c ?- J G - G- -'j ` \W '^ ?y ? ? (? 1
i NC 24 3 z< ' `' Lr
1-95
y 210 ?,- y b\•? `,8 ?, 3 M.+ a is 8
•iver f. . y nay , - 9 •.?•, ` - ??, G •v i,,•
? of ? o• •ae? _ ,^'-?_"?.._j-+'•'l . ?.? - m.
f V • ' ?. 0 \ `\ 'E?
NC 87 BAR`RA FARMS/CAPE FEAR
- ?•, REGIONAL MITIGATIQNa? N?
21
t ?(d w mat
3??.•j`! t t 2 ' a ? o? sr+a..ww, __ ?, P I --??? ?' ?! « ? ? F +?e?''
',r' ate"-
. ...
? ?
_+? _
Study Area 0
O 4 2 3Miles \3? rt?? `?' - _'
0 1 2 3 4 Klometers
q?pm?uefdrMhV?+safon hom tlt•NOetltGroMt _ - ? ?('? •• r __ ? •??=•
;,? AtlY enQ GatMbM Dllptrn? Mtppnq, t9? "'- ? - `- ?. -? + ?? ::.:
Barra Farms Cape Fear
Figure 1. Vicinity Ma Regional Mitigation Bank
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
2

??.,
??.\
??
?,
C?` .
4°

1

0
1
1

2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
2.1 Monitoring Program
Twenty three surficial monitoring wells (manual recording) were located throughout the
Barra Mitigation Bank to provide representative coverage and flow gradients extending
through each of the four physiographic landscape areas: 1) uplands; 2) groundwater flats;
3) headwater slope; and 4) riverine floodplain. Figure 2 depicts the approximate location
of monitoring wells in the Bank. Two continuous recording (RDS24) wells were also
placed on-site to provide continuous data that can be extrapolated to manual recording
devices. Monitoring wells were installed and downloaded by a subcontractor in
accordance with specifications in U. S. Corps of Engineers' Installing Monitoring Wells /
Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). The
monitoring wells are set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
Five manual monitoring wells were placed in reference wetlands to compare hydrology
between the Bank and relatively undisturbed wetlands in the region. Three wells are
located in the reference groundwater flats along the northwestern periphe oo '?a
Farms. Two additional wells are located in the reference rive ' wetland along Colly
Creek in the Bushy Lake/Horse Shoe T ake Natural Area These wells provide comparative
annual hydroperiods within the organic soil flat and riverine floodplain physiographic areas
of the site. The headwater slope physiographic area is interpolated from the two adjacent
systems as described in the mitigation plan and the MBI.
Hydrological data continue to be collected at weekly intervals on-site and within the
reference sites. The data extending from March 11, 1999 (first reading within the growing
season) to November 13, 1999 (last reading within the growing season) have been utilized
in this Year 2 AWMR.
2.2 Monitoring Results

The raw well data are depicted in hydrograph and tabular format in Appendix B. Wetland
hydrology criteria in number of consecutive days and percent of the growing season is also
summarized in Table 1. Line intersection at 12 inches below the surface was used as the
cut off for wetland hydrology, following the regulatory wetland criterion requiring
saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface. As in Year 1 monitoring,
groundwater levels were highest in early spring, followed by dry periods during summer
months. Severe rain events associated with tropical storm systems in August and
September significantly elevated groundwater and surface water levels near the end of the
Year 2 monitoring period.
Well data have been subdivided into three wetland physiographic wetland types: 1)
groundwater flats (GF); 2) headwater slopes (HS); and 3) riverine floodplains (RF)

1

1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Groundwater Flats (GF)
' Three wells located within reference groundwater flats provide a general indication of the
average 1999 hydroperiod on groundwater flats supporting steady state forest structure
' and organic soils. Data indicate that wetland hydrology on reference groundwater flats
habitat in the region was maintained during 40% of the growing season.
The groundwater flats data from the restoration wetland area had an average wetland
hydrology spanning 36% of the growing season (Table 1). This hydrology ranged from
' 11% to 53%. Year 1 monitoring indicated that the wetland hydrology within this habitat
correlated with vegetation cover and soil organic matter content, with the wettest
hydrology in areas of high organic matter and low vegetation cover and the driest
hydrology in areas with mineral soil flats. Year 2 monitoring results were similar, with
organic soil flats on former farmland supporting the longest wetland hydrology, 41% of
the growing season. However, mineral soil flats on former farmland exhibited wetland
' hydrology longer (34%) than those of organic soil flats that support dense successional
(pocosin-like) vegetation (30%), which does not correlate with the results of Year 1
monitoring. The short length of wetland hydrology on organic flats with pocosin habitat is
' mostly due to the readings of one well on this habitat. Well 21 was saturated within 12
Amy Q
inches of the surface durin onl 110/- of the o
eason an m v1 v ed to
meet t e wet and hydrology criterion (at least 12.5% of growing season). If the data from
' this one well were taken out of the calculations, the average pocosin habitat wetland
hydrology would increase to 36% of the growing season and would probably be more
indicative of its normal hydrology.
' Riverine Floodplains (RF)
Two wells are located in reference riverine floodplain habitat. The data from these wells
' indicate that the average wetland hydrology for small stream swamps is approximately
42% of the growing season. Reference data demonstrate that, as in Year 1 monitoring,
hydrology appears to decrease in proximity to stream channels and increase along outer
floodplain fringe influenced by riparian groundwater discharge, the lack of discharge
outlets, and backwater flooding.
Data fr om the two wells located in restoration riverine floodplain habitat indicate that
rte- wetland hydrology averaged 31 % of the growing season. Both wells have the same
' n
C umber of consecutive saturation days, and, therefore, no difference in hydrology due to
proximity of well to stream channel was noted.
' Headwater Slopes (HS)
Reference wetland hydrology for the headwater slope habitat have been simulated by
' averaging wetland hydrology exhibited by adjacent riverine floodplain and groundwater

' flats. The average amount of time the headwater slope habitat met wetland hydrology was
41 % of the growing season and ranged from 40% (groundwater flats) to 42% (riverine
' floodplain).
Headwater slope in the restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 36%
' of the growing season and ranged from 28 to 51 %. As in Year 1 monitoring, the range
appeared to be influenced primarily by landscape position within the headwater storage
area and vegetation cover. The shortest percentage of time meeting the wetland hydrology
criterion (28%) occurred in an area dominated by early successional or pocosin habitat
(W19) and in former farmland areas (31%). However, the wetland hydrology in forested
areas was considerably longer (38% and 51% of growing season).
' 2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria
Success in the restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank requires saturation (free
' water) within one foot of the soil surface for at least 50% of the time the reference habitat
achieved wetland hydrology. This criterion is applied separately to each of the habitats.
' The reference groundwater flats, riverine floodplain, and headwater slope habitats
exhibited wetland hydrology for a period averaging 40%, 42%, and 41 %, respectively. In
the Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 36% (90% of
' reference), 31% (73% of reference), and 36% (87% of reference), respectively. Therefore,
each habitat evaluated at Barra fulfilled the wetland hydrology criteria during 1999.
? C2 M 7
Table 1. Summary of 1999 hydrology monitoring data at Barra Farms.
Well
Number

mm Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Da s
? Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturate Days/240) Comments
Groundwater Flats
Restored
Wetland
W1 74 31 former farmland (FF)
W2 74 31 FF
W4 128 53 FF
W5 74 31 FF, mineral soil flat
W6 91 38 FF, mineral soil flat
W7 128 53 FF
W10 128 53 FF
W11 74 31 FF
W12 74 31 FF, mineral soil flat
W14 84 35 FF, mineral soil flat
W17 84 35 FF, located on fill material in backfilled ditch
W20 84 35 FF
W21 27 11 Existing pocosin vegetation (PV), end organic
soil flat (targeted swamp forest community)
W22 84 35 PV
W23 105 44 PV
Average 87.5 36 Range: 11-53%
Reference
Wetland
JB1 96 40 Existing forest vegetation (FV), mineral soils
JB2 96 40 FV, organic soils
JB3 96 40 FV, organic soils
Average 96 40 Range:none
7
d
Tnl to 1 nnvf4;rn,a/1 G'„mmQrv of 1 QQQ hvArnlnav mnnitnrinQ data at Rarra Farms.
Well Number Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Da s Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'a Days/240) Comments
Riverme Floodplam
Restored
Wetland
W15 74 31 existing forest vegetation (FV),
upstream reach, outer floodplain
W18 74 31 FV, downstream terminus, inner
floodplain
Average 74 31 Range: none
Reference
Wetland
SSl 105 44 FV, outer floodplain
SS2 96 40 FV, inner floodplain
Average 101 42 Range: 40-44%
Headwater Slope
Restored
Wetland
W3 74 31 Former farmland (FF), upper reaches
W8 91 38 FV, interior slope
W9 74 31 FF, interior slope
W16 122 51 FV, interior slope
W19 68 28 existing pocosin vegetation (PV), upper
reaches
Average 86 36 Range: 28-51%
Reference
hydroperiod* 99 41 Average of 40% and 42%
i * The reference hydroperiod for the headwater slope physiographic area is calculated as the average
hydroperiod exhibited by both the groundwater and riverine floodplain reference wells.
8
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Monitoring Program
Quantitative sampling of vegetation was conducted in November of 1999 and differed
significantly from the sampling done in 1998. In 1998, 24 plots (each 0.05 acre in size)
were sampled, resulting in a total of 1.2 acres surveyed. In order to get a larger sample of
representative vegetation and to pinpoint the location of areas not meeting the vegetative
success criteria, the sampling area was increased in 1999. In Year 2 monitoring, 34 plots
that were each 0.1 acre in size were sampled resulting in 3.4 total acres surveyed. This is a
283% increase in sampling size between Year 1 and Year 2. These 34 plots include 19 of
the original 24 plots plus an additional 15 plots randomly placed in areas generally lacking
plots (Figure 2). The center of each plot was permanently established with a labeled, white
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe marked with pink and black striped flagging.
In the winter of 1998, two different planting densities were used at Barra Farms, depending
on whether the area was crop land or forested prior to planting. Crop land was largely
devoid of vegetation and received a full planting which consisted of 435 stems/acre.
Forested areas already contained a large amount of woody vegetation and only received a
supplemental planting of 70 Year 1 monitoring, the vegetation in bo i areas
was samp e . However, in Year 2, the supplemental planting areas were not surveyed
because vegetation was thick, making it difficult to distinguish planted vegetation from
already existing vegetation. Furthermore, wetland vegetation has already been determined
to be present at these sites from Year 1 monitoring and additional planting will not occur.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Therefore, all 34 plot centers were set up and sampled in areas that received a "Full
Planting" of 435 stems/acre. This comprised 376 acres of the 623-acre Bank. Plot centers
were placed within three community-types at Barra Farms. Twenty-nine plots were located
in groundwater flats, which represent 324 acres. Four sample plots were located within the
headwater slope habitat, which represents approximately 38 acres. Finally, one plot was
placed in the uplands habitat, which comprises 14 acres. No plots were set up within the
riverine habitat since these areas are all forested and received supplemental planting. At
each plot center, woody species within a 37.2-foot radius of the plot center were flagged,
identified, and measured for height. If diameter a r as i ht was equal to or greater
than one inch, that was recorded as well. In most c ,clumps of multiple black willow
(Salix nigra) stems originating from a common root source were counted as a single stem.
In addition, since water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) and swamp tupelo (N?ssa bf ora) cannot
be distinguished from each other as seedlings, these Nyssa specie_ s. were grouped into one
category in the data analysis. .'
ti Allk
ej?? 9

i

1
3.2 Monitoring Results
Herbaceous Vegetation
A total of 21 herbaceous species were identified at the 34 sample plots (Appendix Q. The
most common were dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and cattail (Typha latifolia). Plots located in
groundwater flats generally had more dog fennel than plots in headwater slope habitat,
indicating that the flats, whose elevation is on average a foot or two higher than the
headwater slope, were able to dry out during the summer months, allowing this upland
species to grow. Headwater slope habitat generally contained a larger amount of cattail
and woolgrass, since it remained ponded for most of the year. However, in plots heavily
ponded, both woody and herbaceous vegetation were relatively scarce (Plots 4, 9, 26, 27,
30, 31, 32).
Groundwater Flats
Within the groundwater flats habitat, 27 woody species were surveyed among the 29 plots.
Of the 27 species, 19 were tree species and 8 were shrub species. Of the tree species, 11
were planted and 8 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. Most common species
included bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer
rubrum), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica). The
vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 269 stems/acre with approximately
128 stems/acre from planted species. Because 435 stems/acre were planted in these areas
in the winter of 1998, the survival rate is estimated at approximately 29% after the second
growing season. When using the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the
320 stems/acre criterion (<_ 20% of 320 stems/acre for hardwoods and <_ 10% of 32
stems/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per acr s 255.4
(see Table 2, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 8 woody species were found within this habitat, of which 4 were planted and 4
were volunteer. The most common species include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp
tupelo and /or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). This vegetation averaged 317 stems/acre, with 130
stems/acre from planted species. Therefore, the survival rate of trees planted in the
headwater slope is 30%.When success criteria percentages are used (<_ 20% of 320
stems/acre for hardwoods and _< 10% of 320 stems/acre for softwoods), the total number
10

74re e-.s
' of trees that can be counted per acre 227.5 (,s e Table 3, column 5).
' 3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria
Success criteria for the Barra Farms Mitigation Plan include a minimum mean density of
' 320 characteristic trees/acre. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
hardwood species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stems/acre total (64
stems). Softwood species cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320 stems/acre
' total (32 stems).
Tables 2 and 3 show the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the 320
stems/acre criterion. For groundwater flats, a mean density of 255.4 stems/acre is found
across 27 character wetland species, with an average of 3.9 species/plot. In the headwater
' slope habitat, a mean density of 227.5 stems/acre is found across 8 wetland species, with an
average of 4 species/plot. Neither of these wetland commu tty types meets the vegetation
acce -table evels. However, it should be noted that these wetland community types do
contain a wide range of woody and herbaceous species diversity, a trait indicative of
natural succession. No invasive or exotic species were observed.

I

11

Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of trees
allowed in success criteria.

I
I

11
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac # trees/ac
allowed in
criteria Comments
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 53.1 19.7 53.1 hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 45.5 16.9 32 softwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 36.6 13.6 36.6 hardwood/volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 32.8 12.2 32.8 hardwood
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 24.8 9.2 24.8 mostly from 1 plot
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 16.2 6.0 16.2 hardwood
Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia 13.1 4.9 13.1 shrub
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 10.7 4.0 10.7 hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 5.5 2.0 5.5 hardwood
Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasianthus 3.1 1.2 3.1 hardwood
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida 3.1 1.2 3.1 shrub
Red Bay Persea borbonia 3.1 1.2 3.1 hardwood
Titi Cyrilla racemiora 3.1 1.2 3.1 shrub
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 2.4 0.9 2.4 hardwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 2.4 0.9 2.4 hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 2.4 0.9 2.4 softwood
Groundsel Bush Baccharis halimifolia 1.7 0.6 1.7 shrub
Water Oak Quercus nigra 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe 1.4 0.5 1.4 shrub
Alder Alnus serrulata 1.4 0.5 1.4 hardwood
Bayberry Myrica heterophylla 1.0 0.4 1.0 shrub
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 0.7 0.3 0.7 hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 0.7 0.3 0.7 hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 0.7 0.3 0.7 softwood
Cherrybark Oak Pinus pagoda 0.3 0.1 0.3 hardwood
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera 0.3 0.1 0.3 shrub
Total 268.9 100 255.4
12
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of
trees allowed in success criteria.

i

C

Common name Scientific Name Average
# of
trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac % of total /
ac allowed in
criteria Comments
Black Willow Salix nigra 105 33.1 32 volunteer
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 75 23.6 64 planted hardwood
Red Maple Acer rubrum 70 22.0 64 volunteer hardwood
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 45 14.2 45 planted hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 7.5 2.4 7.5 volunteer hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 7.5 2.4 7.5 planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 2.5 0.8 2.5 planted hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 2.5 0.8 2.5 volunteer hardwood
Fetterbush Leucothoe sp. 2.5 0.8 2.5 shrub
TOTAL 317.5 100 227.5
13

' 4.0 STREAM MONITORING
The updated stream monitoring plan includes the measurement of three components at the
' mitigation stream located at Barra Farms and at the reference stream located at Bladen
Lakes State Forest: in-stream flow; stream geometry; and biological stream attributes. A
separate stream monitoring report will be written after more information has been gathered
' on each of these parameters (April, 2000). Below is a description of the success criterion
and a list of data collected thus far for each component.
1
4.1 In-Stream Flows
I

0

I
Continuous monitoring stream gauges have been placed in the reference stream and the
mitigation stream to compare in-stream flows. The gauge data are collected as mean daily
flows for velocity (ft/second) and discharge (ft3/second). The success criterion is that the
mitigation stream reach supports mean daily flows per unit of drainage area equal to or
exceeding the mean daily flows per unit of drainage area within the reference stream reach.
The reference stream reach supports an approximate 6.7 mil drainage area while the
mitigation stream reach supports an approximate 2.5 mil drainage area (37% of reference).
Therefore, mean daily flows in the mitigation reach must be equal to, or exceed, 37% of the
mean daily flows in the reference stream.
Synchronized data collection for the two streams began in April of 1999. The
cnhenntractnr ,re to mnrn .ter a streams noticed no measura a ow om April to
Au_ Beginning August , 1999, the continuous monitoring gauges began reading
stream flow data and took over the data collection. The data collected thus far by the
subcontractor and the gauges are presented in Figures 3 and 4. However, in order to
analyze one full year of stream flow data, the stream monitoring report will be submitted at
the end of April, 2000.
4.2 Biological Stream Attributes
The mitigation plan requires biological stream attributes to be measured annually at the
mitigation stream and at the reference stream between April 15 and May 15 of each year.
Aquatic surveys must record the presence/absence of macro-invertebrates, reptiles,
amphibians, and fish species populations at these two streams. The success criterion for
stream restoration requires that the type and number of species identified in the mitigation
reach must be equal to, or greater than, the type and number of species identified in the
reference reach in each successive monitoring year.
The number and type of benthic macro-invertebrates found in the mitigation stream at
14

H

1

Barra and at the reference stream were measured on June 4, 1999. These results are
presented in Table 4. There is approximately an equal number of taxa in each stream, yet
the restoration stream has anywhere from 2.5 to 5 times more organisms than the reference
stream. In addition to these results, a description of the reptiles, amphibians, and fish found
in both streams will also be included in the stream monitoring report.
4.3 Stream Geometry
Components of stream geometry were measured in May of 1997 to obtain baseline, pre-
restoration conditions and then again in 1998 to obtain post-restoration conditions (Table
5). Success criteria were fulfilled in the Year 1 monitoring because the channel and
adjacent floodplain support characteristics of a C stream type with a cross-sectional area
progressing towards the projected post-restoration condition. The mitigation plan calls for
annual fall monitoring that includes development of a channel plan view, three channel
cross-sections, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of the channel. The stream will
subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate. These
measurements will be collected and summarized in the stream monitoring report due out in
April.
The issuance of stream restoration credits will be discussed with the MBRT upon
completion of the Year 2 Stream Monitoring Report in April, 2000.
?Lx
15

Figure 3. Comparison of the velocity (ft/s) of the mitigation stream located at Barra Farms and the
reference stream located at Bladen Lakes State Forest between April 1, 1999 and October 3, 1999.
Mean Daily Flows: Stream Velocity
On-site and Off-site Streams
2.5
2
1.5
v
0
1
a
a?
0.5
0

01-Apr 16-May 30-Jun 14-Aug 28-Sep
Mitigation Stream - Reference Stream
Figure 4. Comparison of the discharge (ft3/s) of the mitigation stream located at Barra Farms and
the reference stream located at Bladen Lakes State Forest between April 1, 1999 and October 3,
1999.
Mean Daily Flows: Stream Discharge
On-site and Off site Streams
12
10
M -
C9
1-1 8- --
d?
bA
6-
4-
2-
0-
01-Apr 16-May 30-Jun 14-Al
- Mitigation Stream - Reference Stream
16
28-Sep
J

1. 1

4

' Table 4. Number and species of benthic macro-invertebrates found at both the mitigation stream at Barra
Farms and the reference stream at Bladen Lakes State Forest.

I

L

SPECIES
T.V.**
F.F.G.** Stream
Macro Stream
Micro TOTAL Reference
Macro Reference
Micro TOTAL
4NNIELIDA 0 0
Oligochaeta 0 0
Haplota>ada 0 0
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.11 CG 0 1 1
THROPODA 0 0
Crustacea 0 0
Copepoda 3 3 1 1
Daphnidae 0 0
Ceriodaphnia sp. 1 1 1 1
Amphipoda 0 0
Crangonyctidae 0 0
Crangonyx sp. 7.87 CG 2 2 4 2 5 7
Isopoda 0 0
Asellidae 0 0
Caecidotea sp. 9.11 CG 31 20 51 2 2
Lirceus sp. 7.85 CG 0 0
Decapoda 0 0
Cambaridae 0 0
Cambarus sp. 7.62 CG 0 0
Hemiptera 0 0
Corbddae 9 PI 6 6 1 1
Gerridae P 0 0
Trepobates sp. P 2 2 0
Notonectidae 0 0
Notonecta sp. 8.71 P 1 1 0
Megaloptera 0 0
Sialidae 0 0
Sialis sp. 7.17 P 0 1 1
Coleoptera 0 0
Dytiscidae *5 P 5 5 3 3
Diptera 0 0
Chironomidae 2 2 2 2
Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG 16 21 37 6 6
Corynoneura sp. 6.01 CG 0 1 1
Phaenopsectra sp. 6.5 Sc 6 3 9 4 1 5
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH 12 7 19 5 5
Procladius sp. 9.1 P 4 2 6 7 7
Psectrocladius sp. 3.59 SH 17 17 5 2 7
Stenochironomus sp. 6.45 SH 0 1 1
Thienemannimyia sp. 8.42 P 1 1 0
Tribelos sp. 6.31 CG 61 61 35 35
OTAL # OF ORGANISMS 169 56 225 75 11 86
OTAL # OF TAXA 15 7 16 14 6 17
* Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values not available
** North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
***F.F.G.- Functional Feeding Group: SH=Shredder, CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering Collector, SC=Scraper, P--Predator, PI=Piercer
17

i
t
0
bA
O
00
01
0
c?
0
Cr
w
46.
N
N
W
N
0
UD
0
vi
.c?
a
o •o
w
kn o
V.
G ~ O O N
O
a U

0
U
? o
N
0
0 O
rq 1

??.. N to N 00 V) N N N bA 1

N
w ?
a
. s
w
O y M -, C
QI ? rl ? M
~ ? ? ?!1
N
? ? O O
i O

U
0

G M O C O 000

in

L7 N O tf

kn M
•
G9 N
C

00

C

O

~

O

N

b

D

^ A -
O O Cd
U ^O
? .w+ h N

w
O
_
i y

S
r
M
."
O
01,
V
v1 rn ? O O ""
C? iOr
U p
0
0

MCI .? ? i?l w `•I•q
o h
ci?

0 C3

? O 'O 0
a
i
U Q CZ W C*,)

00
C
' 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT
5.1 Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1999 to January 2000)
' The following is a brief summary of the conditions observed at Barra Farms during 1999.
Late January to early February experienced above-average rainfall (see rainfall chart in
1 Appendix B) that caused ponding over much of Barra (Photo page 1). Depth of water
ranged from saturation to elevations approximately one foot above the soil surface. These
ponded areas may be natural swales within this Carolina bay system. Low elevations will
' naturally collect more rainwater, have a higher groundwater level, and support vegetation
adapted to wet conditions, such as bald cypress, water tupelo, and black willow. Another
possibility for this standing water may be that these lower elevations were not present when
' the ditches were filled, but since that time the soil at the mouth of the stream has
compacted and subsided from oxidation and the weight of the ponded water, forming dips
in the landscape.
' This standing water remained until June of 1999. Drier weather brought with it lower
groundwater levels (see wetland hydrology data in Appendix B) and the growth of
' numerous herbaceous plants. In the wetter areas, such as the headwater slope habitat,
hydrophytic species such as sedges, cattails, and woolgrass dominated. In drier areas within
the groundwater flats habitat, more broomsedge and dog fennel were found.
' During the summer months, much of eastern United States including North Carolina
' experienced a drought. This dry weather substantially reduced groundwater levels at Barra
(Photo page 2). Water tables generally remained deeper than two feet below ground level
until September 15, 1999.
' Several hurricanes hit North Carolina in September and October and produced large
amounts of rainfall that, again, inundated most of Barra Farms. This rainfall (see Appendix
' B) resulted in a 500-year flood across eastern North Carolina and produced standing water
on both the former crop land on-site and forested sections within the reference site (Photo
pages 3 and 4). During periods of standing water, a variety of wildlife that are adapted to
' aquatic wetland habitats were noted, such as the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), wood
duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum).
' "
diameter) were placed through the northern farm
In October, six drainage pipes (18
road/berm to drain standing water from the restoration areas (Photo page 5). These pipes
' had ditches 50 feet long and up to 2 feet deep draining water into them. Despite these
efforts, water levels were still above ground in some places during November and
December. To further alleviate the standing water, in January of 2000 the mouth of the
' restoration stream was cleared of debris, such as tree limbs and snags, to allow the water in
this area to flow through it and out of Barra (Photo pages 6 and 7).
' 19
I

' A comparison of data and photos from 1998 and 1999 indicates a major difference in the
survivability of vegetation at Barra between those years. In 1998, in spite of an
' unprecedented wet winter (El Nino) and a fairly dry summer, the average seedling survival
rate was 83% and an average of 733 trees/acre were observed. However, in 1999, heavy
' rainfall and a dry summer increased seedling mortality of both planted and volunteer
species. Only 293 trees/acre were observed in 1999. Since both years experienced heavy
rainfall and a summer drought, it may be the length of the summer drought or the timing of
' the heavy rains that caused the difference in survivability from one year to the next. 1999
experienced a longer drought and wet weather during both the winter and late summer.
1999 also experienced several hurricanes which, in addition to rain, brought strong winds
' that may have increased mortality. Other possible reasons for the difference may be
changes in the sampling methods used or a difference in the intensity of herbivory.

u

0

I
20

' 5.2 Photographs of Barra Farms During 1999-2000.

0

L

11

21

i
i
i
i

Picture taken from station #4
r
• ::
N?,?±.n f
i
? i
i
<'. ? r ?'•?' . , „i x.?h?' ,,,...-any .
t.1- A4
a a 4 :.? ,..? a
40
Picture taken from station #5.
l 1, Hea?n/ rainfall during the winter of 1999 caused Basra Farms
ponding over sections of Barra Farms, Cumberland County, NC
22 Land Management Group, Inc,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
• rT' ?g.IlMe
a
Picture taken from station #4,

r
?! tl
Picture taken from station #7-
2. A summer drought dried up most of the standing
grater
23
Barra Farms
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

I
I
I
I

h`?r. J ` '? .yam.y
?,.. ?• " _ .- Nom, i, ` ~?S' ? ?
Elba
Picture taken from station #6,

j! 3 . Hurricanes in September and October of 1999 Barra Farms
caused ponding over areas of former crop land, Cumberland County, PVC
Land Management Group, Inc,
' 24
Picture taken from station #11.
i
i
i
i
4. Hurricanes in September and October of 1999
caused ponding in forested reference sites.
25
Barra Farms
Cumberland County, IBC
Land Management Group, Inc.
Picture taken from station # 18,
Picture taken from station #20.
¦
'°?^ ,r??. .rrc?..'tr"[[. ?'?„?' .a.wr,,rr •.•+''y?'?+?'Iky?+i1?A?''.?' '?S""il
,. - ?rl? ?. ..ice ? ?/iw,. _ ?:a .1.+yr? ~ ? ,i .w?+ ? '?T??
51
Ir"
1 '.. P ? -t?iT i?Y.•
8 ? f I ? L
+ 7?
744
0 FA
<-I?
-jN
I
I
I?
I
i
?i
,j
l
5 • b flashboard users were installed through the farm Barra Farms
road/berm to alleviate pooding, Cumberland Corny 'NC
Land Management Group, Inc,
' 26
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

6. In January of 2000, the mitigation stream was
cleaned of debris to improve flow.
27

vA
Barra Farms
Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc,
-1L
e.
^"M
i3arra Farms
7 , Debris removal continued, Cumberland County NC
Land Management Group, Inc,
28

6.0
r

C

0

I
1

C

SUMMARY
For two consecutive years, wetland hydrology success criteria have been met for all three
habitat types. Success in the restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank requires
saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface for at least 50% of the time that
the reference wetland exhibited wetland hydrology. The reference groundwater flats,
riverine floodplain, and headwater slope habitats exhibited wetland hydrology for a period
averaging 40%, 42%, and 41%, respectively. In the Bank, restoration wetlands supported
wetland hydrology averaging 36% (90% of reference), 31% (73% of reference), and 36%
(87% of reference), respectively. Since hydrology criteria have been satisfied for the past
two years of monitoring and because there are now five RDS continuous monitoring wells
located on site, ECOBANK proposes to decrease the intensity of manually monitoring
wells. During the third monitoring year, ECOBANK will manually monitor wells once a
month. If hydrology continues to meet success criteria, manual monitoring will be
discontinued after the third year.
According to the mitigation plan, at least 320 trees/acre must survive in order to meet
success criteria. During the November 1999 monitoring, groundwater flats habitat had 255
stems/ac survive and headwater slope habitat supported 227 stems/ac. Contingency
planting that occurred February 8 - 11 2000 added-43,300 more seedlings across 362 acres
at Barra (see Appendix E). ese plantings increased tree density to an averag-F-UFTM?
trees/acre, which meets vegetation success criteria. Through this contingency planting,
remedial actions to alleviate ponding, and the natur vegetative succession that is currently
taking place at Barra, vegetation success criteria will continue to be achieved in the coming
years.
A stream monitoring report will be submitted at the end of April, 2000, after one year of
stream flow data has been collected.
29
0

n

C

0
0

APPENDIX A:
Mitigation Credit Release Schedule

C
i zz
m
w z
O

Lu Q
CD
U
Cl)
cW

W Q
Z
O 00
J
W
W o

CC
cc
W
~

ui
cr-

w

LL 2
LU

w
0
z
O
a
U ?
CD
P7-
CC
LL
' a
C

d

C w { O co N O
m W o
+? s
5 O co a)
r "t
N
C4
U
E d ~ d
C m O O O O
Co N It m
O t- N .
fA (? U Q

=o W r"S CO N co N CO
O N
O O
V O C7 f- N
Q
L)
c w' d

0 CD O N co
N
d
U Q C
9 m ct

41 >
p

O _
O
tD O O O O
C Q = r Ch ?n co
v
t: = LO Lo O LO Lo O O
v °
.-
e-
r- N
CL
L
U °.

'CS o
d
:+ co
CA co a) O
O r-
O N
O
?
,
m
q O .. O) O m O O O
CL co
. ` N N N
O
E CV r •- e- ?- e-
?.
U Cf)
y N y y y y
47
V
U
U
U U
U
D U
m U U
? cam) C co CD Co (n W
a) .
0 Q
" p O C 7
LL 7
LL
U. >

LL >

LL
0
p CYO `
C?
C a 0 0 r N C'9 LO
C
p) E y
O O C
O W
C9 O lC!
m f0 O
m CU W
d M m
CU W

d d O d d
O O O .- '- N Y Ch «. r L Y
r N C? C7 U Ch V m u Ch V tD U
Y
co
c
rn
a?
6-
U y
E y
d
? U
U
y
y
O _O
m "
y ?
cc 0
o CO
N
? O
O >
L m,
?- O
Y
U
a?
Q Q
c
co a)
m a)
} s
U y
L cc
Y L
L
O
m
O_ "O
` Y
Y
.U •U
y
O y
U C
y U
w y
O U
'II O'
CD O
U y
O O
U C
C 'i
a) O
a) C
'a 0
f0 C
L N
Y
to O
O
ar }
C "
O O
U 'O
w= d
C l

I APPENDIX B.
' Wetland Hydrology Data, Rainfall, and Hydrographs

11

fl

?I

R
? ? N ' r ti

?
" .
r
' M v? M
' 7 ? V ? ? M ? ; N O H a} d' d' 7 7
OA ? Q ? O ? ,n N N N N N
A % n A A

V
m
t h
M
W
Q?
v1
00
00
O?
?
'1
00
N
M
e
Ci C , ? (V N C
(V N CV CV N
^
J n A A A A

c«

l4 ,n M ?9 T ,n vl tT Ch O? O ,n ? ? ti N M ? 7 !h <t aY 7
N N C1 N N
A A A A A
M
N N N C4 C4 C14 eq N N N
3 r -V 7 -V -,
. N N N N N
O O O d d d O O O O O O A A A A A

C4 C-4 C14 N ? N+ Nr N. w M O 0 N N N N N
3 O O O O O O O ' n A A A
N 'n to O ?' °
H
b
00 N (V N C
y CI N tV N
3 Y d A A A A A
N C4 C4 N
N .
-, .
-, N
3
O
d
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
n
n
A
A
? N N C9 N
T
?f
' -r
O i
O
O
O
d
O
O
O
O
O
O
"
d N
O1 N N
A N
3 A A A
C4 N N C4 C-%
N
N
N
? -,
. .+
. O0 -
r? d d d d o d d d d d d C, n A
N N N N N
08 ti ti h P N N N N N N N
3 O O d O O Q O O M a ?l A p CV n n A A /? n

00

3 O O O O M A A O A A A A A

r?

r Nr N-i Cl '? N1 N N C?`11 N.
4/ r? c d d d d d d o d d d o d d /? n n n A
N N N N N N N N N N N N
3 i r i i . . C N N N N N N N
O d c5 O O d O O O O O O '?' A A A A A
N N N N N N
N N 1

N N N N N

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O
N
Pd

A .
.i
O
7
M

A CV

A

A CV

A N

A
N e C9 N ? N N

00 N N N

d d d C) d d
A
A
/'
n
N N N N N N N ON N N
N
/? A n
H
N h N N CV
ri
A A A

00 00 00
il N M tn 00 W b

as ON CT O1 ON (7\ O, O1 CT Q" C', QN ON Oa C? CT O? O?
d\ O? G71 O1 ON C1 Q\ Q\ O? a\ O? Q\ O\ a\ O? O? a\ O? O?
N O\
\ \
M ?.
00 ?..
CT \
O \ \
?? \
O
\ \
?D \
-- \.
O
\ \,
l? \
M \
N
\
\ \
l \
d
,-+ N M N -4 1.4 N M ,-+ N M et N M 00 ?+ N
A M M M eh et rf d V7 v V7 V 1 ?O ?O ?O ?D l? [? l`? I" 00 00 00 00

Q
U
¦ R
Q+

?, O d O O O O O O O O ' O O
v
3
C
1 ? ? r ?
i1i d p O O O r o G5 d O O r

M ? '? ? C r C' M O M r 7 i ?

O O O Q C O d d O O O O O d O O
N ? N
O O d O d O O O O O d O O O

?
eq
h
h
N
N
h
Op
(.?
h
...?
h
M

r d O O d O O O d O O d d O d d d
.?. .N, N C4 N .N- w r :V .N N+ N N .N =V
r? 4 O O O d q O O O d O O O d O O
rl Nr .Nr .N.. N-?
r O d O O O d O d O d O Q d d O O

c
d
d
d
d
o
d
d
d
o
d
o C4
o
d
d
d
r?
L
RI
r
N.
N
Nr
N
M
Nr
.Nr
w
N
.N.
.N
N.
N
.N
.N
,C 3 d o d o d d d d d d d c> d d d d

?/
1 GS O O O O O d O O d d d O O O O

??` O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O

Fis• Q O O O O d O © O O d O d O Q O
Ifj N N N N N N N
r 'N .N.. N
.
. ti Ni N
w N
w
w
O O w
O w
O ...?
O w
O .
i
O .
O O O d .
d O O O d

O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N

??, r
O
O
O
O
d
O
O
O
d
d
d
d
O
d
O
O
~ w N N w Nr N+ .. .. .. .. .. .Nr .N.. ?
c5 .
.a
O .
.a
O d O O d O O O d O O O O O
t
•
?
?
? t-
? 00
N
N
{
i
.
1
r
S
i
?+
?
Q VJ .
.a .
.? N N N
? rn 1;11 rn T
O? O`
i T N
^ ? ? ? a O O O O ^? w ? N ?

I

N
? M
?
?
M
M .-?
M
CM
?
N
?
N
n
N
n
NI
n
N
n
N n
cy n
N
C
M o
cn v
cN ?
Ct a
(V ?
N v
N er
tV

n ?r
N

n ?
N

n
n n n n ? n n n n n n n n

ti N

; N N M •N-+

o '?

?
N
ri
N
„
N
nN
T

N

N

t?`?
ri
.y n n A n n

'
0
3
r'
o
c
o N Q,
" 00
`? N N
d N
n N
n N
n N
n
r?
a?
Ga.

w
.w N

? N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O y n ' ' ^' ' A A A A n
'CI

00

p

O

O

O

C

O

O

O

O

O

O

Q

?

C
N

A

A
N

A
N

A
N

n
N

n

? cV C`i
M'S.
1? O O O O O q O O O O O ' ? O /? /? h %? n
N
?
e4
N.n
N.r
r
,
M
N
c
.N.r
N-?
N.?
N
d' v
h n
p
h
? n
e}
N
CV
N
N
ri
N
N
y
t rn o o © a o 0 o A A A A
.
a

V14 Ny .N.? .N.? eq .Na C4 Ni .N.? .Ni +Nn N l i M h N O N N N N N t`,7
a O a O O 4 O n n n A A
00 0 N C14 N eq ^N, CA C4 C4 .Nr N
?' N
N o0 er n M oo N N l?^7 N N
4'?? © O O C O d d O O ' ' ' A A A A h

Cq vl t ? -+ 'r' .a. ,q, M vt ? ? ? M O ? N N N N N

4.
o
i
" _
N
N
M
h
h
G
h
000
d`

(71
O
r1

eq
C'4

00

?o
.Mr

r-
,Mi

m
h
M

C>
M
d
A ? ?
o? o. v, rn vt o? a, o? rn cr a. v? cr o. a a. o, o. o, o, o? o? v?

N
Cl)
n
?+
N
?+
N
M
O?
^?
N
M
?F
rr en
Cl

t o

00

-+

N

I
I

O1
O?
O?
L.'
S?
ai
y
u
aws
W
.M
w
O
0
w
O
d
O
U

? 13' O O O O
F?

M3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
rl ? .N- ? ? .Nr .Na ?? N N Y'1 vl ? h
a O O O O O N ?
d

O
Vl
w ?
"
? .Nr N .Ni N .Nr ? ? .N.. .N, ?
o .Nr .N.i .N.i
0 ti .Ni
o N..
d
? r o a d d d o 0 o d 0 0 0
b

0 d d o d d d d o 0 o a o 0 o d

7' a O O O O O O d O O O O O O O O
v N r N N N

y
? .
-
O
O i
O .
.i
O .
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

y N N CA N w N N N N N N ? ? ? N N
?
? .
a
d .
-i
O O .i
O O i
O O i
O .
r
O .
.i
O O O O O .
r
O .
.
O

3 a a a d a a a d a d d a a a o a

0

N . N . ' n
fi en I M n
'
? N
?
?, O O O O O N i N
O ?
O? ? ? ? ? N N N H N 1 1 i 1 1 1
Q ? V2
ON
c
o
rn
rn
a
rn
c
a°
a
0 `C' b M ` N N' 01
N M+ N N ? N
G 0
? N M O O O a
O .? + •-+ a.i N N N I
N
Hydrographs for each well during the 1999 growing season. Zero represents ground level.
Well 1- Groundwater Flats
12
ci
0
A
a?
H
-12
3

-24 '
75
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 2- Groundwater Flats
12
Q 0
A
-12
a?

-24 J--
75
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 4- Groundwater Flats
12
p. 0
A
F" -12
cl
-24 '
75
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
1

O
¦ i
? U

cu

W

U
Cu w

O? O
. cu
?}^ar
U)
1

E W
-f-j
I-j
a)
O

Z LL
Z
Z
a O

O z

19 U
- --- ?/! z
O
! W

o m >-
W
Q o
a? S z w
-
® ® ?
O/
0L Z O
o g Q
_ !

U)
O U
/
glcP Z
/O
Off LO
\ A / h
L NM LO Ncot Lntr) N
I,- r d O co 0? 0
I` 00 (C
l
L
j?5
!
I- d LO CV) LO r-I-??tM't _ !

6-
/ N
9
!
?n 'd to LO N ?n O - _1
LCMc-NNr OCMd -7 V: d?cl
N N tV c) N N N c) cO N N
co

, t
,
1
s
z M
i
ca Cc a /
0 Q)
`;LL 0 CL
MQM? 75<w0zo

Z
<o Lo u U
S! a
/O

?

.., !? 2
=
L
CL

9cs 3 m
/L cu'
O
O! co
o
?
N

?
/L E u
i
4 /! o
c ?

j2

LO ?t M N T- O ? 00 `^
1A ^ W LO
IT
C7
CO
N
O
T- r r' Ir- T r
(SOLIOU } llejuie,?]
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

.?...+
? O
U

to nL,
W
C/)
W
V)
to U
Q '

C VJ
O ?

O

?p
O
L M
•CD
-
17

(so4oul) llejuie?:]
M N O
Oll
•7-? .
w
r?; q
m ?3
S
O
O ON N ? M IT
(sogoul) uidea
0
z
a
O
O
06,
H
0. CU w
so, cS19 p
s6,6?b, ° w
6 6, 0
m Q
61%
o6b?? a
-- z
?, ???n S
0 N Z g
%
6', 0
esoz p
6) Yhn? ?
6s, o
ssM
% `9c' Lco")
SG,
4? ? N
66", 2 to
ell, z
0% c'0
?.
s'a 20
6'6p
66",
VQ.04
66'x ' cnn
O ;
? a
O
6'6)%M v
E6,ails d. a
06'9a ?o co -v z
6'%
go O N
e > -
E6, y. ° a>i
r
06, y. ca ?%
'go oz 3o
6'61% o c
&. o
604? S? E cn
Q, E
60 w U)
2 c L
O w3
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
12
Well 5- Groundwater Flats
..
0
Q
-12
-24 --
75
12
125 175 225 275
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 6-Groundwater Flats
325
5
0
a
a?
A
-12
a?
3
-24 -4-
75
12

.1 0
a¢i
A
a?
H
-12

-24 --
75
125 175 225 275
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 7- Groundwater Flats
325
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 10- Groundwater Flats
12

0
m
A
-D
H
-12
w

-24 =
75
12
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 11- Groundwater Flats
0
A
a?
a
m
H
-12

-24 =
75
12

125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 12- Groundwater Flats
0
aQi
A
a?
H
-12

-24 ' r .. r
75 125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
12
0
Q
D
E-
; -12
Well 14- Groundwater Flats
td
3
-24 -
75
Well 17- Groundwater Flats

12
0
a,
a?
Q
E?
325
-12
w
3
-24 =
75
12

0
Q
-12

-24 =
75
125 175 225 275
Growing Season in Julian Days
125 175 225 275
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 20- Groundwater Flats
325
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
12

Well 21- Groundwater Flats
0
aQi
Q
,n
H
-12
cl

-24 '
75
12
125 175 225 275
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 22- Groundwater Flats
325
0
Q
H
-12
3
-24 '
75
12
0
Q
a
-12

-24
75
125 175 225 275
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 23- Groundwater Flats
325
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well JBi- Groundwater Flats
Reference
12
d
0
a?
Q
m
.a
-12
-24 =
75
12
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well JB2- Groundwater Flats
Reference
..J
0
a
Q
.n
E" -12
a?
?a
-24 -
75
12
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well JB3- Groundwater Flats
Reference
171
0
u,
a?
Q
E--{ -12
b
tC
-24
75 125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 3- Headwater Slope
12
0
Q
v
H
-12
a
-24 '
75
Well S- Headwater Slope
12
171
d
0
a?
Q
a?
-12

-24 '
75
12
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 9- Headwater Slope
r-.
0
aAi
Q
F -12
N

-24
75 125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 16-Headwater Slope
12
0
a,
Q
a?
-12
w
3
-24-'
75
12
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 19- Headwater Slope
0
a,
a?
Q
a?
w -12
?a
_24 . ...
75 125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 15- Riverine Floodplain
12
d
0
a
a?
Q
a?
a
-12
a?
3
-24 '
75
12
ei
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 18- Riverine Floodplain
0
a¢i
Q
ea
h
? -12
3
-24 '
75 125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well SSl- Riverine Floodplain
Reference
12
v
0
N
Q
Cti
F" -12
a?
3
-24 '
75
12
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well SS2- Riverine Floodplain
Reference
ci
0
Q
v
a
c?
-12

-24 '
75
125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
Well 13- Uplands
12
171
0
n.
a?
Q -12
H
-24
3
-36 '
75 125 175 225 275 325
Growing Season in Julian Days
APPENDIX C.
Wetland Vegetation Data

I

r
I

Table C1. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat, average height, and DBH.
i

I

Species #
Found Average
height # with DBH
> 1" Average
DBH
Taxodium distichum 154 47.9
Salix nigra 132 36.6 2 1
Acer rubrum 106 35.2 1 1
Nyssa spp. 95 37.2
Rhus copallina 72 52.8
Quercus lyrata 47 25.0
Clethra alnifolia 38 32.1
Quercus phellos 31 27.3
Chamaecyparis thyoides 16 45.2
Gordonia lasianthus 9 41.4
Lyonia lucida 9 22.2
Persea borbonia 9 26.9
Cyrilla racemiflora 9 32.3
Liquidambar styraciflua 7 35.7 2 1
Quercus michauxii 7 20.7
Pinus palustris 7 14.7
Baccharis halimifolia 5 45.0
Quercus nigra 4 18.0
Liriodendron tulipifera 4 36.3
Leucothoe sp. 4 32.6
Alnus serrulata 4 38.0
Myrica heterophylla 3 28.0
Platanus occidentalis 2 71.5 1 1
Populus heterophylla 2 40.5
Pinus taeda 2 44.5
Pinus pagoda 1 18.0
Myrica cerifera 1 65.0

Table C2. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average height, and DBH.

I
C
C
Species #
Found Average
height # with DBH
> 1" Average
DBH
Salix nigra 42 78.4 1 1
Nyssa spp. 30 48.9
Acer rubrum 28 49.9
Taxodium distichum 18 57.2
Populus heterophylla 3 91.3 1 1.5
Quercus lyrata 3 31.7
Chamaecyparis thyoides 1 46.0
Liquidambar styraciflua 1 108.0 1 1
Leucothoe sp. 1 31.0
1 Table C3. Woody species found in uplands habitat, average height, and DBH.

r
L

Species #
Found Average
height # with DBH
> 1" Average
DBH
Pinus taeda 19 24.4
0
Table C4. Herbaceous species found in all 34 plots and average cover class.
Species Average Cover
Class
Eupatorium capillifolium 3.4
Andropogon virginicus 2.8
Scirpus cyperinus 1.4
Aster pilosa 0.9
Typha latifolia 0.8
Panicum verricosum 0.8
Panicum sp. 0.8
Polygonum sp. 1 0.8
Polygonum sp. 2 0.7
Juncus sp. 1 0.6
Ludwigia sp. 0.4
Eupatorium 0.3
Smilax laurifolia 0.3
Rubus sp. 0.2
Cyperus polystachos 0.1
Cyperus sp. 2 0.1
Juncus sp.2 0.1
Lespedeza virgintca 0.1
Mikania scandens 0.1
Pteridium aquilinum 0.1
Xanthium strumarium 0.1
APPENDIX D.
Summary of Monitoring Plan
1.0 MONITORING PLAN
' The Monitoring Plan will consist of a comparison between hydrology model predictions, reference
streams and wetlands, and restoration areas on the Site. Stream restoration monitoring will be
performed through analysis of in-stream flows, stream geometry, and biological stream attributes.
' Wetland monitoring will entail analysis of two primary parameters: vegetation and hydrology.
Monitoring of restoration and enhancement efforts will be performed until success criteria are
fulfilled.
1.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
After hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will be
' designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Corps of Engineers', Installing
Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August 1993).
Monitoring wells will be set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface.
' Twenty three surficial monitoring wells manual recording) will ( ) be installed at the Site to provide
' representative coverage and flow gradients extending through each of the three physiographic
landscape areas (Figure 2). Four monitoring wells will also be placed within the reference wetland
site in simtlarlandscape positions, where available. Three continuous recording (RDS24) wells will
' also be installed on-site to provide continuous data that can be extrapolated to manual recording
devices.
' Hydrological sampling will be performed on-site and within reference during the growing season (17
March to 12 November) at intervals necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within the
designated physiographic area (EPA 1990). In general, the wells will be sampled weekly through
' the Spring and early Summer and intermittently through the remainder of the growing season, if
needed to verify success.
1.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics have been evaluated using a potential combination of three
different methods: 1) regulatory wetland hydrology criteria; 2) reference groundwater modeling; and
3) reference wetland sites.
' Regulatory Wetland Hvdrolou Criteria
The regulatory wetland hydrology criterion requires saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil
surface for 12.E percent of the growing season under normal climatic conditions. In some instances,
the regulatory wetland hydroperiod may extend for between and 12.5% of the growing season.
Reference Groundwater Model
' The reference groundwater model forecasts that the wetland hydroperiod in interior areas of the Site
will average 22%O of the growing season in early successional phases. As steady state forest
conditions develop, the average wetland hydroperiod is forecast to encompass 4017o of the growing
' season. Over the 31 year modeling period, the annual hydroperiod fluctuated from less than 12.5%
to over 4417o dependent upon rainfall patterns and successional phase. In addition, the on-site
' Pale I of 5
landscape includes diverse wetland geomorphology, especially near uplands and the stream channel
which are not characterized by the model.

I

I

Due to wide fluctuations in modeled annual hydroperiod (<12-44+%), the groundwater model cannot
provide a specific hydrology success criteria above the regulatory criterion (12.5%) on an annual
basis. A specific success criteria such as a 22% target hydroperiod will fail in 50% of the years
sampled. A success criteria of 12.5% (the regulatory criteria) will also fail in 10% of the years
sampled in reference wetlands. y
Reference Wetland Sites
Four monitoring wells will be placed in the groundwater flats reference wetland located in the
northwestern periphery of Barra Farms. Wells will be also be placed in a riverine reference wetland
in the Bushy Lake/Horse shoe Lake natural area dependent upon contact with the North Carolina
Park and Recreation Service. These wells will provide annual hydroperiods on the organic soil flat,
and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Site. The headwater slope physiographic area may
be interpolated between the two systems. Transition zones from uplands towards the wetland interior
will not be. represented. Therefore, these wells will provide comparative information on interior
wetlands only.
The hydrology success criteria for this Site will require saturation (free water) within one foot of the
soil surface for at least 50% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference wetland.
Based on groundwater models, average wetland hydroperiods in groundwater flats will exhibit a
steady, non-linear increase from 22% to 40% of the growing season during forest (post-farmland)
development. This trend includes a hypothetical reduction in hydraulic conductivities and a 5090
increase in surface water storage through the first 15 years of wetland development. Therefore, a
goal of 50 +/-% hydroperiods relative to reference wetlands is warranted for the five year monitoring
period. This 50% goal may not apply in non-organic soils as evapotranspiration may play a greater
role in early successional hydroperiods than surface water storage.
1.3 VEGETATION
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA guidelines
presented in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE Compensatory
Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). The following presents a general discussion of the
monitoring program.
' 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 cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by weeds. Subsequently, quantitative
' sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 31 after each growing
season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.

Page 2 of

After planting plan implementation, 0.1 acre plots will be within each restored ecosystem type.
Twenty three plots will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related
data on hydrological and vegetation parameters.

1.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component supports a
species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria are
dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Specifically, a minimum
mean density of 320 characteristic trees/ac must be present for the five year monitoring period.
Characteristic tree species are those within the reference ecosystems, elements enumerated in the
planting plan, along with natural recruitment of sweet gum, red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine,
and pond pine. Loblolly or pond pine (softwood species) cannot comprise more than 10 percent of
the 320 stem/acre requirement. In addition, at least five character tree species must be present, and
no species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Supplemental plantings
will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria. Development of a forest canopy over several decades and restoration of
wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of desired wetland
understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover/composition of shrub
and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
' 1.5 STREAM
1.5.1 Initial Monitoring Plan
' Monitoring and success criteria will be established through periodic measurement of stream stage
and rainfall in the Bank. One staff gauge will be placed on central sections of the mitigation stream
reach and the second staff gauge will be located approximately 300 feet below outfall from the Bank.
' Rain gauges will be placed at open locations within central portions of the Bank. Stream stage and
rainfall will be measured weekly throughout the monitoring period.

I

1.5.2 Updated Monitoring Plan
Stream monitoring and success criteria will be established through measurement of in-stream flows,
measurement of stream geometry, and measurement of biological stream attributes.
In-stream flows will be measured through placement of two continuos monitoring stream flow
gauges. The gauges will be capable of recording velocity (ft/second) and discharge (cubic feet per
second. CFS). Discharge is typically calculated by measuring height (or depth) of the water column
and inputting the resulting cross-section. One gauge will be placed within the central reach of the
restored stream channel on the mitigation site. The gauge will be located approximately 100 feet
downstream of a former dirt road crossing in central portions of the site (Drainage Area: 2.5 mi':).
The second gauge will be placed within the riverine wetland reference site in Bladen Lakes State
Forest. The reference gauge will be located a minimum of 100 feet upstream of the State road
Pale 3 of

crossing (Drainage Area: 6.7 mi'). The data will be reported as mean daily flows for velocity
(ft/second) and discharge (CFS) in tabular and graphic format.

C

I

I

Stream geometry will be measured along a fixed stream reach located immediately upstream and/or
downstream of the stream gauge located on the mitigation site. The stream reach will extend for a
minimum of 200 feet along the restored channel. Annual fall monitoring will. include development
of a channel plan view, three channel cross-sections, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of
the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format as summarized in the attached
table. Data to be presented will include: 1) cross-sectional area; 2) bankfull width; 3) average depth;
4) average width; 5) width/depth ratio; 6) meander wavelength; 7) beltwidth; 8) water surface slope:
9) sinuosity; and 10) stream substrate composition. The stream will subsequently be classified
according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel
morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data between the reference stream and
mitigation stream and by comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
Biological stream attributes will be measured annually at the mitigation site and in the reference
wetland site between April 15 and May 15 of each year. yAquatic surveys will record
presence/absence of macro-invertebrate, reptile, amphibian, and fish species populations.
Presence/absence of species populations identified will be reported along with observations of
changes to in-stream aquatic habitat or species presence/absence over time.
1.6 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
1.6.1 Initial Monitoring Plan
Success criteria will include establishment of near-permanent stream flows within the Bank.
Specifically, stream stage and observable flow must be present for a minimum of 80% of the
calendar year. Intermittent flow may occur during periods of groundwater draw-down, generally
confined to summer months. y
1.6.2 Updated Monitoring Plan
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) stream classification; 2) target mean daily
stream flows; and 3) increased stream faunal recruitment and diversity.
Stream geometry measurements will be incorporated into the Rosgen stream classification system.
' The channel and flood prone area must support characteristics supporting an E. C, or DA stream type
to fulfill the success criteria.

In-stream flow measurements must indicate that the mitigation stream reach supports mean daily
flows per unit of drainage area equal to. or exceeding the mean daily flows per unit of drainage area
within the riverine reference reach. The reference stream reach supports an approximate 6.7 mi'
drainage area while the mitigation stream reach supports an approximate 2.5 mi'- drainage area (37'0
of reference). Therefore, mean daily flows in the mitigation reach must equal to, or exceed 3070 of
the mean daily flows in reference. If the mitigation reach and/or reference reach support no
Pale 4 of

1 measurable flow during a drought period, fulfillment of success criteria will be based upon mean
daily flows prior to, and following the no flow condition.
i Biological monitoring will indicate similar species diversity as compared to reference conditions or
an increase in species diversity towards reference conditions over time. Specifically, the type and
' number of species populations. identified in the mitigation reach must be equal to, or increasing
towards, the type and number of species identified'
dentified in the reference reach in each successive
monitoring year.
1.7 REPORT SUBMITTAL
Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT certifying completion of implementation activities.
' Any changes to this mitigation plan will be described in this documentation. The document will be
provided within 60 days of completion of all work at the Site.
' Subsequently, reports will be submitted yearly to the MBRT following each assessment. Reports
will document the sample transect locations, along with photographs which illustrate site conditions.
' Surficial well data will be presented in tabular/graphic format. The duration of wetland hydrology
during the Growing season will be calculated at each well. within each on-site physiographic area.
and within the reference wetland site.
The survival and density of planted tree stock will be reported. In addition, characteristic tree
' species mean density and average height as formatted in the Vegetation Success Criteria will be
calculated. Estimates and photographic evidence of the relative percent cover of understory and
groundcover species will be generated.
1.3 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation or hydrology success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for
' contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended monitoring
periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum species density and
distribution requirements.
' Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved during the monitoring period. Recommendations for
' contingency to establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology
Success Criteria are achieved. Performance bonds have been established to guarantee fiscal
resources for remediation.

' Page 5 of 5

C
I
I

H

I

I
r

I
APPENDIX E.
Supplemental Actions Taken at Barra Farms 1999-2000

I
C
C
I

k

r

I
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN AT
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
1999-2000
The following is a list of actions that have been or will be taken to improve the quality of
monitoring and insure future mitigation success at Barra Farms:
1. Installation of six 18" diameter drainage pipes along the north section of Barra to alleviate
ponding. The pipes were installed in October of 1999 to reduce the standing water created
by rainfall from hurricanes and from any future heavy rain events. Ponded water will be
lowered only during and/or after extreme climatic rainfall events after which ponding
could be detrimental to the growth of survival of character species. The pipes will not
allow groundwater levels to recede below the wetland hydrology thresholds and can be
plugged in dry periods to allow percolation into the wetland before standing water is
released.
2. In January of 2000, the mouth of the mitigation stream at Barra was cleaned of debris
such as fallen limbs and snags to increase stream flow and further reduce standing water in
this area.
3. The percentage of Barra being sampled for vegetation was increased in Year 2 monitoring.
In Year 1 monitoring, 24 plots, each 0.05 acre in size, were sampled resulting in a total of
1.2 acres surveyed. In order to get a larger sample of representative vegetation and to
pinpoint the location of areas not meeting the vegetative success criteria, the sampling
area was increased in 1999. In Year 2 monitoring, 34 plots that were each 0.1 acre in size
were sampled resulting in 3.4 total acres surveyed. This is a 283% increase in sampling
size between Year 1 and Year 2. These 34 plots include 19 of the original 24 plots plus an
additional 15 plots randomly placed in areas generally lacking plots.
4. In December of 1999, a subcontractor hired by ECOBANK installed 3 new RDS
monitoring wells at Barra to get a more precise and continuous account of hydrology. A
total of five RDS wells now read hydrology data on-site and 2 RDS wells are located at
reference sites.
5. Supplemental planting was completed on February 11, 2000. Species that have thus far
shown an ability to survive at Barra were planted across the groundwater flats and
headwater slope habitats, which comprise approximately 362 acres at this site (Table 1).
C

Table

Number and species of trees planted at Barra Farms during the winter of 2000.
Common Name Scientific Name Number Ordered
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 4000
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 6000
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 1000
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 800
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2500
Pond Pine Pinus serotina 2000
Swamp Blackgum Nyssa Mora 6500
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 2000
Water Oak Quercus nigra 6000
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica 5600
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5900
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1000
TOTAL 43,300
' These species were evenly distributed across the former crop land at Barra (Figure 1).
However, in wetter areas, such as the headwater slope habitat, a greater number of bald
' cypress and water tupelo were planted, since these species are better adapted to wet
conditions. We also planted a greater variety of species in areas presently lacking diversity
' in order to meet mitigation requirements. Planting actions were closely monitored by Land
Management Group, Inc. personnel. A total of 43,300 seedlings planted across 362 acres
resulted in approximately 120 trees/acre. Since an average of 241 characteristic trees/ac
' (average of groundwater flats and headwater slope habitats) were observed in Year 2
monitoring, this supplemental planting increased tree density to 361 trees/acre. These
trees, in addition to new volunteers and the established trees already present, will help
' Barra achieve the vegetative success criterion of 320 characteristic trees/acre over the
required monitoring period.
' 6. Since the continuous monitoring stream gauges placed in the reference and restoration
streams in 1999 have been somewhat unreliable, staff gauges will be replaced and used as
a backup measure of stream flow. The staff gauges will insure continuous collection of
' flow data and will allow a more accurate assessment of stream mitigation.

11

PG
o ?
.? o
? o

•? si

cq

b

w

N ON

00
C> u"
ZC I I
r
4. c d0

J

to L

sn. a?
• o
y N
?
Q a
i

t) cn

bn
w

Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
MEMO From: Date:
To: Subject:
/"$-% W
, logs
02 ? .PeM AlG 14? /
e- X.,
/ „ P
"`"? ?asi f r ?/
741 ally i
'IA
RCDENR
Np1lN CuIo- DFPMlNUR of
F1'viROHncHi.wo Nw*un Ree -
PO BOX 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone [phone]

Preliminary Results of Duke Wetland Center Research at the Barra
Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Dr. Neal E. Flanagan
Research Associate
Greg Bruland, Matt Hanchey
Graduate Students
And
Dr. Curtis J. Richardson
Director Duke University Wetland Center
May 5,2000
The Duke Wetland Center is currently performing research at the Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank with the objective of improving water quality in the Harrison Creek
watershed and ultimately in the Cape Fear River. The United State Department of Agriculture
(USDA) sponsors this three-year research program. At the watershed scale, the importance of
wetlands to the maintenance of biodiversity, water quality, and natural hydrologic regimes
depends at least in part on the total wetland area, types and spatial arrangement. The North
Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP) was mandated to develop basin-wide wetland
restoration plans primarily to improve water quality. The primary objective of our study is to
develop a procedure for configuring mosaics of restored wetlands to yield the greatest positive
cumulative effect on watershed-level water quality given a set of ecological, economic and
political constraints.
This study centers on the development of a Decision Support System (DSS) to assist
NCWRP in siting restored wetlands to maximize watershed-level water quality improvement.
The DSS will rely upon an economic model of land use and farmer willingness to participate in
restoration programs, and a multivariate regression model of flow-weighted water quality
parameters verses watershed variables including the area, type, shape and location of wetlands.
A non-point source water quality model is being developed and calibrated using data collected
from the NAWQA indicator watersheds and will be validated using field data collected from the
Barra Farms site. The water quality model will be coupled with an economic model of
landowner decisions to participate in the NCWRP as a function of their socioeconomic
characteristics, various aspects of the program and other factors that affect land use decisions.
An economic analysis of the individual restoration project will also be conducted to test the
results of our conceptual model, and the effectiveness of the NCWRP from the landowner's point
of view.
To date, both field and simulated water quality data indicate the Barra Farms project is
having a positive effect on water quality. Figures 1 and 2 show total phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations in storm runoff from the restored wetlands and adjacent agricultural lands at the
site. These figures indicate the restored wetland is having a substantial positive impact on the
water quality of Harrison Creek, and consequently on the Cape Fear River. Figures 3 shows
simulated water quality in the upper portion of Harrison creek with and without wetland
restoration. The model indicates wetland restoration on agricultural lands substantially reduces
s
r
particulate bound phosphorus at the watershed scale. These results agree with observed water
quality improvements at Barra Farms in the restored wetland areas.
Early results of this study indicate that the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
is providing improved water quality functions. We anticipate data gathered from this site will
assist state agencies, such as NCWRP in demonstrating improved watershed water quality
resulting from wetland restoration. The next phases of this research will result in complete water
budget as well as a regional model that can be used to predict water quality improvements in the
Cape Fear Watershed as well as measurements of other ecological functions on both restored and
natural wetlands in the watershed. The cooperative work and exchange of data with the
restoration program at Barra Farms is essential to the completion of this project.

UTP in outflow from Rest. Wetland & Ag. Ditch after Floyd
700
restored
600 agriculture
500
400
IL 300
200
100
0
9/20/99 4:48 9/20/99 16:48 9/21/99 4:48 9/21/99 16:48 9/22/99 4:48 9/22/99 16:48 9/23/99 4:48
Date, Time
Figure 1. Total phosphorus concentrations in surface water samples taken from outflow leaving
the restored wetland area and an adjacent agricultural area after hurricane Floyd
(September, 1999, unpublished data from DUWC).
N02+NO3-N in outflow from RW and AD after Floyd
1000 - --- - - ------------ --- - - - - - - - -
.. 900 - - - - - - - - - - - - ?- restored
J
---------- --- -- -----------------------------
+ariculture
I%wO 700 -- - - -- - - ---- - - - --
p 600 - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
500 -- - - - - - -

c
400 - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -------- -- -- -------- -- --
v 300

O 200 - -
V
100 - - - - - - - -- -- -- --------------------- -- - --
-
0
9/20/99 9/20/99 9/21/99 9/21/99 9/22/99 9/22/99 9/23/99
4:48 16:48 4:48 16:48 4:48 16:48 4:48
Date, Time
Figure 2. Nitrite+nitrate-N concentrations in surface water samples taken from outflow leaving
the restored wetland area and an adjacent agricultural area after hurricane Floyd
(September, 1999, Unpublished data DUWC).
f
.r ?
......... ........._------ _------___-_ --------_
•I
I
_____ ____-...--._
0.6 --n-Agricult
I
0.5 - ----- --- - - -- -- --.- Restored
c?
s
I
0 0.4 - - - - - --
0.3 -
N 0.2 -
0.1 - - - --- - - - - - --
- - 0-
5P Oro Oro Oro CbA 0JA OA 0A 00 00 00 5 SP 5P oo' 4O o0
PQ? S Cry ?a? PQr ?J\ a ?P
Figure 3. Simulated particulate bound phosphorus concentration in Harrison Creek given two
land use scenarios: agricultural (Agriculture.) and wetland restoration (Restored).
o W
1 11
?1J
n
n
x
Is
0
n
n
As
N
y
N
W
C
Cl)
o
O
% fA
(D N
N_ (9
a N
w
ti
IIR
a
to
w
N
Pj 1 , 1 L 1 1 l l 1 i t% 1 \ 1 '1 1 \
Q Q d 0'
J
! 10? IVl I.p, W IN f+ h x p
c
V IW ?w r 00 ?p c
t t ~ W Oii ?yC
W H p
c ? C
r7
'?C7 C/1
o
r.
1
s
o?
c
K
O '
IY
N ?.
t
w1
w?

o ?
N
A?
n
v

C?
0
x
o+
y
I
J
O
H^
4l
K
y
N
(9
W

n
a
N (?
O. y
Al
N
dQ
C+
W
N
N
N
1
M'4_I'CL1'q (%I ?'(%
I D

J o.vi?wtar-? R°x? r
c
?w w oAz
c''?° y
a,wvi
a' y ?v
c•w?
a°? ?
H
.10
O Qr
Al,
C
^^V''
f"P
?gj v?
o ^
..
cn
i

N?N
lD•
V
K
fD
e
N

C?
O
y
to
y
N
P?
N
n

C)
O
R
n
x
y
i I
O
K
4 J
K
(/1
fA
y
Q..
N
Q..
p'
0.
P?
n
4l

O
!D
O
N
b C
Boa c?
y? y
M ?
A
R
y• Q
?• On
!91 ?n
C'n
N. :
1
1
V
eY
CA
V

o ?
K
N A:
N
T
Al
N
n
O
x
I?
0
c?
N
N
N
Co
.. O
C
/ y
fD N
y H
a
O
w
9
L?
C
fR
W

'7'1',Ll?l ?, N I, lo
b O A?

VJ

•
v• y ?
r

e'r

_ r7
ro?
O7
N
I?
?i I I ?FNI 1?=?

G
n„
I
k
o,vi.9k. W NI-•
n u n n u n ?? o
W D
o
p? W Vi
O
?
W o ? H?p+ V``i
\ J
q
\
\
O T y
1
n
9
t
a
rT
L.
<'1y
o ?
7 ,7r
N
sv
N e \ 1 1 ? ?
?v G G
v
x
H
5Q
n
>v
fn
fA
N
N
C1
°e
N N
N CL
Q+ y
K
Q
W
Q.
W
P1
N
1 1, 1% P

F-I

1 3.4

A
C, C
O? Vi ? W N F+ 00 '?' ? r
II II 11 II II II (`? (D rp O
O? W Vi °? ? vi 5Q ?
o e C
O•
? a
x?
ZA ?
t y•
d
w Rm
?9 I'll (14 Lnn W F-+ O O Q' C V]
oI

O '
K _
r
I S)
Y
o
n
K
N
n
v

n
O
n
x
H
I
l I
O
4j
hM1
Al
N
N
CD
N

N , J
O
a
? y
N N
a
w
00
a
w
w
N

r
O? Vt .A W N ?-+
wcn?w?o
c.wvia Cn
aa°?
be
V,
5 I
A
b
gt. O
y ?M
V
A?
b I Cn
O ^

ti
l9

?x?p r

o ?
x
w

0
n
x
N
I
0
n
c?
n
N
N
l9
H
.7Q
O.
n
/ y
N y
N H
G.
K
W
d4
a
N
F HIV'
O? vi .? W N 1r
II II II II II 11
W t-+ W ?+ O O
W V1 N W ? •?
n
y
N
0
y
m -114 -d
C!1
b
y
-4

C?
O
N
z ?
y'
td
y
A?
N
P
n
N
A
v
7

?t
S7
7T-
n
0
n
x
Q?
Iiy
1
?Q
I
?^t
4f
K
H
y
fD
N

fD ?
a
0
? H
H (D
?+ y
W
r1
dQ
a
Q+
N
A
fA
IIIi-A
o?vt AwN? =9 t"
t ( II II II II II II CD 0 O
wr+W rOO nC??
W l7i F? W .0 y C/]
H
b C
M V/
O
?M
V
cn
F+
of
`• y
V
Q
t
w
IN
l

o ?
9 ?
fA A:
A?
n
N
A

n
O
C
N
n
x
N
I?
l
O
K^
Al
N
N
y

0
a
0
? H
N y
a
K
x
oc
a
K
w
W
0

b C
V/
N• Q
1"P
V
cn
1" r
b I V1
O ?^p
I

c
F+
O
K
cn
?• c
v? v? A W N F-• Ro x? C"
u u u u u u
w?w?-•oo co ? o
?c-??
cn
_
0
y a'
y '
o ?
R
N ? .
N
fv

0
x
H
I
?Q
C)
O
N
M
a
?t
A?
y
fA
N
f9 ?
a A
? H
N H
a
a
w
s
CL.
N

,fLFICl%6 ;r L', I,,. 71-L I -fl
a% Ul -4. W 14 1'-
n u n n u u ? ?, o
w w o o nJ,
o.wcn o.'no N ??, 5q ?
b C
m ?
x?
p
A
A
CA
X
o?
I
v

Ono

y V7 or
t en ?
wrr' ?

?
W p'
f
r7 Q

?D

b ?
? N
Cn

?
x o
y' Q
r

f

0

ca
y
y
N
y

G
? K
fD
O
?r
c
_

?
n Q7 t

a.
c
? _

fO/1
N Vl

? y
S

a
y

w rr W !-? O o
?'''?"o
? ? ?
y ? cn
?
o?wv?
o \\O
\?CC y
V

o to
H
w
sv

C7
0
C
C9
`s
x
N
I?
C7
0
K
y
N
N
)
O
a ?
y
? N
N (9
O.. y
w
ti
riq
a
w
w
N
1 ?\
1 1\

eT
C%ul aawtaI-L
n u it u n u co c? o
wc?,?w??oo ?c?v?
Q? W C/l ? ? 0 y ? yQ ?
. 11 1 %
b
r
A
R
b
H
r'P
iy
C!1
f9
fD
m
f+ d
y.r
O
K
f
?• V
LY
J
Z:i§
n
Val
O.
N
N
a
n
W
a
w
V!
Gi
N
N
7
N
N
\
A

(7
0
x
N
I
.?Q
C
fD
?s
N
lD
N
I
C
h
0
w
v)
H
o'
t
y b 001-4
t
N
Lot
t' , e. ? ! 1 1 1 ? i r t ! t t a 1 !
O
n N
r„.
V, V v -0%
! 1 t 1 N !
r..
r
O
ti
N?N
1D•
y
O?cnAW N1-- R°' or,
u a u u u u co ?
i i ?+ Wo ? O y a? ?
a°??\eT°a° voice o'
C
M V,
M
A
A
y
• 0
P'r
cn
l9

C1
H
Irl
a
N
W
Cl.
w
w
to
N
A?
N
K
N
.ni

0
C
t9
x
C
I
l J
A
•^t
w
N
y
n
e
?o
r.
O
f/1

r

Nt

A

W.
x

J
t
c
`z

fo

f
I
I
C
tTtn.4, WNI- g? xc.p
11 11 11 II II II
O
+ ? (p ?
.
?
G)
?
Q
W t-+W i
O
W l!I f+ W ?? ? y ? Cn
o to ? 7Q ?
a, w
a, w y
fA
b
? i
A
N, FV
? Q
H• ?
old
l?

Q
C1
L1.
N
H
ti
?Q
a
w
N
to
N
W
N
N
A
?Q
n
OCC
l?
.1
x
N
5-1

O
C
H
fD
N
.7Q
I
C
N
F?1
O
N
Vf
W ?-+ W ?+ O O
W T4+W O
T W In a? ?+ In
b C
?0 a
A
y• Q
y
1" r
fD

0
a
N
N
Q+
ti
d0
a
w
w
h
W
9t
co
A?
N
.7'
A?
A?
A
'JCQ
0
C
!D
ti
x
I N
.7Q
)
O
C
fD
h
4 J
h
fv
N
N
N
T
n
°e
0
N
i?
V/
y
P'r
O
Gn
CD
J

J
J
C--%-
II II II II 11 .Ii ? - ? f9 ? ?
W t~ii W ?+ O O 0 Q' =' cn
I I Fr Wo •? O y 'y `.3 rte.
. ? W c ? t+ Vi a 54
o to
R
? N
z
w
v
?Q
l I
0
K
x
N
I?
?Q
C)
R
H
4 ,
h
P1
N
y
lD
y

0
a
N
? y
H
a y
w
T
w
J
a
w
T
w
1-1 ?%I-j b 11
C
Q? Vl ?. W N
II II II it II II
W Y, 4- W O
a, w a, W VI Q??pp O
A?
H 7
N a
y
b
w? a
ro
H
f"'P
roIC4
T
I
i
r?
m
..c
N V
?s

S R A C4
O
a

s
r

?
a

? ? N A
.-. A•
y

. 31
.ct S CO J

F
r+
n
°e
x
H
I?
?Q
l J
C
n
y
N
M

f9 0
a ?
te
? y
H (9
?+ H
A
(ro
H
y
b I L'
o
IF
Al
fD
cn
N
1
1
OC

,j a, Awty?- R'x? P t?
o
ii u u
?? n w?w? n u
0Q
?c??
c1 ?.•w?o y o v? d
rA
o to
N
n

? S7
o r

n
°e
x
c
fA
I
?9 a
N
y
co
V/
.7Q
f9 ?
i n
O
/ N
H (?
O. y
W
H
(TQ
(L
w
v
o?v?.AwNr Ro?? ?-+
u n u u n u co ? o
wv?iw?oo ccn
N
.d
lrm+
1'Q
A?
Ny ?
N d
CA
X71
CD
b ?
O ?
-
,W1
r
IN
o?
r,
M
0
r?
.• 1
J+

o td
y
N
N
n
v

I I ?I?Fof 107 I 1 rW?I
r
'JQ
n
x
N
I
M^
a
M
y
y
N
.. o
a
N y
N (9
?+ N
.t
Q+
N
ti
N
It
? O ^
S
zl1

? K

cn

°<1
o? vi .? w N ? Ro x ? r '?
u n n u u n ce ? o
w?w?oo C???N
i i ?+ Wo .Ln O ti D ?-
o?w o.
I N
a° y c
a? Z?
o tz
3 ?
(a N
1 ?
Q O r1
? N
P
M v
a°
0
x
N
I
n
O
l?D
n
rq
w
H
H
!9
H
?Q
S°. o
a
C
N
l0 N
to y
03
i
OG
C1.
>v
N
?C
moo'
ink-
CA
x?
A
rA
rn
?M
V
ro?
o
s
jrl
A
G d
O
O
n
A
r
I

?-
Rj

?A " l
t-
N
o. I n r>. w N r+ x cn
n n u n u u
w?w?•oo
W 0 co C o
????
?\
` ?'
o? w to
w "R
J! y
O
v
e y
o to
c?
^ ? y
N
N
- n
79
a°
c? n
Al
x
?y c
G/- y
I
Y
n
0
G)
m
y
fA
pl
.7Q
? Q
a ?
/ fOA
H (?
Q. y
w
w
dQ
Q+
w
N
w
4!
-lei
SIN 116 ?.?tI?I`?I?I?,
u n n n n u
w ? w ? 0 0
W VI ? W ? •O
O ?

g. m O? Vl ? W N F+
?
(D r
0
tyii ? :IQ
b
T
Hy O _
?H
V
cn
C9
b ?
14
A
I`
V
w
N

1
`i

o ?

E

s

3
o

9
i a
A
v

S
l
..S

2
,p
A
d'
f9
n
x
N
I
l J
0
C
M
^
4J
H
Al
N
N
41
C
C
f3. iy
/ h
y
N N
N (p
f1. N
w
w
00
w
w
N
p? V1 is W N r
tW W r O O
W O
o ?
b C
? fD
N? o
y? om
c?
d
C/1
1" r
b ^

I
L
1 v

n w

ks'
N

Al
n

l
I n
,
n 0 Q
?a
C]
0
M
x
N
I
n
O
M^^
4J
M
Al
y
N
N
N Q
p„ <
^77
a
i C2
N fA
N 0
Q+ N
N
rT
N
Q+
C
N
to
A`?
G
N

,rd". 7, M I% r l 1'
y?y y
?t f?D
n
y• Q
N • On
C!1
CD
fD
o
v?
gQ
o It
a
'c U

I"r
cn

o.v??awN?..• Ro?cnr
u u u n u n co ? o
wtn?W°0 ? °?? cn

o to
K
N
N
N
n
?o
n
x
N
I
.7Q
C)
O
y
CD
N
?? o
o. ?
?"7y
n a
i ?
0. ?
P?
Or
N

r f%

r

x
s :R O
FT
z

'd x3
7,0
7Z
cn
7TJ

V
L

H

Ci
,-
d
of
?:
-
C
-
(J
n?
_V C?s
,
b7
^

G

rr o^
C

v

? i

CJ.1

1 ^I

OS N

b C
`0 C
O• ?
? a
?• C
fi CD
d
b14
C ?
NfN/1
ZD P'1C
s
$l\!
A?
'b
OI
?1C
cll?
n ?
3 ?
? N
r? N
0
n
x
n
t,
>y
N
N
N
N ?
a ?
0
y ?
Q.. N
A
dQ
w

N L I-

n r, r b ?

o'
? a

vi
d
Hl
E
L"J
4t ?y1
I?I
w1j
t ?
o, to ? W N ?-. Ro '?" ('D r
11 II 11 11 II II (D CD O
W-? W ? O O n ? ,Q..' ?
W Vi ?!+ W y? 6
ai p
b ?
O ?
a?
7
? y}
t

ti
N
C

o ?

y ?

^
n
N

'.T
A?

a
x
N
I
C1
0
N
N
W
?Q
n
p. ?
o
N N
N (p
Q+ N
N
re
OQ
0.
P?
K
N
N
M I E I', ?o , I
.i
a
? ? ?Ik F..I.. ICI 0
It'll 7,1711
l o+ v? ? w t? ? Ro x cn r
1'' u n n u n u ?? o
w?-+wi-+oo ????
O? w C!l c O w JQ 7
rn wp ? ?p
b
?o•a.
A
A
r7 Q
y
c?
o CP
g [x
s
M
K ?
1
E
V?
n
0
N
a
?e
N
Q+
N
a
W
to
co
n
N
Al
n
v
a
C
x
c
H
n
0
C
M^^
4f
H
H
vt
n
0
0
H
N
0 0.
N A V'
LP LA
r
0
rx
JJVD LA G 0 _
Lo Al
d o 0 V, O
n
t
w
W
C7% vi ? w N ?+ Ro x 9 t"
C
y
0
u u u n u n
w`i'?w'no
o, w ut o?v
a? ,r in
v
o ?
A
A
b
n?
!A ?r
1"P
OI4

o ?
N P1.
Y
A N
N
W v''
a
N
3 ?
n
115

n
O
?e
x
y
I
n
fD
n
n
w
H
Vl
fD
fA

f9 ?
a ?
N
In y
a
w
w
00
a
w
M
H
?d
Lp 'a'^^
V,
fp
tll ?r
A?
fD
P'7
o ?
N
A?
N
yQ
C)
O
C
•s
x
N
aQ
l
C
N
7Q
o
a
/ fOd
H (11
A7
ti
C1Q
a
M
1-+
N

E±1
a. Ln Ja w N ?+ Ro x ?n C"
u u u n u u ?? O
ua`n boo ????
a
ncn
sx
A
K
f9 p,d
r
rf
m
5. 9
r+
r K
_ lD
Q
R
?• V
N
v
t
o
L
N
w s
S
N I N (N ( I f (?( ?
n
C
co
x
co
n
N
I
?.Qp
S
C
n
w
N
y
.7Q
fC O
0+
/ nq
f9 N
N (?
a N
w
i
Oro
Q
R.
w
w
kL.
N
II I? I?
OI In .la W N 1? c C"
II II II 11 II II !D ry O
w t~it W i, O O ?? C
o? w v~i c ?n 0 c/]
H
b C
?. C C
rA
?l lD
V y' Q
fD

r
a,a STA?f'v
,`TY
Q_
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr. Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
State Property Office
Joseph H. Henderson, Director
March 23, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Forrest Wilson
FROM: Tim Walt
SUBJECT: Conservation Easement to State of North Carolina
From Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Our File No. 26-M
The above-referenced easement has been recorded. I am returning herewith for cancellation
the check (No. 1523597) to cover recordation cost.
The recordation cost was advanced by the grantor because of the delay in receiving your check.
TGW
Attachment

PEAR
L t a,?-i+, t +t , ,
State Property Office 116 West Jones Street • Raleigh 27603-8003
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] Web:http://spo.doa.state.nc.us
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES 66-1059 NO. 1523597
531
P.O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611 Payable at Par Through Federal Reserve System
TAX ID# 56-6000372 Present to State Treasurer Raleigh, North Carolina
0 PAY ENTITY DATE AMOUNT
16PT 03/18/99 **********26.00
PAY Twenty six and 00/100 Dollars
TO THE ORDER OF
CUMBERLAND CO. REGISTER DEEDS
PO BOX 1829
FAYETTEVILLE NC 28302

11'0 LS 2359711' 1:053 L L05941: 611100011104011'
16PT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 27687 - RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611
NO. 1523597
DATE INVOICE/CREDIT MEMO TYPE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT DEDUCTIONS OR
DISCOUNT
NET AMOUNT
03/18/99 DWQ3393 031899-3154 $26.00 $26.00
FILE # 6-M PLS RTN CK TO CATHEY OTTLE 3-7015 EX7-207
TOTALS 26.00 26.00
p
` 00repa-recd bye
C?Rwc,, ?o . 1? o y 4 G : (cr, J7 z. ; p. C,
OK5057PG0357
-1/0 rever7ctP.-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Cumberland COUNTY
I G(oq q THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this jday of 64,2n",r?
0#-1J98.by and between Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation, Grantor, and the
State of North Carolina, whose mailing address is North Carolina State Property Office,
116 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603-8003, Grantee. The designations Grantor and
Grantee as used herein sliall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 3 143-214.8 et sea., the
State of North Carolina has established the Wetlands Restoration Program (as defined in
N.C. Gen Stat. 3 143-214.8) within the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, and creating
wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water
quality, flood prevention, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 3 143-214.8, two of
the components of the Wetlands Restoration Program are (1) restoration and perpetual
maintenance of wetlands, riparian areas, and surface waters and (2) land ownership and,
management; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situate, lying, and
being in Cumberland County, North Carolina (the "Protected Property"), hereinafter more
particularly described;
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement on the
Protected Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the Protected Property on
the terms and conditions and for the purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing
to accept such easement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms,
conditions, and restrictions liereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably
hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity, a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the extent
hereinafter set forth, over the Protected Property for the benefit of the people of North
Carolina, said Protected Property lying and being in Beaverdam Township, Cumberland
County, North Carolina, and being more particularly described as follows:
RECEIVED
True copy of '?--- Recorded in
Rook5.ajS-9 Page --3 ? record of
Cur erland County, rth Ca1l
This day of
George E. Ta um
Register of Deeds By
13--1.1) ....1.1.)99 V,11 :I.::1.C.,
GE ORGE E. TOTUN
7 7
R[,:,(31*STE.R OF DEEDS
C.;UNX:{E.R1 011I) l:;fl.. , N. C..
--u

GK5057PG0358
BOUNDED on the North by the land of D. Stewart Precythe; bounded on the
East by the lands of Vernon Badger Mcins and the Flair lands; bounded on the South by
the E.W. Fisher lands and the R.C. Pugh lands; bounded on the West by the R.C. Pugh
lands, consisting of four contiguous tracts or parcels of lands (Tract 1/382.81 acres; Tract
2/129.94 acres; Tract 3/38.92 acres; and Tract 4/66.32 acres- totaling 627.99 acres, being
more particularly described by metes and bounds legal description as follows:
TRACT 1 (PAR'T' OF BARRA FARMS): Being all of that 387.76 acres more or
less tract of land located in Beaverdam Township and Cedar Creek Township,
Cumberland County, North Carolina and shown as Tract 1 on a map recorded in Map
Book 95, Page 158, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at
an existing concrete monument (corner C on recorded map); said point being the point of
beginning; thence North 02 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds East 2,169.13 feet to an
existing iron pipe (corner D on the recorded map); thence North 02 degrees 23 minutes
00 seconds East 33.26 feet to an iron stake at the northwest corner of Tract 1; thence
South 87 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds East .155.12 feet to an existing iron stake at
corner 305 on recorded map and in the center of a 30 feet wide easement used for access
to Tracts 1, 2, 3, and 4; thence South 87 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds East, a distance
of 1,436.84 feet to an iron stake; thence South 86 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds East, a
distance of 780.00 feet to an iron stake; thence South 87 degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds
East, a distance of 937.97 feet to an iron stake; thence South 87 degrees 34 minutes 21
seconds East, a distance of 2,087.32 feet to an iron stake; thence South 87 degrees 34
minutes 21 seconds East, a distance of 1,856.10 feet to an iron stake at the northeast
corner of Tract l; thence South 32 degrees 47 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of
72 3 feet to an existing iron stake; thence South 28 degrees 54 minutes 03 seconds East,
a `ance of 1,009.51 feet to an existing concrete monument; thence South 51 degrees 48
ma. aes 16 seconds West, a distance of 1,252.20 feet to an existing iron pipe at the
northeast corner of Tract 2; thence South 52 degrees 03 minutes 02 seconds West, a
distance of 3,265.67 feet, to a stake at a corner of Tract 2; thence North 4 degrees 09
minutes 29 seconds East, a distance of 350.00 feet to a stake at a corner of Tract 2; thence
North 85 degrees 50 minutes 31 seconds West, a distance of 166.28 feet to an existing
concrete monument at a corner of Tract 2 and at the southeast corner of Tract 4; thence
North 4 degrees 50 minutes 14 seconds East, a distance of 1,807.85 feet to an existing
iron stake at the northeast corner of Tract 4; thence North 86 degrees 46 minutes 40
seconds West, a distance of 1,603.06 feet to an iron stake at the northwest corner of Tract
4 and at the northeast corner of Tract 3; thence North 86 degrees 46 minutes 40 seconds
West, a distance of 1,154.94 feet to an existing concrete monument at the northwest
corner of Tract 3; thence South 4 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds West, a distance of
923.65 feet to an existing concrete monument at corner of Tract 3; thence South 9
degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 300.36 feet to an existing concrete
monument; thence North 62 degrees 25 minutes 32 second West, a distance of 1,632.79
feet to the point of beginning; said described tract CONTAINING 387.76 ACRES, more
or less.
/T a
BK5057PG0359
And being Tract 1 containing 387.76 acres as set forth, shown and depicted upon
that certain map entitled "A Survey for: ECOBANK" prepared by M. Shelton Bordeaux
Surveying, dated July 10, 1997, as duly recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, as on file
with the Register of Deeds of Cumberland County, incorporated herein by reference.
THE ACREAGE IN TRACT 1 (PART OF BARRA FARMS) CONVEYED BY
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS HEREBY REDUCED BY THE
FOLLOWING EASEMENT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
Being all of that 30 feet wide easement located in Beaverdam Township,
Cumberland County, North Carolina and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an existing iron stake at the northwest corner of Tract 1 of a map
recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, in the Cumberland County Registry and running
with the northern property lines of said Tract 1 South 87 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds
East 155.12 feet to an existing iron stake at comer 305 and at the centerline of
intersection of the 30 feet wide access easement shown on above said map, South 87
degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds East 1436.84 feet to an existing iron stake, South 86
degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds East 780.00 feet to an existing iron stake, South 87
degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds East 937.97 feet to an existing iron stake, South 87
degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds East 2087.32.10 feet to an existing iron stake, and South
87 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds East 1856.10 feet to an existing iron stake at the
northeast corner of said Tract 1; thence with the eastern line of Tract 1 South 32 degrees
47 minutes 58 seconds East 36.73 feet to a point; thence parallel with and 30 feet normal
to the northern line of Tract 1 the following calls: North 87 degrees 34 minutes 21
seconds West 1877.29 feet to a point, North 87 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds West
2087.32 feet to a point, North 87 degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds West 936.14 feet to a
point, North 86 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds West 780.21 feet to a point, North 87
degrees 29 minute 45 seconds West 1436.50 feet to a point, North 87 degrees 29 minutes
45 seconds West 155.06 feet to a point in the western line of Tract 1; thence with the
western line of Tract 1 North 02 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds East 30.00 feet to the
pont of beginning; said described tract CONTAINING 4.95 ACRES, more or less.
TRACT 2 (PART OF HESTER FARM): Being all of that 129.94 acres, more
or less, tract of land located in Beaverdam Township, Cumberland County, North
Carolina, and shown as Tract 2 on a map recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, and being
more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at an existing concrete
monument at a corner of Tract 4, said point being the point of beginning; thence South 85
degrees 50 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 163.72 feet to an existing concrete
monument at a corner of Tract 1 and the southeast corner of Tract 4; thence South 85
degrees 50 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 166.28 feet to a stake at a corner of
Tract 1; thence South 4 degrees 09 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 350.00 feet to
a stake at a most southern corner of Tract 1; thence North 52 degrees 03 minutes 02
seconds East, a distance of 3,265.67 feet to an existing iron pipe at a corner of Tract 1
and at the northeast corner of Tract 2; thence South 27 degrees 05 minutes 36 seconds
East, a distance of 1,758.84 feet to an iron stake at the southeast corner of Tract 2; thence

BK5051PG0360
South 52 degrees 03 minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 2,889.14 feet to an iron stake
at the southwest corner of Tract 2; thence North 45 degrees 36 minutes 23 seconds West,
a distance of 2,413.18 feet to an existing concrete monument at a corner of Tract 4 and at
the northwest corner of Tract 2; thence North 86 degrees 37 minutes 09 seconds East, a
distance of 323.18 feet to the point of beginning, said described tract CONTAINING
129.9 ACRES, more or less.
And being Tract 2 containing 129.9 acres as set forth, shown and depicted upon
that certain map entitled "A Survey for: ECOBANK" prepared by M. Shelton Bordeaux
Surveying, dated July 10, 1997, as duly recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, as on file
with the Register of Deeds of Cumberland County, incorporated herein by reference.
TRACT 3 ( PUGH TRACT): Being all of the 38.92 acres, more or less, tract of
land located in Beaverdam Township and Cedar Creek Township, Cumberland County,
North Carolina, and shown as Tract 3 on a map recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, and
being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at an iron stake, the
northwest corner of Tract 4, the northeast corner of Tract 3, and in a line of Tract 1, said
point being the point of beginning; thence South 9 degrees 36 minutes 32 seconds West, a
distance of 1,621.81 feet to an existing iron stake at the southwest corner of Tract 4 and
the southeast corner of Tract 3; thence North 79 degrees 56 minutes 30 seconds West, a
distance of 1,063.42 feet to an existing iron pipe at the southwest corner of Tract 3;
thence North 9 degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 264.96 feet to an
existing concrete monument at a corner of Tract 1 (corner B on recorded map); thence
North 9 degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 300.36 feet to an existing
concrete monument at a corner of Tract 1 (corner A on recorded map); thence North 4
degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 923.65 feet to an existing concrete
monument at a corner of Tract 1 and the northwest corner of Tract 3; thence South 86
degrees 46 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 1,154.94 feet to the point of beginning;
said described tract CONTAINING 38.92 ACRES, more or less.
And being Tract 3 containing 38.92 acres as set forth, shown and depicted upon
that certain map entitled "A Survey for: ECOBANW' prepared by M. Shelton Bordeaux
Surveying, dated July 10, 1997, as duly recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, as on file
with the Register of Deeds of Cumberland County, incorporated herein by reference.
TRACT 4 (THAGGARD TRACT): Being all of that 66.32 acres, more or less,
tract of land located in Beaverdam Township and Cedar Creek Township, Cumberland
County, North Carolina, and shown as Tract 4 on a map recorded in Map Book 95, Page
158, and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at an existing
concrete monument a corner of Tracts 1 and 2 and the southeast corner of Tract 4, said
point being the point of beginning; thence North 85 degrees 50 minutes 31 seconds West,
a distance of 163.72 feet to an existing concrete monument a common corner of Tract 2;
thence South 86 degrees 37 rninutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 323.18 feet to an
existing concrete monument being the northwest corner of Tract 2; thence North 4
degrees 53 minutes 37 seconds East, a distance of 75.06 feet to an existing iron pipe;
thence North 79 degrees 42 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 1,259.53 feet to an
BK5057PGO36I
existing iron stake at the southeast corner of Tract 3 and the southwest corner of Tract 4;
thence North 9 degrees 36 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 1,621.81 feet to an iron
stake (corner 347 on 'recorded map) at the northeast corner of Tract 3, the northwest
corner of Tract 4, and in a line of Tract l; thence South 86 degrees 46 minutes 40 second§
East, a distance 1,603.06 feet to an existing iron stake at a corner of Tract 1 and the
northeast corner of Tract 4; thence South 4 degrees 50 minutes 14 seconds West, a
distance of 1,807.85 feet to the point of beginning; said described tract CONTAINING
66.32 ACRES, more or less.
And being Tract 4 containing 66.32 acres as set forth, shown and depicted upon
that certain map entitled "A Survey for" ECOBANW' prepared by M. Shelton
Bordeaux Surveying, dated July 10, 1997, as duly recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, as
on file with the Register of Deeds of Cumberland County, incorporated herein by
reference.
EASEMENT: TRACT 1, TRACT 2, TRACT 3 AND TRACT 4 (AS
CONTIGUOUS PARCELS) ARE CONVEYED TOGETHER WITH THE NON-
EXCLUSIVE PERMANENT AND PERPETUAL RIGHT OF EGRESS, INGRESS
AND REGRESS, THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND
FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF SAID PARCEL, OVER AND UPON THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED 30 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT EXTENDING FROM S.R.
2053 IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION OVER AND UPON AN EXISTING FARM
ROAD UP TO AND INTERSECTING THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF
TRACT 1 HEREINABOVE IDENTIFIED, SAID 30 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(30 FEET ROADWAY AREA): COMMENCING at an existing iron stake a
corner 305 in the center of the 30 feet wide access easement and in the northern line of
Tract 1, said 30 feet wide easement extending 15 feet wide on each side of and parallel to
a centerline survey of said roadway area, said easement commencing at corner 305 and
runs thence as the centerline of an existing road from corner 305 to corner 319 (the
southern right of way of S.R. 2053/Doe Hill Road) as follows: From corner 305, North 1
degree 31 minutes 56 seconds East, a distance of 1,079.76 feet to and iron stake at corner
324; thence North 1 degree 42 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 2,039.00 feet to an
iron stake at corner 325; thence North 1 degree 43 minutes 45 seconds East, a distance of
1,272.90 feet to an iron stake at confer 326; thence North 22 degrees 47 minutes 48
seconds East, a distance of 54.98 feet to an iron stake at corner 170; thence North 74
degrees 54 minutes 46 seconds East, a distance of 83.71 feet to an iron stake at corner
171; thence North 83 degrees 54 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 1,071.62 feet to
an iron stake at corner 327; thence North 61 degrees 48 minutes 53 seconds East, a
distance of 104.69 feet to an iron stake at corner 168; thence North 17 degrees 47 minutes
49 seconds East, a distance of 87.50 feet to an iron stake at corner 167; thence North 6
degrees 16 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 826.65 feet to an iron stake at corner
225; thence.North 40 degrees 54 minutes 57 seconds West, distance of 126.54 feet to an
iron stake at corner 226; thence North 5 degrees 28 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance
GK5057PG0362
of 158.31 feet to an iron stake at corner 222; thence North 55 degrees 23 minutes 03
seconds East, a distance of 236.67 feet to an iron stake at corner 223;,thence North 35
degrees 08 minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of 282.79 feet to an iron stake at corner
219; thence North 20 degrees 42 minutes 17 seconds East, a distance of 90.67 feet to an
iron stake at corner 213; thence North 17 degrees 59 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance
of 81.77 feet to an iron stake at corner 331; thence North 34 degrees 57 minutes 40
seconds West, a distance of 503.74 feet to an iron stake at corner 332; thence North 19
degrees 42 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 61.92 feet to an iron stake at corner
212; thence North 15 degrees 06 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 70.44 feet to an
iron stake at corner 333; thence North 24 degrees 09 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance
of 549.48 feet to an irons take at corner 319 in the southern right of way lone of SR 2053
Doe Hill Road the point of ending.
And being the roadway area extending from S.R. 2053 in a Southern direction to
the Northern line of Tract 1, as set forth, shown and depicted upon that certain map
entitled "A Survey for: ECOBANK" prepared by M. Shelton Bordeaux Surveying;
dated July 10, 1997, as duly recorded in Map Book 95, Page 158, as on file with the
Register of Deeds of Cumberland County, incorporated herein by reference.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance,
and create a wetland and riparian resource on the Protected Property that contributes to
the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Protected Property in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent
any use of the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set
forth:
1. DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. It is an easement in gross, runs
with the land, and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, its personal representatives,
heirs, successors, and assigns, lessees, agents, and licensees.
II. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Protected Property inconsistent with the purposes
of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Protected Property shall be restricted
from any development or usage that would impair or interfere with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement.
OK5057PC0363
1n addition to the foregoing, the following specific activities arc prohibited,
restricted, or reserved, as the case may be:
A. Industrial Use. Industrial activities arc prohibited on the Protected Property.
B.. Residential Use. Residential use of the Protected Property is prohibited.
C. Commercial Use. Commercial activities are prohibited on the Protected
Property.
D. Agricultural Use. Agricultural use of the Protected Property is prohibited.
E. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, or other
structure constructed or placed on the Protected Property.
F. Signs. No signs shall be permitted on the Protected Property except interpretative
signs identifying the conservation values of the Protected Property, signs
identifying the owner of the Protected Property, and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, and signs giving directions or prescribing rules and
regulations for the use of the Protected Property.
G. Dumping. Dumping of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles,
appliance or machinery, or other material on the Protected Property is prohibited.
H. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or other materials; and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner except as reasonably necessary for the purpose of
combating erosion to maintain the wetland values.
I. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. Diking, draining, filling, or removal of
wetlands, pollution, or discharge into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, use of
pesticide or biocides, and disruption of natural drainage patterns is prohibited.
J. Subdivision. Subdivision, partitioning, or dividing the Protected Property is
prohibited.
K. Commercial Forestry. Harvesting of trees for commercial forestry purposes on
the Protected Property is prohibited.
L. Vegetative Cutting. Cutting, removal, mowing, harming or destruction of any
vegetation on the Protected Property is prohibited, except as necessary to maintain
or achieve over the designated five-year wetland monitoring period, a minimum'
mean density of 320 characteristic trees per acre, which must be present for the
five year monitoring period. Characteristic tree species are those which have
BK5057PG0364
been planted, along with natural recruitment of tree species such as sweet gum,
red maple, loblolly bay, loblolly pine, and pond pine. Loblolly pine or pond pine
(softwood species) shall not comprise more than ten percent of the 320 stem per
acre requirement. In addition, at least five character tree species shall be present,
and no species shall comprise more than twenty percent of the 320 stem per acre
total.
M. Tree Density. Stem counts in the mitigation area shall not be allowed to fall
below a per-acre density of six non-pine trees greater than twenty inches in
diameter. In addition, densities of non-pine trees greater than ten inches in
diameter will be maintained at or greater than thirty square feet of basal area per
acre of mitigation area. Dead and dying trees, snags, and logs shall be left on-site
to provide foraging habitat.
The Grantee shall have the right to enter the property at all reasonable times for
the purpose of inspecting said property to determine if Grantor is complying with the
terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this conservation easement. The easement
rights granted herein do not include public access rights.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good
cause shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of the
Conservation Easement. The Grantor shall not vary from the above restrictions without
first obtaining written approval from the Wetlands Restoration Program, whose mailing
address is 512 N. Salisbury Street, P.U. Box 29535, Raleigh, NC 27626-9535.
III. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. In the event that Grantee determines that Grantor has violated or is threatening to
violate any of these terms, conditions, or restrictions, the Grantee may institute a
suit to enjoin such violation and if necessary, to required the restoration of the
Protected Property to its prior condition.
B. No failure on the part of Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision hereof shall
discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a
subsequent breach or default.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This conservation Easement shall be construed to promote the purposes of N.C.
Gen Stat. 3 143-214.8 et seg., the Wetlands Restorations Program.
B. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations,
w ?a
BK5057PG0365
understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any
provision is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of the
Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the parties at their addresses shown above or to other address(es) as either party
establishes in writing upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to
whom the Protected Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to
the time said transfer is made. Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent
lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in the Protected
Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
V. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all rights accruing from ownership of the Protected Property,
including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the
Protected Property that are not expressly prohibited or restricted herein and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, Grantor expressly reserves to Grantor, and Grantor's invitees
and licensees, the right of access to the Protected Property, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Protected Property.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto
Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantors covenant that they are seized of said premises in fee and have the
right to convey the permanent easement herein granted; that the same are free from
encumbrances and that they will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims
of all persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this instrument to be
executed in its name by its President and attested by its Secretary, and its Corporate Seal
affixed thereto by authority duly given.
,,.L-
Z&1
i
Secretary
(CORPORATE SEAL)
A ,
' V A
OK5057P60366
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
I, poRIS E. SEVER14S , a Notary Public in and for the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that A 4 i4, Al Q . E1 C K E' =
personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he is Secretary of Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Corporation, and that by authority duly given and as an act of said
Corporation , the foregoing instrument was signed by NII.LF14 M q C14RT 1i y , its
President, attested by himself as Secretary, and sealed with the common seal of said
Corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal this the-' 0
1iT S
17_day of I , 1999. ': .
Lis
Notary Public poRiS E. SEV
My Commission expires:
Dorls E. We=
` ,KY • MY COMMISSION N CC56M EXPIRES
October 23, 2000
` BONDED TRRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC.

The foregoing Certificate(, of
is/areTertified to he correct. This instrument and this certificate are duly registered at the late and time and in the Book and Page shown
on the first page hereof.
E.'IKUM ?-? REa&R OF DEEDS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
lly I)cputy / ssis an ici islet of Deeds
sv
?a
CD
J
r -
CD
0-
(0
CD
0
m
n
C
-0 Co
a? o
CD a
CD _
S
?. a
CD m
o
y W
o m
u -
m ?
\ ? 7
Cp V O
CA
A 0
OD Cn
CO -a
O CD
O
in
CD
CQ
O
O
m
c
m
O
O
W
in
O
7C'
n
a
r«
CCD
CL
CO
CD
W
as
n
as
n
m
CD
71
CD
T
N
CD
m
Cb
lQ
O
O
O
Cn
O
m D CD
o o s o
y c CD CL
(A CD CD N ?
-L CL Cn CD ?3 .1Z
co
cr CO ? ° n
S11 ?
N • ^
N ` )
CD
IN
v ? (D (D (D co ° CD O -it
Q (D 3 tp (a
CL Ct m Er
?f0 Q tz
?m Z 3 DZCD CJ)
0 co
co 0
N co CA) 'a 0
CD !'*' O
C) CD 0 co
N co ? Q m
,73 ca "n 0 a)
o N a ?,• 3•v >o Qo O z
a o OL Q ? c M :3 Z 0
:3 M -8 CD
n
-0 m N m Zav 'rnv Q ~
0 CD 0) CL >
CL CO) m 19
rn n a r- Q m y
° D a
W z ?O CD Cr .q
r+ -0 rq.
?(D OcD1O O
m? C
D 3-, Z3v-i bd
CD 0 =r 3 m e >°Zg>
?
:3 z
n CO cr CA -
x
w2 ? 3 42 ?vtDO n
,a r)
x a
m O CD a) -ft co
Co -?i O
m 0 CD CD -1
0 l< CL -
m =• ra ?Q G. N rh O CD
0 0 CL (a
N ,-.
O ca D '.". ° PIZ
A / N Cr o3? y
A CD
m oo
.<
ono >y ?. O
-? z y
(D °
CD CL t?
N 3
y
ECOBAN
April 7, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Mitigation Credits for TPX--2D
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
On April 5, 1999, the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers released 30% of the wetland credits
available from our Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank for the North Carolina Department
of Transportation's use. The actual credits released are 72 (240 x.30) nonriverine forest credits.
Enclosed for your records is a Mitigation Credit Acquisition Certificate certifying that these credits have
been paid for and that they have been assigned to Permit # 199300197 issued by the Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers.
Also enclosed is a copy of the credit ledger for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
which reports on the available mitigation credits after assigning 72 credits to permit # 199300197.
We will notify you when additional credits are available for the NCDOT's use from this bank
Yours truly,

William G. Gerber
ECOBANK
Enclosures
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD - WINTER PARK. FLORIDA 32789
[phone] - FAX [phone]
ECOBAN
April 7, 1999
Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Division
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
Stream and Wetland Bank
Dear Mr. Wright:
Enclosed for your files are copies of a letter, a Mitigation Credit Acquisition Certificate, and a current
bank ledger that have been forwarded to Mr. William D. Gilmore of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. These documents report on the release and the use of 72 credits from the Barra Farms
Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
Yours truly,
William G. Gerber
ECOBANK

1039?
Y ry"'m rI A
Enclosures
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD • WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789
[phone] , FAX [phone]
Copies to:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
US Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Kevin Moody
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Mr. Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carroolina 28501
Mr. Mac Haupt ?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
ECOBANKI
April 5, 1999
Mr. Ron Ferrell
Director
Wetlands Restoration Program
Archdale Building
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: Barra Farms Long-Term Maintenance Agreement
Dear Ron:
Enclosed is a copy of the executed agreement and the related Standby Trust Agreement.
Brooke Lamson of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has the originals of these documents in the files in
Wilmington.
Sincerely,
William G. Gerber
ECOBANK
Enclosures
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD , WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789
[phone] , FAX [phone]
f ?_ 1
MITIGATION MONITORING/MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE BOND
Date bond executed: March 23. 1999
Effective date: March 23. 1999
Principal: Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road. Suite C-200. Winter Park. Florida 32789
Type of Organization: Individual
Joint Venture
Partnership
X Corporation
State of Incorporation: Florida
Surety(ies): Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company
4311 West Waters Avenue. Suite 401
Tampa. Florida 33614
Scope of Coverage: Task 3 of the Cape Fear Mitigation Banking Instrument ("MBI") for the Barra
Farms property in Cumberland County, North Carolina ("Mitigation Project!).
Total penal sum of bond: $100,000.00
Surety's Bond Number: MB-C-900127
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the Principal and Surety(ies)
hereto are firmly bound to the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE")/State of North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wet Lands Restoration Program,
Division of Water Quality ("DENR") in the above penal sum for the payment of which we bind
ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns jointly and severally;
provided that, where the Sureties are corporations acting as co-sureties, we, the Sureties, bind
ourselves in such sum "jointly and severally" only for the purpose of allowing a joint action or
actions against any or all of us, and for all other purposes each Surety binds itself, jointly and
severally with the Principal, for the payment of such sum only as is set forth opposite the name
of such Surety, but if no limit of liability is indicated, the limit of liability shall be full amount of
the penal sum.
Rev. 1.9 (3/23/99)

WHEREAS, said Principal is required to provide financial assurance for Task 3 of the
MBI or the Mitigation Project as further described in the scope of coverage above, and
WHEREAS, said Principal shall establish a standby trust fund as is required when a surety
bond is used to provide such financial assurance;
NOW, THEREFORE, the conditions of the obligation are such that if the Principal shall
faithfully perform completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project as further described in the scope
of coverage herein, for which this bond guarantees completion, in accordance with the MBI as
such may be amended, pursuant to all applicable laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, as such
laws, statutes, rules and regulations may be amended;
Or, if the Principal shall provide alternate financial assurance and obtain the
USACE/DENR's written approval of such assurance within 90 days after the date notice of
cancellation is received by both the Principal and the USACE/DENR from the Surety(ies), then
this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it is to remain in full force and effect.
Such obligation does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any obligation of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a
workers' compensation, disability benefits, or employment compensation
law or other similar law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation arising from, and in the course of, employment by Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Bank Corporation;
(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance,
use of, or entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or
watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loan to, in the care,
custody, or control of, occupied by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation that is not the direct result of a construction or implementation
activity for the MBI:--
(e) Bodily injury or property damage for which Ecosystems Land Mitigation
Bank Corporation is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption
of liability in a contract or agreement other than a contract or agreement
entered into to meet the requirements of the MBI.
The Surety(ies) shall become liable on this bond obligation only when the Principal has
failed to fulfill the conditions described above.
Rev. 1.9 (3/23/99)
2
f S
Upon notification by the USACE/DENR that the Principal has been found in violation of
the requirements of MBI for completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project for which this bond
guarantees performance, the Surety(ies) shall within sixty (60) days of receiving such notice either
perform completion in accordance with the MBI and pursuant to the written directions of the
USACE/DENR or place the bond amount guaranteed for Task 3 of the Mitigation Project into the
standby trust fund as directed by the DENR.
Upon notification by the USACE/DENR that the Principal has failed to provide alternate
financial assurance and obtain written approval of such assurance from the USACE/DENR during
the 90 days following receipt, by both the Principal and the USACE/DENR, of a notice of
cancellation of the bond, the Surety(ies) shall place funds in the total penal sum of this bond
guaranteed for the completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project in accordance with the MBI into
the standby trust fund as directed by the DENR.
The Surety(ies) hereby waive(s) notification of amendments to the MBI permits, applicable
laws, statutes, rules and regulation and agrees that no such amendment shall in any way alleviate
its (their) obligation on this bond.
The Liability of the Surety(ies) shall not be discharged by any payment or succession of
payments hereunder, unless and until such payment or payments shall amount in the aggregate to
the penal sum of the bond, but in no event shall the obligation of the Surety(ies) hereunder exceed
the amount of said penal sum.
The Surety(ies) may cancel the bond by sending notice of cancellation by certified mail to
the Principal and the USACE/DENR; provided, however that cancellation shall not occur during
the 120 days beginning on the date of receipt of the notice of cancellation by both the Principal
and the USACE/DENR, as evidence by the return receipts.
The Principal may terminate this bond by sending written notice to the Surety(ies);
provided, however, that no such notice shall become effective until the Surety(ies) receive(s)
written authorization for termination of the bond by the USACE/DENR.
Principal and Surety(ies) hereby agree to adjust the penal sum of the bond yearly so that
it guarantees increased or decreased completion costs provided that no decrease in the penal sum
takes place without the written permission of the USACE/DENR.
Rev. 1.9 (3/23/99) 3
t 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety(ies) have executed this Performance
Bond and have affixed their seals on the date set forth above.
The persons whose signatures appear below hereby certify that they are authorized to
execute this surety bond on behalf of the Principal and Surety(ies).
PRINCIPAL CORPORATE SURETY(IES)
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MI GATION CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY
B RP?JRA ION COMPANY
B
D. Miller McCarthy, President F,dwar ood, Attorn ey-In-Fact
,If 4311 West Waters Avenue, Suite 401
Tampa, Florida 33614
Florida
State of Incorporation
Liability Limit: $100.000.00
(Corporate Seal) (Corporate Seal)
Rev. 1.9 (3/23/99) 4
4 s1
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY POWER OF ATTORNEY
TAMPA, FLORIDA
PRINCIPAL: Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road, Suite C-200 Winter Park Florida 32789
(STREET ADDRESS) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE)
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1999 AMOUNT OF BOND: $100,000.00
BOND NO. MB-C-900127
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State
of Florida, having its principal office in the City of Tampa, Florida, pursuant to the following resolution, adopted by the Board of Directors of the said
Company on the 7th day of April, 1997, to wit:
"Resolved, that the President and Secretary of the Company shall have authority to make, execute and deliver a Power of Attorney constituting
as Attorney-in-Fact, such persons, firms, or corporations as may be selected from time to time.
Be it Further Resolved, that the signature of the President, Secretary, the appointed Attorney-in-Fact and the Seal of the Company may be
affixed to any such Power of Attorney or any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such powers so executed and certified by facsimile
signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon he Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached."
Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company does hereby make, constitute and appoint Edward J. Edenfield IV and Edward C. Rood.
State of Florida its true and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact, with full power and authority hereby conferred in its name, place and stead, to sign, execute,
acknowledge and deliver in its behalf, and its act and deed, as follows:
The obligation of the Company shall not exceed $ 100.000.00
And to bind Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bond or undertaken was signed by
the duly authorized officer of the Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, and all the acts of said Attorney(s) pursuant to the authority herein given,
and hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cumberladd Casualty & Surety Company has caused these presents to be signed by any officer of the
Company and -It- Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed.
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY
Edwar J. enfield IV, esident
STATE OF FLORIDA )
SS
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH)
On this 7th day of April, A.D. 1997, before me personally came Edward J. Edenfield IV, to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did
depose and say; that he resides in the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida; that he is President of the Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company,
the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to the said
instruments is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corporation and that he signed his name, thereto
by like order.
2,P?kv PU i6 Beverly # Ann CC 58867
v?IrBONDED THRU2002 Be Ann Jerry
9?f1F Af ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC.
My Commission Expires
STATE OF FLORIDA
) SS
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH)
I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, a Florida Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force.
Signed and Sealed at the City of Tampa. Dated the 23rd day of March, 1999.
WCarol. ,ecretary
THIS BOND NOT VALID UNLESS PRINTED ON BLUE PAPER
4
MITIGATION BANK STANDBY TRUST FUND AGREEMENT
TO DEMONSTRATE MONITORING/MAINTENANCE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
TRUST AGREEMENT, the "Agreement," entered into as of March 23. 1999 by and
Date
between Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Name of the Owner or Operator
a Florida Corporation (the Grantor,)
Name of State Insert "corporation, partnership association, or proprietorship",
and SouthTrust Asset Management Company
Name and Address of Corporate Trustee
a National Bank (the Trustee.)
Insert "incorporated in the state of "or" a national bank"
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property in Cumberland County, North
Carolina, and has received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE")/State
of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wet Lands Restoration
Program, Division of Water Quality ("DENR") that Mitigation Banking Instrument ("MBI")
Number 199506135 (IP-ME) ("Permit") which authorizes the construction, operation and
implementation of a wetland mitigation bank known as Cape Fear Mitigation Bank.
WHEREAS, the USACE/DENR, have established certain regulations applicable to the
Grantor, requiring that an owner of a wetland mitigation bank provide assurance that funds will
be available when needed for the monitoring and maintenance of this mitigation bank if Grantor
fails to monitor and maintain this mitigation bank pursuant to the terms of the above referenced
permit.
WHEREAS, the Grantor has elected to establish a performance bond to provide such financial
assurance for the monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation bank identified herein and is
requested to establish a standby trust fund able to accept payments from the performance bond.
WHEREAS, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, has selected the Trustee
to be the trustee under this agreement, and the Trustee is willing to act as trustee,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor and the Trustee agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:
(a) The term "Grantor" means Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation who enters into
this Agreement and any successors or assigns of the Grantor.
(b) The term "Trustee" means SouthTrust Asset Management Company, the Trustee who
enters into this Agreement and any successor Trustee.
Rev. 1.5 (3/23199)
(c) The term "USACE/DENR" means the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wet Lands
Restoration Program, Division of Water Quality or any successor thereof.
Section 2. Identification of Facilities and Cost Estimates. This Agreement pertains to the
Facilities and cost estimates identified on attached Schedule A.
Section . Standby Trust. This Trust shall remain dormant until funded with the proceeds
from the Surety Bond as listed on
Insert "Letter of Credit" or "Surety Bond"
Schedule B. The Trustee shall have no duties or responsibilities beyond safekeeping this
Document. Upon funding this Trust shall become active and be administered pursuant to the terms
of this instrument.
Section 4. Establishment of Fund. The Grantor and the Trustee hereby establish a trust fund
(the Fund), for the benefit of the DENR. The Grantor and the Trustee intend that no third party
have access to the Fund except as herein provided. The Fund is established initially as a standby
to receive payments and shall not consist of any property. Payments made by the provider of the
Surety Bond listed on Schedule B pursuant to the DENR's instructions are transferred to the
Trustee and are referred to as the Fund, together with all earnings and profits thereon, less any
payments or distributions made by the Trustee pursuant to this Agreement. The Fund shall be held
by the Trustee, IN TRUST, as hereinafter provided. The Trustee shall not be responsible nor shall
it undertake any responsibility for the amount or adequacy of, nor any duty to collect from the
Grantor, any payments necessary to discharge any liabilities of the Grantor established by the
DENR.
Section . Payment for Completing Monitoring and Maintenance. The Trustee shall make
payments from the Fund as the Director of the DENR's Division of Water Quality shall direct,
in writing, to provide for the payment of the costs of completing monitoring and maintenance of
Task 3 - Cape Fear Mitigation Banking Instrument including any modifications or amendments
to that Banking Instrument. The Trustee shall reimburse such persons as specified by the DENR
from the Fund for monitoring and maintenance expenditures in such amounts as the DENR shall
direct in writing. In addition, the Trustee shall refund to the Grantor such amounts as the DENR
specifies in writing. Upon refund, such funds shall no longer constitute part of the Fund as defined
herein.
The Fund may not be drawn upon to cover any of the following:
(a) Any obligation of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a workers'
compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or other similar
law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation arising
from, and in the course of employment by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation;
2
(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance, use, or
entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control
of, or occupied by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation that is not the direct
result of the monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation bank;
(e) Bodily injury or property damage for which Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or
agreement other than a contract or agreement entered into to meet the requirements of
USACE Mitigation Banking Instrument.
Section . Payments Comprising the Fund. Payments made to the Trustee for the Fund shall
consist of cash or securities acceptable to the Trustee and shall consist solely of proceeds from the
Surety Bond
Insert "Letter of Credit " or "Surety Bond".
Section 7. Trustee Management. The Trustee shall invest and reinvest the principal and
income of the Fund and keep the Fund invested as a single fund, without distinction between
principal and income, in accordance with general investment policies and guidelines which the
Grantor may communicate in writing to the Trustee from time to time, subject, however, to the
provisions of this Section. In investing, reinvesting, exchanging, selling, and managing the Fund,
the Trustee shall discharge his duties with respect to the trust fund solely in the interest of the
beneficiary and with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then
prevailing which persons of prudence, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters,
would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; except that:
(a) Securities or other obligations of the Grantor, or any other owner or operator of the
mitigation bank, or any of their affiliates as defined in the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 80a-2.(a), shall not be acquired or held, unless they are
securities or other obligations of the Federal or a State government;
(b) The Trustee is authorized to invest the Fund in time or demand deposits of the Trustee, to
the extent insured by an agency of the Federal or a State government; and
(c) The Trustee is authorized to hold cash awaiting investment or distribution uninvested for
a reasonable time and without liability for the payment of interest thereon.
Section 8. Commingling and Investment. The Trustee is expressly authorized in its discretion:
(a) To transfer from time to time any or all of the assets of the Fund to any common,
commingled, or collective trust fund created by the Trustee in which the Fund is eligible
to participate, subject to all of the provisions thereof, to be commingled with the assets of
other trusts participating therein; and
Rev. 1.5 (3/23/99) 3
(b) To purchase shares in any investment company registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940,15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., including one which may be created, managed,
underwritten, or to which investment advice is rendered or the shares of which are sold by
the Trustee. The Trustee may vote such shares in its discretion.
Section 9. Express Power of Trustee. Without in any way limiting the powers and discretion
conferred upon the Trustee by the other provisions of this Agreement or by law, the Trustee is
expressly authorized and empowered:
(a) To sell, exchange, convey, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any property held by it, by
public or private sale. No person dealing with the Trustee shall be bound to see to the
application of the purchase money or to inquire into the validity or expediency of any such
sale or other disposition;
(b) To make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and all documents of transfer and
conveyance and any and all other instruments that may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out the powers herein granted;
(c) To register any securities held in the Fund in its own name or in the name of a nominee
and to hold any security in bearer form or in book entry, or to combine certificates
representing such securities with certificates of the same issue held by the Trustee in other
fiduciary capacities, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of such securities in a qualified
central depository even though, when so deposited, such securities may be merged and
held in bulk in the name of the nominee of such depository with other securities deposited
therein by another person, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of any securities issued
by the United States Government, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, with a Federal
Reserve bank, but the books and records of the Trustee shall at all times show that all such
securities are part of the Fund;
(d) To deposit any cash in the Fund in interest-bearing accounts maintained or savings
certificates issued by the Trustee, in its separate corporate capacity, or in any other
banking institution affiliated with the Trustee, to the extent insured by an agency of the
Federal or a State government; and
(e) To compromise or otherwise adjust all claims in favor of or against the Fund.
Section 10. Taxes and Expenses. All taxes of any kind that may be assessed or levied against
or in respect of the Fund and all brokerage commissions incurred by the Fund shall be paid from
the Fund. All other expenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with the administration of this
Trust, including fees for legal services rendered to the Trustee, the compensation of the Trustee
to the extent not paid directly by the Grantor, and all other proper charges and disbursements of
the Trustee shall be paid from the Fund.
Section 11. Annual Valuation. The Trust shall annually, at least 30 days prior to the
anniversary date of establishment of the Fund, furnish to the Grantor and to the USACE/DENR
Rev. 1.5 (3/23/99)
4
a statement confirming the value of the Trust. Any securities in the Fund shall be valued at market
value as of no more than 60 days prior to the anniversary date of establishment of the fund. The
failure of the Grantor to object in writing to the Trustee within 90 days after the statement has
been furnished to the Grantor and the USACE/DENR shall constitute a conclusively binding assent
by the Grantor, barring the Grantor from asserting any claim or liability against the Trustee with
respect to matters disclosed in the statement.
Section 2. Advice of Counsel. The Trustee may from time to time consult with counsel, who
may be counsel to the Grantor, with respect to any question arising as to the monitoring of this
Agreement or any action to be taken hereunder. The Trustee shall be fully protected, to the extent
permitted by law, in acting upon the advice of counsel.
Section 13. Trustee Compensation. The Trustee is authorized to charge against the principal
of the Trust its published Trust fee schedule in effect at the time services are rendered.
Section 14. Successor Trustee. The Trustee may resign or the Grantor may replace the
Trustee, but such resignation or replacement shall not be effective until the Grantor has appointed
a successor Trustee, the successor Trustee is approved by the USACE/DENR, and this successor
accepts the appointment. The successor trustee shall have the same powers and duties as those
conferred upon the Trustee hereunder. Upon the successor trustee's acceptance of the appointment,
the Trustee shall assign, transfer, and pay over to the successor trustee the funds and properties
then constituting the Fund. If for any reason the Grantor cannot or does not act in the event of the
resignation of the Trustee, the Trustee may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the
appointment of a successor trustee or for instructions. The Trustee shall notify the USACE/DENR
in writing of such event. The successor trustee shall specify the date on which it assumes
administration of the trust in a writing sent to the Grantor, USACE/DENR, and the present
Trustee by certified mail 10 days before such change becomes effective. Any expenses incurred
by the Trustee as a result of any of the acts contemplated by this Section shall be paid as provided
in Section 10.
Section 15. Instructions to the Trustee. All orders, requests, and instructions by the Grantor
to the Trustee shall be in writing, signed by such persons as are designated in the attached Exhibit
A or such other designees as the Grantor may designate by amendment to Exhibit A The Trustee
shall be fully protected in acting without inquiry in accordance with the Grantor's orders, requests,
and instructions. All orders, requests, and instructions by the DENR to the Trustee shall be in
writing, signed by the DENR's Division Director of Water Quality, or the designee, and the
Trustee shall act and shall be fully protected in acting in accordance with such orders, requests,
and instructions. The Trustee shall have the right to assume, in the absence of written notice to
the contrary, that no event constituting a change or a termination of the authority of any person
to act on behalf of the Grantor or the DENR hereunder has occurred. The Trustee shall have no
duty to act in the absence of such orders, requests, and instructions from the Grantor and/or the
DENR, except as provided for herein.
Rev. 1.5 (3/23/99) 5
Section 16. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in
writing executed by the Grantor, the Trustee, and the USACE/DENR, or by the Trustee and the
USACE/DENR if the Grantor ceases to exist.
Section 17. Irrevoca ' ' and Termination. Subject to the right of the parties to amend this
Agreement as provided in Section 16, this Trust shall be irrevocable and shall continue until
terminated at the written agreement of the Grantor, the Trustee, and the USACE/DENR, or by
the Trustee and the USACE/DENR, if the Grantor ceases to exist. Upon termination of the Trust,
all remaining trust property, less final trust administration expenses, shall be delivered pursuant
to the written agreement terminating the Trust
motion 1$• Immunity and Indemnification. The Trustee shall not incur personal liability of any
nature in connection with any act or omission, made in good faith, in the administration of this
Trust, or in carrying out any directions by the Grantor or the USACE/DENR issued in accordance
with this Agreement. The Trustee shall be indemnified and saved harmless by the Grantor or from
the Trust Fund, or both, from and against any personal liability to which the Trustee may be
subjected by reason of any act or conduct in its official capacity, including all expenses reasonably
incurred in its defense in the event the Grantor fails to provide such defense.
Section 19. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be administered, construed, and enforced
according to the laws of the State of Florida.
Section 20. Int=retation. As used in this Agreement, words in the singular include the plural
and words in the plural include the `singular. The descriptive headings for each Section of this
Agreement shall not affect the interpretation or the legal efficacy of this Agreement.
Rev. 1.5 (3/23/99) 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective officers duly authorized and their corporate seals to be hereunto affixed and attested as
of the date first above written.
ATTEST
GRANTOR
ECOSYSTEMS LOW MITIGATION
li x uu
B
Signature iller McCarthy,
(CORPORATE SEAL)
ATTEST
TRUSTEE
SOUTHTRUST ASSET MANAGEMENT
COMPANY
*ture,
(CORPORATE SEAL)
Rev. 1.5 (3/23199)
7
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GRANTOR'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
-tti.
On thisZ'day of?. 1999, personally appeared D. Miller McCarthy, who being
b me duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument to be s free act and deed. Mr. McCarthy is
ersonally known to me, or has produced her (state) driver's license
bearing rum er
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heral seal.
AUW (3. FICI?TT
c??r ?'? CpMMiSSiON CC 636518 Signature
_ ? EXPIRES APR 12.2000 4jai?
• eot? Ttnu
'?•?. ?? AnAKnc eoNarx3 co., iNC Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
,, Z 19t o 2- Co ssi n expiration date
C0- 5,3 65 I S
Serial Number, If any
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUSTEE'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
On this 2 day of Ma- 2?,4 ,1999, personally appeared J
who ing y me duly worn, acknowledged said instrument to be his/h free :17dteed.
L is personally known to me, or has produced his/her
(state) driver's license bearing number
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.
Si tur@-/-- r
\ O/51/lit/cam a-IC670AIT
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF 2?0 /dam
Co ission !1ir do date
JOANNE V. GROOMS
MY COMMISSION a CC 740458
41: a?
EXPIRES May 7, 2002 Serial Nu ber If any
Bonded Thru Notafy Public Underwriters
Rev. 1.5 (3/23/99)
8
It .1
SCHEDULE A
MBI Permit Number: 19g5o6135 ap-ma
Name: Task 3-Cape Fear Mitigation Banking Instrument
Address: Cumberland County
North Carolina
Task 3
Monitoring and Maintenance
Care Cost Estimates: $1100.000.00
i
Rev. 1.5 (3123199) 9
A .
SCHEDULE B
Description
Mitigation Bank Monitoring/
Maintenance Performance Bond
Rev. 1.5 (3123/99)
10
Bond Number
MB-C-900127

EXHIBIT A
Designated Person: D. Miller McCarthy
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Suite C-200
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Rev. 1.5 (3/23/99)

fti &*Vt G d.. 57C c f'jow /L? P
Ile Ds ?,,,.,?'l ??
? ??' CDs ??G1 ?fc?r

7,?, SC

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Mr. William G. Gerber
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
April 5, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Bank
Dear Messrs. Gerber and Gilmore:
This is to confirm that the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers considers that you have
complied with the requirements of Tasks 1 and 2 as outlined in Paragraph 4.3 of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) for the referenced bank, executed March 5, 1999. As provided by the
MBI, 30 % of the wetland credits are available for release from the bank. As you are aware,
decisions concerning the acceptability of the use of the bank to mitigate for the impacts of any
particular permit will be made during the permit review process of that permit.
Please contact me at [phone] if you need further information.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Division
2
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Kathy Matthews
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Kevin Moody
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Mr. Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Mr. Mac Haupt
orth Carolina Division of Water Quality
N/Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
July 8,1999
Action ID No. 199704890, Barra Farm Mitigation Bank
Mr. Alan Fickett
ECOBANK
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Mr. Fickett:
RECON?
I,&
19 1

Reference the Year 1 Wetland Monitoring Report we received on December 16, 1998.
Also reference the individual vegetation plot data that were provided to the MBRT on May 5,
1999 during an inspection of the Bank property. Also present during the May 5 meeting were.
Mr. Bill Hoebeck of ECOBANK, Inc and Mr. Jerry McCrain of EcoScience, Inc. As you are
aware, concern has been expressed about how the monitoring report was prepared, especially as it
relates to data on the survival and recruitment of target tree species. I have solicited written
comments from other members of the MBRT that are enclosed for your review.
Based on the monitoring report, we feel that the sampling protocol does not adequately
characterize densities and distribution of desirable tree species over the entire site. We realize that
the MBRT agreed to the number and size of sample plots early in the planning phase for this
project and this correspondence does not change that commitment. However, averaging the data
over 19 random sample plots to arrive at a single stem density for the entire restoration area is
inappropriate as this method of reporting data does not provide any information relative to the
distribution of tree survival across the site. We note that only 0.2% of the restoration area is
being sampled. Based on the data, many of the plots contain only one or two target species, and
at densities considerably less than 320 stems/acre. Overall, only 11 plots (19 total in the
reforestation area) contained more than 320 characteristic trees/acre. In addition, we have noted
that only one plot (#12) contains greater than five species. Most of the plots (16 of 19) contain
three or less species. As we discussed and noted during our May 5 visit, large areas in the former
fields appeared to be devoid of saplings. For example, plot P6 apparently contains no surviving
seedlings, while plot P6B only contains 220 stems/acre. This indicates that this area contains
significantly fewer species than what is required by the success criteria. If this is truly indicative
of stem densities on this portion of the tract, then supplemental planting is warranted. In addition,
it appears that black willow densities exceed the allowable 10% of the 320 stem/acre requirement
Finally, our Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines specifically state that plot data
must be representative of the entire site or communities of the entire site. This is to preclude
instances where a particular section of a site is developing satisfactorily while other sections
remain devoid of vegetation. In this case, we would insist, at the very least, that plot data only be
averaged for the different physiographic landscape units. As the plot data seems to indicate a
large degree of variability across the site, we suggest that you consider enlarging the sample plots
to one acre. This may resolve some of the issues regarding stem densities.
Based on our assessment of the plot data and our site inspection we feel that supplemental
planting is warranted. We will be happy to discuss this remedial action including specific areas to
re-plant at your convenience. -
During the May 5 meeting, the MBRT also inspected the ditch and berm that bisects the
headwater tributary to Harrisons Creek. Although the ditch has been plugged and portions of the
berm have been removed, the former field on the north side of the ditch and berm contained a
significant amount of standing water that appears to have led to high mortality of seedlings in this
area. We would suggest that you explore options to release this water to the tributary or at least
determine why this area contains this much ponded water. We would expect that prior to
agricultural conversion that this area would have drained to the tributary.
The MBRT also made a cursory inspection of an approximately 50 acre ponded area on the
northeast portion of the restoration area. We agree with the NC Division of Water Quality.
(DWQ) and Mr. Kevin Moody of the US Fish and Wildlife Service that while this is not.inherently
detrimental to the site, it is not consistent with the mitigation plan. Accordingly, we suggest that
the size of this area be more accurately determined and the duration of flooding that occurs under
normal circumstances be determined. If this assessment indicates that the duration of flooding
will lead to the creation of permanent, open-water emergent marsh habitat, then measures should
be taken to reduce the size of this area. We agree with DWQ that a target area of 20 acres may
be appropriate.
We were also made aware that the RDS wells were programmed incorrectly and that this
data was not available for the first year monitoring report. We trust that this problem has been
corrected and that this data will appear in the next monitoring report.
Finally, we feel that it would be premature to release any more credits from this bank until
these issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the MBRT.
2

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions or comments may be
addressed to the undersigned in the Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Division, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Specialist
enclosures
Copies furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mrs. Kathryn Matthews
Wetlands Section, Region IV
Water Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsythe Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Bennett Wynne, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
3
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality, Wetland Restoration Program
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Mr. Jerry McCrain Ph.D
EcoScience Incorporated
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Q??
D E N R
October 27, 1999
Re: Remedial Actions and Supplemental Planting Plan, Barra Farm Mitigation
Bank Action ID No. 199704890
Dear Mr. McLendon,
This letter is a response to the Remedial Actions and Supplemental Planting Plan
submitted by Barra Farms Mitigation Bank for the Year 1 Monitoring Report.
The Remedial Plan calls for three major actions:
1. installation of 6 18-inch flashboard risers to control ponding,
2. supplemental planting of approximately 15,000 trees on 36.1 acres as
identified on Chart " A", and
3. the addition of supplemental monitoring plots.
Urnu ` 9
The Division of Water Quality is concerned with the installati (nof the 6 flashboard
risers. The Division understands the need to alleviate the pon on the 40 acre
affected area, however, it would seem that a remedial measurvert' the water toward
the headwater area. In addition, for the risers to work, a ditch must have been
constructed to facilitate drainage away from the designated areas. No mention was made
as to the placement or extent of these ditches. Moreover, does not the placement of water
control structures on-site alter the site's designed hydrology?
The Division of Water Quality approves of the supplemental planting areas as shown on
Chart A. However, concerning Table 2 and the species to be planted, the Division feels
strongly that there is no need to plant Acer rubrum.
The Remedial Action Plan also calls for the addition of supplemental monitoring plots as
recommended by the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT). The Division approves of
adding more monitoring plots, however, the Division feels that the amount of area
monitored should at least be 2 to 3 percent of the site. The current plan calls for
increasing the sample area from 1.2 acres to 3.9 acres. The plot size change translates to
increasing the sample size from .19 percent of the site to .63 percent of the site. The '
MBRT previously recommended sampling at least 2 to 3 percent of the site. The
Division feels that increasing the plot size to .25 acre would be sufficient.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
'l r-c-
Gaw C-w Lx C7?¢
7k7t S ,OL2[,Sz'V-j G r
In addition to comments regarding the Remedial Action P an, the Division will comment r T S
on an email received from you on September 29,1999. I that email it was stated that a ?42cU
meeting was held (September 28, 1999) with EcoBank r presentatives and other Corps of
Engineer personnel (David Franklin and Ernie Jahnke). In that meeting, the proposal iv o
was made that if the Remedial Action Plan was accepts le, Year 1 credits would be ,t,?,•?(S??S e,4--
released immediately and Year 2 credits would be rele ed after a site inspection in 7S y?
April/May 2000. The Division of Water Quality alp r -Ve-§ of credit release for Year 1
only The credit release for Year 2 monitoring should be T`
held ntil ITT appo va?l of the monitoring report in November 2000. /
'3 -c
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mac Haupt
NCWRP
Wetland Restoration Program

CC: Kevin Moody, USFWS
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC
John Dorney/Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ
Ken Averitte, NCDWQ-FRO
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
?) L?s7 L /7- /VS

?S 626w? ? - 4r-- -'S

? lAr-o ZOCD -` ,
Subject:
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:54:05 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: mac haupt@h2o. enr. state. nc.us, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Greetings,
On September 28, 1999, David Franklin, Ernie Jahnke and I met with Mr. Alan
Fickett and Mr. Miller McCarthy of Ecobank to discuss remedial actions that are
necessary at the Barra Farms wetland mitigation bank. As you may recall, the
MBRT met with the Bank sponsor on May 5, 1999 to discuss issues relative to:
+/- 50 acre ponded area in restoration area.
number and size of sample plots
tree mortality
After several discussions with the sponsor, they have agreed to provide a
remedial action plan that will detail (1), continued monitoring of the ponded
area, (2), a revised vegetation sampling plan that will provide sufficient data
to determine if stem density requirements are being met, and, (3), and a
specific plan to replant those areas at the bank where plot data indicated stem
densities were less than 320 trees/acre. This remedial planting will ocurr in
the winter of 1999/2000. The bank sponsor is soliciting the MBRT's input as to
where the remedial planting should occur.
Provided this plan meets with our and your approval, we will release the year 1
credits (24 credits) immediately. It is expected that an inspection of the site
will be made in April/May of 2000. If this inspection indicates that remedial
planting is successful, then year two credits would be released. I will
forward this plan to you when I recieve it. Your quick response would be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
1 of 1 10/27/99 9:47 AM
OCT.13'1999 08:50 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON #0470 P.001
r "1 i
FACSHNILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
ft uw of *us +am. ! MR 23.++. M. woMmit mWey a oo f
COMMANO0 NAME/ OFFICE TELEPHONE FAX NO.
OFFICE SYNBOL (AUTOVONAC&".) (AtlrOYOwConfff.)
?? • CAN ,? 2S k _'-t 1 z ?
V V\C-
lr.? Q °ti*tg - '133 ZL y 4 to

CLASSIF"MO PRICEGFNCE NO. PAGES DA1E-TIME MONTH YEAR RELEASER'S SIGNATURE
Irfdfdono "s
H..aw?
REYARI(8 ' • c: .0 r ., ?t'n?/? r?_?? .-.k_ O.. c_ `?a ?. ?`t? }'?1 ci..''? 1 cam. r.r :? S ? v w. S
-C
soft o "low Far C&Vm mkaoom co mw use ony
(A cpm AVG 7219 08SOLM
r
OCT.13'1999 08:51 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON #0470 P.002
October 8, 1999
Mr, Scott C. McLendon
Regulatory Specialist
Department of the Army
Wilmington District., Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilrr ington, North Carolina. 28402-1890
JECOBANKI
Re: Remedial Actions and Supplemental Planting Plan
Barra Farm Mitigation Bank Action TD No. 199704890
Dear. Mr. McLendon:

As promised at our Septe nber 28, 1999 meeting, attached is a supplemental planting plan,
revised monitoring plot plan and surface ponding remedial action plan. We appreciate your
continued cooperation and assistance in implementing this important ecological project.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need further information. In addition to mail and
fax, our new a-mail address is : ECOBANK(aJWORLDNET.ATT.COM-
Sincerely,
a'a"o h 4?&?
Alan G. Fickelt, Ph.D.
ECOBANK
Attachments
c: David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E-, NCDOT
Rob Moul, Land Management Group
15SS HOWELL. BRANCH ROAD , WINTER t'AM FLORIDA 327139
[phone] • FAX [phone]
OCT.13'1999 08:51 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON #0470 P.003
Remedial Actions and Supplemental Planting Plan
for
Barra Farms Phase I
End of Year 1 Monitoring
Prepared for:
Scott C. McClendon, Regulatory Specialist
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Submitted by:
ECOBANK
New Bern, NC
Winter Park, FL
October 8, 1999
OCT.13'1999 08:51 9102514025
introduction:
USAED WILMINGTON
#0470 P.004
During the September 28, 1999 meeting with the USACOE, (Messrs. Ernie Jahnke,
David Franklin and Scott McLendon), we committed to submitting this Supplemental
Planting Plan to remediate percelved mortality of target species identified in the first year
monitoring report. As you recall, the year one quantitative sampling of the vegetation
occurred in mid-October 1998 with the examination of 24 permanent plots. Each plot is
circular representing .05 acre and is located near a permanent shallow hydrology
monitoring well. It was agreed that the project meets or exceeds the Section 404 wetland
hydrology parameters in year 1. This plan is therefore submitted to identify potential
deficient plant stock areas based on the year 1 report and subsequent MBRT review
comments, as well as to correct these deficiencies to your stated requirements
Review of Our Plan's Success Criteria
our goal is to restore this farmland tract back into a functional wetland with strong
evidence during the 5 year monitoring period that this goal is attainable to the MBRT's
satisfaction. We believe that once the hydrology is monitored and closely resembles
adjacent, natural control sites, then the vegetation will follow through natural recruitment.
Those hydrophytic plants that were chosen to be planted and survive will be naturally
selected to withstand future environmental and climatic rigors of the site. Over time,
extreme events such as flooding will be more buffered by the accumulation of a thick Al
horizon (leaf litter) soil profile which will consist of naturally selected and appropriate
wetland plant species, rootstock and mast.
We committed in the approved mitigation plan to jump starting this natural recruitment,
process by planting 435 stems/acre of approximately 12 different species of wetland
overstory trees. The success criteria stated that over the five year period we would
achieve a mean density of 320 characteristic (planted and volunteered) treestacre of
which at least 5 character tree species (those planted) must be present. Also, no more
than 20% (64 stems) of the 320 stems/acre can be comprised of any one planted
species. No more than 10% of the 320 stemstacre requirement may be softwood
species (black willow, pond pine, loblolly pine, etc.).
Surface Pondin Remedial Actions
The comments from the MBRT are acknowledged regarding locations where plants
seem to be absent. We strongly believe climatic factors from the wettest (El Nino)
Winter/Spring in recorded history, which occurred in the first 7 weeks of our planting
.effort, caused most of the perceived seedling mortality. We have initiated a remedial
plan to lower these unusual climatic rainfall ponding events through the installation of six
18" flashboard risers through the northern farm roadiberm. Pondin water wit
lowered only durin andfor after extreme climatic rainfall events after w ich ondirtl
cool be a rimental ?totne rowth or survival o atir 12 character q3erlias, This lowering
activity w e c ose itored on a periodic basis after flashboard risers are removed.
In no event will the risers allow groundwater levels to recede below the wetlanI
hydrology thresholds. Risers have been designed only to lower ponding. Conversely, the
risers can be elevated in a dry period to allow percolation into the wetland before
standing water is released. It is anticipated that, upon completion of the 5 year
monitoring study, the optimum riser height will be achieved to maintain a better
permeability/surface flow equilibrium.
??h r4
2
OCT.13'1999 08:52 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON
Mon on of Poten ial Emer n Marsh Wetland
#0470 P.005
As noted in the various comments, it may be inherently desirable to have a fresh water
marsh component in the bank. While not originally planned, If this habitat type becomes
a desirable feature, we will monitor future successional characteristics and project the
longevity of its existence during monitoring years 3 and 4. The rapid stabilization of 35-
40 acres with dense emergent obligate plants and associated fauna can be a plus to
habitat conditions and water storage. This zone is illustrated on Chart "A" and may be,
found to be more desirable than the original planting goal.
We have found this area to be comprised of a tighter, very low permeability black clay
which sits in a slightly (+/- 1.51) lower landscape position. We propose to Install 94
continuous recording device for daily readings in the center of this impoundment. In this
manner, we can match drawdown rates with manipulation of the flashboard risers to
maintain quality emergent marsh and scattered bald cypress/tupelo habitat.
ldentlfled Areas for RQOlantinsr
Based on the first year monitoring report, three open field zones appear to have the
highest seed mortality. As was identified in the MBRT comment letters, the sparsest
seedling survival areas were found in and around P6, P8, and P24-A & 8, These areas
total 36.1 acres as illustrated on Chart "A".. Individual acreage breakdowns are shown in
Table #1.
Other noted areas, including P14, P18, P21, and P23, are found within very dense
existing pocosin type natural foliage. Identifying the small seedlings within this denso
vegetation is difficult. Tally of seedling numbers should wait another growing season to
better define their survival status. We believe that a greater replanting effort should be
made within the open field zones.
Tree Totals to be Plan d
Since 435 stems/acre is our goal, we propose to completely replant those identified poor
survival areas. We propose to plant up to 95,691 bare root seedlings of 10 character
hydrophytic species as identified in Table #2. The original planting guide, with the same
proportion of selected plants as noted, will be followed In these identified zones. Should
the second year monitoring identify a deficiency of certain species, then target species
may need to be readjusted to more closely match endemic soil/hydrology conditions. Of
course, further remedial adjustments in planting composition will be presented to the
MBRT for their review and concurrence.
Additional Monitoring Plots
we propose to maintain our existing monitoring database at the existing 24 plots and to
increase the sampling area from .05 acre plot to a 0.1 acre plot. In addition, we propose
to increase the number of vegetative sample plots to 39, which adds 15 plots across the
tract. This will increase the sample area from 1.2 acres in year 1 to 3.9 acres sampled
for year 2, which is a 325% increase In sampling information.
-1 3
OCT.13'1999 08:52 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON #0470 P.006
Cred Release
The supplemental planting will occur during the 1999 dormant season (November, 1999
- January. 2000). The surface ponding remedial activities are underway and will be
completed before the end of October, 1999. It was agreed at the September 28 meeting
that the 1998 credits (24) will be released upon satisfactory submission of this plan.
In addition to the year 1 and year 2 monitoring report, It has been agreed that ECOBANK
will undertake a mid-year (year 2.5) report at first growth (early Spring, 2000) followed by
a combined site visit (ECOBANK and MBRT) to evaluate the supplemental planting
regime and accommodate the deviations caused by the time lag and seasonal
differences of disparate readings by ECOBANK and the MBRT_ This procedure will
achieve equitable release of the 1999 credits (36) on the date of review-
Conclusions
We are committed to ensure that Barra Farm becomes a viable self-sustaining functional
wetland system. We will demonstrate this commitment by monitoring the ponded zones;
Installing flashboard risers to manage extreme rainfall events; replanting 36.1 acres to
specification during the coming dormant season and Increasing this year's (October
1999) sample area threefold. Since we are dealing with many unknowns, which Mother
Nature so wondrously exhibits, we acknowledge that mitigation plans need occasional
adjustments.
We strongly urge that, at the completion of the year 2 monitoring period, the
representatives of the MBkT field team review the documents in a timely fashion so wa,
can adjust and address potential planting deficiencies quickly. We appreciate your
speedy review of this remedial plan. Your constant surveillance of our progress is
appreciated and helpful. We look forward to working with you to the successful
completion of this project.
4
OCT.13'1999 08:52 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON 00470 P.007
Table 1. Acreage and trees needed for Barra Farms remedial planting.
Remedial Area Acres Trees needed (4351acre)
P6 8.22 3576
P8 8.55 3719
P24. 19.30 8396
Total 36.07 15691
OCT.13'1999 08:52 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON
• • .
ns
C
C
CC
N
N
LL
w
L
MLts
W
L
N
?f
n?
C
N
N
N
CL
N
L
N
CL
y
L9
O
L
a:
z
N
N
0
F-

t1f 1? !7! O
?- W
r O a O 4 d O m

r

0)
M,?./?
{'+
LO
N
M

m
r n
r Lo
Lo LM LLo Lo
.. ! 0
m
M
co
C
id
a
N

CL

C
?

r Lo
?
? Cno
? r?
ti m
d' c
N v
N IRT
N It
N e"
?
ti
N)

C
t?
Q
co
d

C LA

r N
O
-- c7 M r
ti h
It qT
N d'
N VZ
N V
N <O
`:=
YM/

-? r
O ?'
d r
O r-
O l
O Q
O
? r

ctf
a
Q.

0.

co CL

c

es
0)

?

l

E

¢
y y
cz

c

a ?

o

-tib,
J

o

OF

o
12

CY tab

0
m

.

H

#0470 P.004
t OCT.13'1999 08:54 9102514025
USAED WILMINGTON
#0470 P.011
CHART "A"
R

? 1 1 ?1 0111 rl N 0? ?„ r j

p

C O

O-1 4D

N ?10-

(? -I
IQ

I
I
I
I

R1' ?
?/

,
IV '
I
I
t :
.
'?
i
V' -? ? III ! 1 t I 1 .N ,,i
? .:
;1nc
•?N.:,
h 3

' O
vgT?,6
?{
O
O C
H
7
i0 it

{ 1 J i w

1`

j 1
IJ
' .,.
rm _(o l
GI I I t :; 'o".;

N Iry?1?1? ..I ?•
` I
l I I 1/ m
I (D ,

? •?
, I

fZ 3 ^ --
L
?

`
" `. I? f l l `i?`.??? . .--•L??.` ?`? `?< Vic..
"+
1 11 V ?l \ ?irr„

9
yM
Z
O
P M

r ;:

_ ,,OCT.13'1999 08:53 9102514025 USAED WILMINGTON #0470 P.010
4
Q
W
a?
ac
7714
fi
N
3
0SI
RDS24 Continuous Monitoring Piezometer (2)
p6 Vegetation Monitoring Plots (39)
W?3 24 'inch Monitoring Well (23)
Physiographic Landscape Units
Riverine Floodplain
Headwater Slope
Uplands
Groundwater Flats
g m-18" DIAMETER FLASHBOARD RISER
YEP
dft REP
FM 0
ME= 0
+ ?" 40 ACRE PONDED

i • 1. J.

1•
J I ?

f, f

EooSofenea i
Corpprollan L

t ? t f1 J ?(ll( 1,y
Rorlaod Mvnltorlnq Plon (year 2 -Aug, 1999} r,, rr Firm _
Barra Farms Cape Fe,x o(=al Mitigation Bonk d,*Cked N Mr A!N}ou 0e?-60
Cpmborlond Ceminky, North Corollno
9edc 1? ? ao7 Opln Nio ItiYi
I
2
AK, .