20040325 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20050510

e.?l?Q/l?.l!' ????'GlJ/lZGG?'P/l7ZP/!Z? ?9?1?UfL, V92!i.
Environmental Consultants
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
SHIPPING ADDRESS:
3805 Wrightsville Ave., #14
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
TELEPHONE:
office [phone]
fax [phone]
May 9, 2005
Mr. Mickey Sugg
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 26402-1890
Dear Mr. Sugg:
On behalf of ECOBANK (Bank Sponsor), Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG) is
pleased to submit to you, and other members of the Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT), the updated Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank (Phase II) located in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The enclosed document reflects those modifications to the plan as coordinated through
the MBRT over the last year.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed plan, please contact me
either by phone at 910-452-0001 or by email me at [e-mail]. We look
forward to continuing to work with the MBRT in the development and implementation of
a successful Barra Farms, Phase II project.
Sincerely,
Land agemen oup, Inc.
Christian Prezios
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
CC. Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ
Mr. Howard Hall, USFWS
Mr. Melissa Carle, NCDCM
Ms. Maria Tripp, NCWRC
Q?c??oeL22:2 ID
MAY 1 0 p005
WETLANDS AND sTORMWgTERITM
9R, H
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PHASE II
Submitted by:
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, FL
91
ECOBA NK
All
1 a dSP
\ 1,ke
63 +.
i
PAY CSp! Feat
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. BOX 2522
Wilmington, NC
December 2004
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION .......:......................................................................................................3
II. MITIGATION GOALS .....................................................................................................5
III. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................5
A. WETLAND GEOMORPHOLOGY ........................................................................6
B. PRIOR ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS ................................................................7
C. GENERAL SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................10
D. VEGETATION ......................................................................................................11
E. WETLAND FUNCTIONS ....................................................................................12
F. SITE SUITABILITY .............................................................................................12
Service Area Considerations ..........................................................................12
Replacement of Wetland Functions and Values ..........................................14
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION ...........................................................................................17
A. BANK SECTIONING ...........................................................................................18
B. RESTORATION ....................................................................................................19
C. ENHANCEMENT .................................................................................................24
D. PRESERVATION ..................................................................................................24
V. MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................................................24
A. VEGETATION MONITORING ...........................................................................25
B. HYDROLOGY MONITORING ...........................................................................26
C. ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS .................................................................27
VI. CONTINGENCY PLAN ................................................................................................27
VII. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ................29
VIII. CREDIT RATIOS AND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .......................................30
IX. FINAL PROPERTY DISPENSATION .........................................................................32
X. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...................................................................................33
1Q?c??on?p
MAY 1 0 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STOWMTER BRANCH
i
TABLES
1. LIST OF ELEVEN-DIGIT HYDROLOGIC UNITS OF GEOGRAPHIC
SERVICE AREA (GSA)
2. MITIGATION ACREAGE & CREDITS BY SECTION
3. WATER BUDGET
4. PLANTING REGIME
5. PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING / MAINTENANCE BONDS
6. MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE (SECTION 1)
FIGURES
L. SITE VICINITY MAP
2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
3. USGS 8-DIGIT HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP
4. 1998 NAPP COLOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
5. EXISTING DRAINAGE NETWORK MAP
6. MAP OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S.
7. PC/CC STATUS MAP
8. USDA-SCS GENERALIZED COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
9. MAP OF GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA (GSA)
10. MITIGATION PLAN MAP .'
11. BANK SECTIONS
12. GRADING PLAN
13. MONITORING PLAN
APPENDICES
A. MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT - BARRA FARMS CAPE
FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
B. BARRA I FIFTH ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
C. DUKE UNIVERSITY WETLAND CENTER RESEARCH -
ABSTRACTS AND CONCLUSIONS DERIVED FROM BARRA I
STUDY SITE
D. ECOREGIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA
E. LMG DRAINMOD ANALYSIS OF BARRA II
F. BARRA II SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
G. THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES REPORT
H. SAMPLE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE DOCUMENTS
I. PROPERTY BOUNDARY SURVEY
ii
sk,
U)
D
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation (ECOBANK) has established Phase I of
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank (Bank) within the Middle Atlantic
Coastal Plain Ecoregion (Ecoregion 63) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Phase I consists of
the successful restoration, enhancement and preservation of 623 acres (out of a total of
2,435 acres) within the headwaters of Harrison Creek, a first-order tributary of the Cape
Fear Rivera The Phase I restoration and enhancement activities included filling 100,000+
linear feet of ditches and canals and planting 192,000 native tree species. These activities
were completed in January, 1998, and five years of monitoring have demonstrated
hydrologic and vegetative success. Further, scientific research conducted by the Duke
University Wetland Center, under the direction of Dr. Curtis J. Richardson, has
demonstrated the downstream water quality benefits that the restored Phase I site has
provided.
The Bank is composed of approximately 2,435 acres of interstream flats, former Carolina
bays, historic stream origins, and floodplains that were ditched, leveled, and drained to
support agriculture production and logging activities. ECOBANK developed a
mitigation plan in 1997 that described existing conditions and presented a plan for
restoring wetlands in a phased approach.
A Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) establishing the Barra Farms Bank was adopted
between ECOBANK and the appropriate federal and state regulatory agencies in March
1999. The NMI provides for expanding the Bank to incorporate the remaining 1,812
acres (Phase I1), which continue to be farmed and logged. The MBI also provides for
expanding the Bank's service area with the addition of Phase II.
ECOBANK is submitting this Barra Farms, Phase II Wetland Mitigation Plan in order to
add the adjacent Phase II land (1,812 acres) to the Bank. The Phase H site includes 907
acres of wetland restoration, 215 acres of wetland enhancement, and 621 acres of wetland
preservation. On-site evaluations and DRAINMOD computer modeling have been used
to determine the extent of restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Based upon these
acreages, the Barra Farms, Phase II site provides for 1,139 bank credits. The Sponsor
proposes to implement the Phase II bank site in three sections. The following plan
provides site-specific information pertaining to bank sections, existing conditions,
proposed mitigation activities, and performance monitoring. In addition, the plan
contains provisions for bank credit ratios, credit-release schedule, financial assurances,
and final property dispensation.
2
? -
D
Z
C
z
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 5, 1999, a Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) was executed by ECOBANK
(Bank Sponsor), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), collectively comprising the Mitigation Banking
Review Team (MBRT).
The MBI was developed in accordance with the Federal Guidance for the Establishment,
Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60, Federal Register, 58605, November 28,
1995 (Guidance). The purpose of the MBI was to establish Phase I of the Barra Farms
Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank (Barra I) in Cumberland County, NC (refer to
Appendix A). Phase I consisted of restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 623
acres adjacent and contiguous to 1,812 acres (totaling 2,435 acres) of pocosin/Carolina
bay wetlands which comprise the headwaters of Harrison Creek (a first-order tributary of
the Cape Fear River).
All wetland restoration and enhancement activities were completed on Barra I from
October, 1997 to January, 1998. Restoration of wetland hydrology consisted of filling
100,000+ linear feet of major canals and lateral ditches to redirect groundwater slope to
the restored section of Harrison Creek. In addition, more than 192,000 plants, consisting
of 19 swamp forest, wet hardwood forest and upland pine species were planted in
January, 1998.
3
Hydrologic and vegetative success criteria have been met and documented over the
duration of the five year monitoring period since implementation of site restoration. The
Fifth Annual Monitoring Report is included as Appendix B for reference. Natural
hydrologic regimes and water quality benefits have been documented by research
scientists from the Duke Wetland Center, Nicholas School of the Environment, Dube
University under the direction of Dr. Curtis I Richardson (refer to Appendix Q.
The MBI (Appendix A, Paragraph 2.2) provides for the expansion of the Barra Farms
Bank to incorporate the remaining Phase II Barra land (1,812 acres). Adding Phase II to
the Bank will significantly improve the water quality, wildlife habitat, and ecosystem
benefits already achieved in Phase I. Phase H restoration and enhancement activities will
include filling approximately 149,550 linear feet of ditches/canals and planting
approximately 405,000 native trees.
The proposed mitigation project is intended to compensate for those wetland losses
authorized by applicable federal and state permits via the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of 1,812 acres at the Barra H mitigation site. Barra II is located at the
headwaters of Harrison Creek in Cumberland. County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
Barra II mitigation plan serves as an extension of the MBI for the 623-acre Barra I site
initiated in March 1999. The following plan provides detailed information related to
project goals and objectives, existing site conditions, proposed mitigation activities, site-
success criteria, financial assurances, property dispensation, and annual monitoring as
provided in the Barra I MBI.
4
II. MITIGATION GOALS
The objective of the Barra II project is to provide for the establishment of a compensatory
wetland mitigation bank suitable for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts authorized
by state and federal permits. The long-term goal of the project is to establish pocosin and
associated pine flatwood/savannah habitat via the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of 1,743 acres of wetlands situated at the headwaters of Harrison Creek (a
first-order tributary of the Cape Fear River). Mitigation activities will provide for intact,
functional habitat (pocosin and pine flatwood/savannah) characteristic of the Middle
Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion (refer to Appendix D). Ultimately, the mitigation bank
will provide for increased floodwater storage capacity, enhanced nutrient
filtration/transformation, and increased habitat for species utilizing headwater wetland
systems. The mitigation area will be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation
easement and transferred through fee simple title to an approved public land management
organization (refer to Section VIII of the mitigation plan for more detailed information
regarding property dispensation).
III. SITE DESCRIPTION
The 1,812-acre Barra II mitigation site is located immediately south of the junction of NC
Highway 210 and State Route 2003 in Cumberland County, NC (UTM 17-710519 E;
3868292 N) (Figure 2). The tract consists of 1,788 acres of previously altered and/or
disturbed nonriverine (i.e. pocosin/Carolina bay) wetlands and 24 acres of non-hydric
soil. In conjunction with Barra I lands, the tract forms nearly the entire headwater
wetland system of Harrison Creek (a first-order tributary of the Cape Fear River Basin).
5
The project site is located within the Lower Cape Fear River Basin (USGS 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit 03030005, Cape Fear River Subbasin 030616) (refer to Figure 3).
A. WETLAND GEOMORPHOLOGY
Characteristic geomorphic features of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion -
including elliptical Carolina bays (with deep organic soils), sandy uplands, and incised
blackwater streams are common in the vicinity of the project area. The mitigation site is
situated within Harrison Creek Bay, a relatively large headwater Carolina bay.
Elevations typically range from -120 to -125 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Thus,
topography is relatively level (0-2% slopes), with slight undulations from edges of the
bay rims. The Barra H mitigation site is situated within the interior portions of the bay
with slopes of 0-1 %. Natural drainage of the area is by rapid permeability through sandy
upland areas to the concave organic Carolina bay, where permeability and water
movement slows. Barra II's natural drainage and water movement is in a south to
southwest direction towards Harrison Creek. Prior to anthropogenic disturbance, wetland
systems of the Barra II site were typical of natural pocosins/Carolina bay systems
occurring along interstream divides throughout the entire Coastal Plain. Indeed, the
Barra tract is part of a larger ecoregion, the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, as defined by
Griffith et al. (2002) " Bcoregions of North Carolina" (Appendix D).
6
B. PRIOR ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS
Agricultural and silvicultural drainage improvements have been historically established
within the Barra 11 tract. Please refer to Figure 4 (1998 aerial photograph of the site)
depicting wooded and field conditions of the tract. Initial clearing and ditching of the
tract began in the mid 1960's in order to convert Harrison Creek Bay into agricultural
fields. A system of lateral and collector ditches was installed throughout the farm in the
1970's. The drainage network consists of 2 to 4 ft-deep lateral (i.e. tertiary) open
ditching on approximate 300-ft spacing, which connect to 4 to 6 ft-deep collector (i.e.
(secondary) ditches, ultimately draining off-site through large (6 to 8 ft-deep) canals (i.e.
primary ditches). There are approximately 88,690 linear feet (If) (equivalent to 16.8
miles) of lateral ditches on the tract. An additional 60,8601f (equivalent to 11.5 miles) of
collector ditches and canals drain Barra II (refer to Figure 5). All of the artificial
drainage is in a southwest direction to an outlet canal draining to Harrison Creek through
a water-control structure.
Much of the tract's original hydrology has been modified to varying degrees depending
upon position relative to existing ditches. On-site ditches function in two capacities: (1)
drawdown of groundwater via lateral drainage effect; and (2) interception of surface flow
associated with storm or flood events. The effect of each ditch is related to its size (i.e.
depth), landscape position/elevation, and surrounding soil properties (e.g. hydraulic
conductivity and drainable porosity). Based upon site evaluations and DRAINMOD
analysis, the lateral drainage effect of the ditches typically ranges between 150 ft to 255
ft. Please refer to the DRAINMOD drainage study (Appendix E) conducted by Land
7
Management Group, Inc. (LMG) for more specific information related to effective
drainage distances of ditches located on the tract.
Other land-disturbing activities on the tract have included clearing/conversion to
agricultural fields and timber management. Approximately 440 acres of Barra II is
currently in use for agricultural production. An additional 260 acres have been
historically cleared and ditched. These areas, however, are not currently in agricultural
use and have become overgrown with opportunistic vegetative species. The remainder of
the tract is in active silvicultural production (primarily for loblolly pine). Based upon site
evaluations and DRAINMOD analysis, 212 acres of wooded areas have been effectively
drained (refer to Figure 6 for mapped jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S.).
On-going silvicultural activities on the tract include ditching, construction of temporary
forestry roads, and logging. It should be noted that these activities are exempt from
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting with an approved forestry plan.
Therefore, such practices continue on Barra II even within jurisdictional 404 wetlands.
During recent site evaluations, LMG staff observed foresters excavating a large interior
ditch (approximately 8 ft deep, 10 ft wide, and 300 ft in length) for the construction of a
temporary forestry road (refer to site photographs, Appendix F). Such land-use activities
are evidence that natural wetland functions continue to be compromised on the tract even
within jurisdictional areas and serve as a testament to the importance of the preservation
component of the mitigation site.
8
Based upon the extent of agricultural fields and land-use practices, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) provided Prior-Converted (PC) and Commenced
Conversion (CC) determinations for the tract. Prior-converted wetlands are those areas
that were converted to agricultural fields prior to December 23, 1985. These areas can be
continued to be farmed and maintained and include those areas granted a CC
determination. Approximately 440 acres have been designated as PC areas by NRCS.
For areas granted a CC determination, the producer was to have finished the commenced
conversion by January 1., 1995. The Cumberland County Farm Service Agency (FSA)
verified these determinations for the Barra II tract as was required in 1995. Based upon
FSA site visits in March 1995, approximately 260 acres of the CC areas had been
completed. Approximately 410 acres of approved commenced areas were not completed
by January 1, 1995. Refer to Figure 7 for a map of PC and CC designations for the Barra
R site.
Due to previous site disturbance and intensive land-use practices, functional wetland
habitat of the tract has been severely compromised. Much of the site does not exhibit
conditions suitable for naturally occurring vegetative and faunal assemblages. In
particular, it is unlikely that disturbed areas of the site offer suitable habitat for federally-
listed threatened or endangered species. While the potential presence of these species has
been identified (see Appendix G), land-use practices likely prevent their occurrence
within the project area. Refer to Appendix G for more detailed information regarding the
potential presence of federally-listed threatened or endangered species.
9
C. GENERAL SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Basic geomorphic processes have determined the type and nature of existing soils located
on the Barra 11 site. The tract is located in the center of an ancient estuary created when
sea level occurred at elevations of 100'to 170 ft amsl during the late Miocene to Pliocene
geologic epoch, 10 to 25 millions years before present (MMBP) (Oaks and DuBar 1974,
Thom 1967). Sediments deposited during this era are largely fine clays and silts
transported from Piedmont and Mountain regions of the Cape Fear River. Subsequent
fluvial migration of the Cape Fear River channel during inter-glacial periods resulted in
thick deposits of sands from the Sandhills region on top of the finer-textured basal
sediments. This event represents the starting point for modern soil-forming factors in the
broad sandsheet located between the existing channels of the South and Cape Fear
Rivers.
As depicted in the Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina,
USDA-SCS (1984), Map 19 (Figure 8), the tract consists predominantly of Croatan
muck. Evaluations of the Barra II tract confirmed the USDA-SCS.mapping to be
representative of the soil types located at the site. It should be noted that land use
practices have altered soil conditions to varying degrees depending upon the extent of
drainage. In some areas, the organic surface characteristic of Croatan muck soil series
has been oxidized. In its natural state, Croatan muck consists of very poorly drained
organic soils. These soils typically have an organic surface and subsurface to depths of 2
to 3 ft, where loamy sand to sandy loam substratums are encountered. These land types
(in undisturbed conditions) exhibit 404 wetland hydric soil and vegetative characteristics,
10
but significant areas have been altered through prescribed drainage improvements (refer
to Appendix E).
Smaller perimeter areas of the tract are mapped as Torhunta and Leon soils (Figure 8).
These soil types generally occur around the perimeter of, and drain into, organic soils
(e.g. Croatan) of slightly lower topography. The Torhunta series consist of very poorly
drained soils occurring in broad interstream areas. Surface runoff is very slow. The
Leon series consist of poorly drained soils of broad interstream flats and depressions.
Surface runoff for these soils is slow.
D. - VEGETATION
Agricultural and silvicultural practices have significantly altered natural vegetative
assemblages of the wetland system. Undisturbed bays typically have dense, impenetrable
vegetation with characteristic species including loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus),
American titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), gallberry (Ilex glabra),
pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
catbrier (Smilax species).
PC fields (approximately 440 acres) are currently in agricultural production for corn,
soybean, and winter wheat rotation. Some CC fields that were previously cleared and
ditched have reverted to vegetation consisting of more opportunistic species such as
broom sedge (Andropogon spp.), catbrier, and saplings of red maple and sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). In general, areas that are influenced by drainage effect of
11
ditches exhibit a drier-end species assemblage. Species indicative of slightly drier
conditions resulting from drainage (and not typically found in Croatan muck soils)
include sweet gum, winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium).
E. WETLAND FUNCTIONS
Undisturbed pocosins and Carolina bays have been recognized to support a variety of
functions important for the local watershed and the regional basin in which they are
located. Documented functions include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) nutrient
retention/transformation; (2) surface water/groundwater storage; and (3) refuge/feeding
habitat for variety of resident and migratory fauna (Richardson 1983; Sharitz and
Gibbons 1982; Walbridge 1993). Carolina bays, in particular, represent a landscape
feature unique to the southeastern Coastal Plain and supporting vital habitat for migratory
songbirds and endemic species (Shantz and Gibbons 1982). Associated human-based
values provided by intact pocosin/bay systems include (1) stormwater storage/flood
attenuation; (2) enhanced water quality/pollutant removal; and (3) recreational value
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; Richardson 1983; Shantz and Gibbons 1982; Walbridge
1993).
F. SITE SUITABILITY
Service Area Considerations:
The Barra II Wetland Mitigation Bank is located in the lower Cape Fear River Basin
(USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030005) (refer to Figure 3). This hydrologic unit has been
12
rated as a Category I (needing restoration) according to NC DWQ's Unified Watershed
Assessment. The headwaters of Harrison Creek are characterized by the presence of
wetland community types (i.e. bay forest/Carolina bay - as defined by Schafale and
Weakley, 1990) occurring throughout the lower Cape Fear River Basin. In addition, the
Barra 11 tract is located within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ecoregion 63) as
defined by Griffith et al. (2002) "Ecoregions of North Carolina" (refer to Appendix D).
This ecoregion encompasses the area defined as the `Carolina Flatwoods' - a subregion
occurring along nearly level, poorly drained areas and exhibiting characteristic landforms
including pocosins and Carolina bays.
The "Ecoregions of North Carolina" is a collaborative effort between the NRCS, EPA,
NCDENR, U.S. Geological Service (USGS), U.S. Forestry Service (USFS), and the
University of North Carolina (UNC). The Ecoregions Project has identified areas of
North Carolina consisting of ecosystems that are similar in type, quantity, and quality of
environmental resources. Characteristics of ecoregions include similar geology,
physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. Ecoregion 63
(Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain) and subregion 63h (Carolina Flatwoods) includes all
2,435 acres of Barra Farms and extends south to the mouth of the Cape Fear River in
New Hanover County.
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area wherein a bank can
reasonably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts to similar
wetland and/or other stream or aquatic functions. Based upon the decision of MBRT
13
members, the GSA for the Barra II Wetland Mitigation Bank will be the same of that
identified for Phase I of the Bank. Specifically, the eastern and western limits of the
GSA are defined by the outer boundaries of the Cape Fear River Basin contained with the
following Cataloging Units: 03030004, 03030005, and 03030006. The MBRT has
restricted the service area to the south by excluding watersheds in the Wilmington area
due to Karst geomorphology and expected development patterns in the region. To the
north, the GSA has been reduced along 11-digit watersheds to exclude the Raleigh belt
portions of the Cape Fear River Basin. The GSA is inclusive of the 11-digit watersheds
listed in Table 1. Refer to Figure 9 for the location and extent of the restricted GSA.
The lower Cape Fear River hydrologic unit extends south to the coast in New Hanover
County (Figure 3). Based upon standard state mitigation guidelines (including those set
forth by NCDENR and the NC Wetland Restoration Program (WRP)), the Barra II bank
may be suitable for providing compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts occurring
anywhere within the same 8-digit hydrologic unit (i.e. the lower Cape Fear River Basin).
Therefore, use of the Bank for compensatory mitigation will also be considered outside of
the designated GSA if this option is preferable to other mitigation alternatives during the
course of the permit review process.
Replacement of Wetland Functions and Values:
Implementation of the proposed Barra II mitigation bank and successful restoration of
such a large headwater wetland complex will benefit not only the local watershed (i.e.
Harrison Creek), but the regional lower Cape Fear River Basin as well. These benefits
14
are expected in light of the tangible and well-documented functions and values attributed
to headwater wetland systems (as described above). Natural hydrologic and vegetative
conditions of nearly the entire Harrison Creek Bay system will be restored and/or
enhanced.
Like other small, blackwater streams of the Coastal Plain, Harrison Creek is susceptible
to water quality impairment resulting from non-point source discharges of contaminants -
including nitrogen (1), phosphorous (P), and a suite of organophosphate-based herbicides
and pesticides. Currently, agricultural and silvicultuml practices of Barra II contribute to
decreased water quality of downstream waters. Ditches and canals drain 1,812 acres of
agricultural fields and forest stands. These surface waters serve as direct conduits for
sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants entering Harrison Creek.
Nutrient loading (in the form of excess nitrogen and/or phosphorous) may manifest in a
variety of water quality problems including hypoxia/anoxia, aquatic weed infestations,
and toxic algal blooms. Water quality impairments, in turn, can negatively affect resident
macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages. Biological indices measuring benthos and-fish
community structure are used by DWQ as a means of recording trends in water quality
impairment. According to data from the NC DWQ's Basinwde Assessment Report
(1999), Harrison Creek is rated `Good-Fair' for fish community and benthos
bioclassifications. The benthos bioclassification improved from `Fair' to `Good-Fair"
since the previous report data in 1993.
15
Predominant land-use practices associated with agriculture and forestry are sources of
impairment that may negatively impact faunal communities downstream. It is expected
that removal of sources of impairment and restoration of wetland habitats will enhance
the quality of waters draining into Harrison Creek. Restoration of natural groundwater
conditions will promote enhanced uptake/filtration of potentially nutrient-enriched
agricultural run-off and associated contaminants.
As documented by researchers at the Duke University Wetland Center (under the
direction of Dr. Curtis J. Richardson),. mitigation activities on Barra I resulted in a
significant decrease in nitrogen run-off from restored agricultural fields (refer to
Appendix Q. Clearly, such work has discernible benefits to the water quality of
downstream waters including the lower Cape Fear River Basin. In addition, enhanced
water quality directly benefits residents of New Hanover County, since municipal water
supplies are drawn from the Cape Fear River just above Lock and Dam #1 in
Elizabethtown, NC.
Due largely to physiographic characteristics, the restored wetland will increase the
buffering capacity of storm water runoff, thereby reducing the danger of flooding
downstream. Episodic peak runoff will be intercepted and discharged slowly over time.
Existing fields in agricultural production do not provide this flood attenuation value.
The restored habitat will also serve as refuge for resident and migratory fauna providing
the opportunity for increased recreational activity (including bird watching and/or
16
hunting). It should be noted that the entire 2,435-acre Barra Farms site is part of a wild
turkey restoration area. In addition, this area will continue to serve as an ideal setting for
academic groups to conduct research and/or teaching. Currently, the Duke University
Wetland Center uses Barra I for wetland research. Research can be expanded to
encompass Barra II upon initiation of the mitigation activities. Indeed, there are
numerous benefits to the local and regional community inherent in a project of this scope
and magnitude.
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION
A total of 1,812 acres of existing or previously altered wetlands will be restored,
enhanced, or preserved through the implementation of the mitigation plan. The proposed
location and extent of restoration, enhancement, and preservation is depicted in Figure
10. The areas currently in agricultural production and/or within the effective drainage
distance of existing canals/ditches will be restored via filling of ditches and vegetative
plantings. Based upon site evaluations and the corresponding DRAINMOD study, the
effective drainage distances has been determined to be up to 170 ft for small lateral (i.e.
tertiary) ditches (2 to 3 ft deep), and up. to 255 ft for collector ditches and canals (i.e.
primary and secondary) ditches (4 to 7 ft deep). Areas within the lateral drainage effect
of ditches will be restored via filling of ditches, grading, and plantings. Areas beyond the
lateral drainage effect that are have been previously cleared will be considered
enhancement. All other areas (including those actively timbered) will be preserved. The
17
entire Barra II mitigation site will be placed within a conservation easement - the terms
of which will prohibit any land-disturbing activity.
A. BANK SECTIONING
As mentioned previously, the Sponsor is proposing to divide the Phase H bank site into
three sections that will be implemented over a period of time. Bank sectioning will not
affect the overall scope of the mitigation effort - nor will it affect total bank acreage and
credits. Rather, the sequence of mitigation activities to be implemented will be staggered
such that credit supply is paced with credit demand. The location and extent of the three
sections is graphically depicted in Figure 11. Table 2 outlines the acreage, mitigation
type and amount of credits yielded per section. Each of the sections will be surveyed and
conservation easement deeds conveyed to a third parry beneficiary to ensure long-term
protection of the entire Phase II bank site. Prior to the initiation of a new section, the
Bank Sponsor will provide written notification to the MBRT requesting authorization to
proceed. This notification will identify any amendments to the approved mitigation plan
that may be incorporated based upon the documented results of the previous section(s).
Section 1 (1,171 ac total) will be the first to be implemented. A total of 21,370 If of
ditches will be backfilled as part of this effort. All collector and lateral ditches will be
backfilled with the exception of those adjoining Section 2. Similar to the phasing
between Barra I and Barra II, the adjoining ditches and roadbeds/berms will be left in
place until such time that the next section is implemented. More than 132,000 seedlings
of characteristic tree and shrub species will be planted. Approximately 304 acres of

18
nonjurisdictional areas will be functionally restored via grading and planting within
Section 1.
Section 2 (335 acres) consists entirely of PC fields currently in crop production.
Approximately 62,100 if of collector and lateral ditches will be backfilled and over
142,000 seedlings of characteristic tree and shrub species planted. Mitigation activities in
this section will result in the restoration of 328 acres of headwater wetlands.
The final section to be implemented consists of PC fields located just north of the Phase I
bank site. Of the 306 total acres, 299 acres will be restored via the backfilling of
approximately 58,000 if of collector and lateral ditches and the planting of over 130,000
seedlings. In addition, the primary ditch (main outlet canal) situated between Phase I and
Phase II will be backfilled. The north-south outlet canal located along the western
boundary of all three sections will remain in place to maintain drainage for up-gradient
properties.
The following is more specific information pertaining to mitigation activities occurring
throughout the Bank II site (according to mitigation type):
B. RESTORATION
A total of 907 acres of the Barra II tract is targeted for restoration. Initial site preparation
will include grubbing and herbicide application of former agricultural fields. A water
soluble herbicide mixture (e.g. Accord, Rodeo, Chopper, Garlon 4, or equivalent) will be
19
applied with standard rates and methodology suitable for wetland mitigation site
development. Herbicide application will be conducted during a period considered
optimum for treatment (i.e. July/August).
Prior to grading, elevations of field crowns relative to adjacent ditch banks will be
recorded. This information will help identify specific grading and planting requirements
in areas that exhibit significant crowning. Backfilling of ditches/canals and associated
grading activities will restore the natural wetland hydroperiod of the bay system. Initial
grading work will focus on the filling of lateral (i.e. tertiary) and collector (i.e. secondary)
ditches on the tract. Once lateral and collector ditches have been completely filled, larger
canals (i.e. primary ditches) will be backfilled. Plugs consisting of finer, compacted
material will be used at prescribed intervals to reduce potential subsurface drainage
within the larger backfilled ditches. In addition, earthen berms (approximately 12" to
18") will be installed perpendicular to filled ditches to prevent gully erosion of former
drainageways during periods of increased surface runoff. These berms will be spaced
approximately 300 to 400 ft apart from each other. Specific grading activities are
illustrated in Figure 12. Fill material will come from existing roadbeds and spoil piles.
Removing roadbeds will also prevent access to the tract from trucks, SW's and other
vehicles. Small paths will be kept open with bush hogs to facilitate mitigation site
monitoring and management. Disking of former agricultural fields will be conducted as
needed prior to site planting.

20
The restored wetland is intended to exhibit hydrologic conditions characteristic of
relatively undisturbed bay forest/Carolina bay systems occurring within the ecoregion. A
water budget summarizing expected total monthly hydrologic inputs and outputs (during
dry, average, and wet years) is provided in Table 3. Bay wetlands receive hydrologic
input primarily via precipitation. Generally, there are no additional surface water inputs
or outputs. Therefore, the change in water volume for this type of wetland system can be
best approximated by changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration, and infiltration rates.
In addition, hydrologic response to restoration activities on the site can be more
accurately predicted from the DRAINMOD analysis provided in Appendix E.
DRAINMOD is an effective tool for predicting site hydrology since the model evaluates
daily climatic conditions over a thirty year, long-term analysis. Based upon site-specific
DRAINMOD analysis, wetland hydrology is met when parallel ditches (averaging 3-ft
depths) are spaced at intervals greater than 300 ft apart. Considering the lack of
hydrologic outputs (i.e. surface water outflow or lateral seepage) of Carolina bay
systems, removal of interior drainage features (i.e. ditches) will provide for a significant
increase in water storage and the establishment of wetland hydrology across the site.
Proposed restored areas are divided into two distinct plant communities based upon soil
characteristics, landscape position, and restored hydrologic conditions. The location and
extent of the restored communities, bay forest/Carolina bay and wet pine
flatwood/savannah, are depicted in Figure 10. The bay forest/Carolina bay community
will be planted within deep organic soils (i.e. Croatan series) of lower landscape positions
while the wet pine flatwood/savannah community will be planted in slightly higher

21
topographic areas of the site (mapped as Torhunta and Leon soil series). Aerial
topographic survey data of the bank site has been acquired. These data are currently
being processed prior to final map production. In addition, a boundary map of
Torhunta/Leon soils will be produced and submitted as an addendum to this document
upon completion. Both the topographic survey and the soil delineation map will be used
to identify more accurately the boundary of the wet pine flatwood/savannah habitat to be
restored. Planting for both habitat types will be conducted concurrently or immediately
after grading work during the winter or early spring (i.e. January 15 to March 15).
As defined by Schafale and Weakley (1990), Carolina bays are a subset of high pocosins
and/or bay forests occupying lower landscape positions within organic-rich deposits.
These wetlands are characteristically nutrient poor (i.e. ombrotrophic) and are subject to
seasonal saturation or flooding. Characteristic species include loblolly bay, sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea borbonia), pond pine, swamp tupelo (Nyssa
bitlora), red maple, loblolly pine and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides).
Understory species typically include fetterbush, American titi, and gallberry (Schafale
and Weakley 1990).
Planted species of the restored bay will be consistent with those typically found in
undisturbed bay forests. Target planted species will include pond pine, American white
cedar, black gum, swamp tupelo, water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) and bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum). Tree species will be planted on 10-ft spacings, corresponding to
435 trees per acre. (Refer to Table 4 for a list of plant species and quantities targeted for

22
J the bay wetland restoration.) It is expected that characteristic shrub species (including
(
sweet bay, loblolly bay, gallberry, American tiff, and fetterbush) will recruit naturally into
these restored areas.
Wet pine flatwoods/savannahs of slightly higher landscape position and mineral soils will
also be restored as part of Barra II. As defined by Schafale and Weakley (1990), these
communities occur in seasonally wet conditions on flat (or nearly flat) Coastal Plain
sediments. Canopy species typically include longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly
pine, and pond pine. Characteristic understory shrub species include gallberry, sweet
bay, red bay, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and creeping blueberry (Vaccinium
crassifolium). According to Schafale and Weakley (1990), the association between pine
flatwoods and savannahs is generally not well defined. Savannahs and flatwoods may
represent shifts in vegetation composition in response to long-term fire regimes.
Savannahs typically exhibit higher herbaceous diversity and less dense shrub understory
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Characteristic species to be planted within the restored pine flatwood/savannah habitat of
the mitigation site include longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and water oak (Quercus nigra).
(Refer to Table 4 for a list of plant species/quantities in these restored areas.) Herbaceous
and understory vegetation characteristic of the restored habitat are expected to recruit
naturally.
23
C. ENHANCEMENT
A total of 215 acres of partially drained wetlands will be enhanced via the removal of
drainage ditches and the reestablishment of characteristic wetland vegetation. Areas of
proposed enhancement are depicted in Figure 10. Enhancement areas that are
unvegetated at the time of construction will be planted with characteristic tree species at a
density of 435 trees per acre.
D. PRESERVATION
A total of 621 acres of non-drained wetlands are targeted for preservation (Figure 10).
These wetlands will be preserved through appropriate legal covenants. These covenants
will assure that the wetlands will be protected in their natural state in perpetuity (refer to
Section VIII). The preservation area consists of relatively undisturbed jurisdictional
wetlands. Wetland hydrology of this area remains unaltered by drainage features of the
site. As such, these wetlands exhibit seasonal saturation and inundation characteristic of
natural, undisturbed bay wetlands located in the region. The reference plot will be
located within this relatively undisturbed preservation area (refer to Section V).
V. MONITORING PLAN
Upon agency concurrence of the final wetland mitigation plan, mitigation site activities
will be initiated during the following summer in Section 1. Staff environmental scientists
will be present during project construction to ensure that the work is consistent with the
proposed design. An `as-built' survey will be prepared to document site conditions
immediately post-construction. The mitigation site will be monitored annually for a

24
period of 5 years (or until such time deemed successful) to document site development
over time. The site will be evaluated based upon performance criteria related to
vegetative density and wetland hydrology.
The primary success criteria for the Barra II mitigation site will be:
(1) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre
at the end of 3 years (post-planting) and/or 260 trees per acres at the end of 5
years (post planting). r
(2) No single volunteer species (most notably, red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet
gum) will comprise more than 50% of the total composition at year 2 or 3. If
this occurs, remedial procedures/protocols outlined in the contingency plan
(refer to Section VI of this document) will be implemented. During year 4 &
5, no single volunteer species, comprising over 50% of the total composition,
may be more than twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs,
remedial procedures outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented
(3) If, within thefirst three years, any species exhibits greater than 50%
mortality, the species will be either replanted or an acceptable replacement
species will be planted in its place as specified in the contingency plan.
(4) Hydrology during the growing season must be szfficient to meet the guidelines
set forth within the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Technical Report Y-87-1). Therefore, the hydrologic criterion will be the
establishment of a static water table at, or within, 12" of the soil surface for
5% of the growing season (equivalent to 12 days based upon SCS-established
growing season dates) during periods of normal rainfall for the restored wet
pine flatwoodlsavannah and 12.5% of the growing season for the restored bay
forest/Carolina bay (equivalent to 30 days).
A. VEGETATION MONITORING
The vegetation monitoring protocol is based upon accepted methods used for the Barra I
site. One-hundred and eighty-five (185) permanent 0.1-acre plots (equivalent to
1 Volunteer species can be counted toward meeting the success criteria upon evaluation of site-specific
conditions and concurrence by MBRT members.
25
approximately 2% of the restored wetland area) will be established and monitored for

vegetative success criteria. A proportional number of monitoring plots will be located
within each of the three sections. Within each section, plots will be located via stratified
random sampling (allowing also for a proportional number of plots per area of habitat
type restored). A subset of the vegetation plots will be paired with groundwater
monitoring well (refer to Figure 13). GPS coordinates for the centers of each sampling
plot will be recorded and included with the `as-built' survey and subsequent annual
monitoring reports. During monitoring, surviving planted individuals and volunteer
individuals will be enumerated within each plot.
B. HYDROLOGY MONITORING
Shallow groundwater hydrology will be monitored via twenty-four (24) automated wells
(RDS, Inc. Ecotone-20s) located within the restoration and enhancement areas (refer to
Figure 13). The distribution of these wells will be representative of the acreage
monitored per section. Wells will be installed in accordance with installation methods
outlined in the Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program (WRAP) Technical Note 00-02
(Sprecher 2000). Water levels will be recorded once daily. Data will be downloaded
from the wells every three months (i.e. once quarterly). Data from well downloads will
be compiled and graphically displayed to demonstrate hydroperiods of monitored areas.
As stated above the primary hydrologic success criteria will be the establishment of a
static water table at, or within, 12" of the soil surface for 5% of the growing season
2 As defined by the Soil Conservation Service, the growing season for Cumberland County is 241 days
(beginning March 17 and ending November 12).
26
(equivalent to 12 days based upon SCS-established growing season dates) during periods
of normal rainfall within the restored wet pine flatwood/savannah community and 12.5%
of the growing season (equivalent to 30 days of the growing season) during periods of
normal rainfall for the restored bay forest/Carolina bay community.
Three permanent reference wells will be installed within the preservation area of the
northern portion of the mitigation site. This area consists of an approximate 500-acre
block of relatively undisturbed jurisdictional wetlands. Wetland hydrology of this area
remains unaltered by drainage features of the site. As such, these wetlands exhibit
seasonal saturation and inundation characteristic of natural, undisturbed bay wetlands
located in the ecoregion. The location of the reference wells are depicted in Figure 13.
C. ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS
Annual monitoring reports will provide quantitative data of vegetative success,
comparative hydrographs (restoration area vs. reference area), qualitative observations,
and conclusions pertaining to mitigation site development per section. Each section will
be monitored and evaluated independently for the purpose of determining appropriate
credit release. However, all sections will be submitted under one cover. Monitoring
reports will be submitted no later than November 30th of each year.
VI. CONTINGENCY PLAN
Annual monitoring will help to identify site maintenance needs over time. If the site does
not fulfill established success criteria, it will be necessary to evaluate causative factors
27
resulting in site deficiencies and to identify (and subsequently implement) appropriate
contingency measures. Any remedial efforts will be implemented based upon site-
specific conditions and project objectives. Most often, contingency measures are
prompted by deficiencies related to vegetative success and/or site hydrology.
If the vegetative success criteria are not achieved, then monitoring data and field
conditions will be evaluated to identify the reason for the deficiency. For instance, if
certain plant species demonstrate high mortality in a particular location of the site, then
an appropriate replacement species may be planted. If species mortality is attributed to
unsuitable conditions related to microtopography or hydrology, then selective re-grading
or the use of water-control structures may be needed to remedy site hydrology.
If opportunistic species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, or sweet gum) are of an
abundance and height that would potentially compromise the health and success of
planted species, then these individuals may be removed either through mechanical means
and/or herbicidal application. Physical removal of undesirable species may involve either
hand cutting or mowing depending on the abundance and frequency of these individuals.
A ground-applied water soluble herbicide (suitable for forest management) may be used
in addition to, or in place of, mechanical removal. During the winter subsequent to
monitoring, a basal bark mixture (consisting of Garlon 4 or equivalent) may be used to
treat small, multiple stem individuals (characteristic of early volunteer species on wetland
mitigation sites). If the contingency measures are implemented during the summer, then
r? a cut stump treatment may be more appropriate. Either way, herbicide mixtures will be
l
28
applied with standard rates and methodology suitable for wetland mitigation site
management. Based upon stated success criteria, no single volunteer species, comprising
over 50% of the total vegetative composition, may be more than twice the height of the
planted trees. If this threshold is exceeded, then the remedial actions outlined above will
be implemented.
In addition to contingency measures related to vegetative success, well monitoring data
will be evaluated to identify potential deficiencies related to site hydrology. If the stated
success criteria are not achieved, then contingency measures (e.g. selective re-grading)
will be implemented. If the site exhibits excessive ponding (such that vegetative success
is compromised), then the use of water-control structures or grading may be necessary to
reduce the extent or duration of surface inundation. Grading may also be needed if
former ditch corridors exhibit significant galley erosion or subsurface drainage.
Ultimately, monitoring data and field evaluations will be used to determine the need for
specific contingency measures to be implemented.
VII. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
It is anticipated that initial mitigation site activities (i.e. grubbing and herbicide
application) will be initiated in July 2005. Currently, the Barra II bank site is under an
option to purchase that is valid until June 23, 2005. Upon acceptance of this site-specific
restoration plan, the tract will be purchased through fee simple title and a conservation
easement recorded on Section 1. Subsequent to the initial site preparation, grading will

29
be conducted (anticipated October 2005). Based upon this implementation schedule,
planting of Section 1 will occur during January 2006 and an `as-built' survey will be
completed during the Spring of 2006.
The bank sponsor is responsible for securing adequate performance, monitoring and
maintenance bonds for each Bank section as a form of financial assurance to cover
contingency actions in the event of the Phase II Bank default or failure (See Table 5).
Monitoring and maintenance bonds will be obtained to ensure monitoring for a five-year
period and to ensure that contingency actions are implemented in the event of wetland
restoration failure. Sample financial assurance documents in the form of monitoring and
Maintenance bonds are included in Appendix H.
A separate, long-term trust fund will be provided by the Sponsor for long-term
maintenance, management, and remedial actions acceptable to the MBRT. The trust fund
will be established upon completion of debiting of the Bank or at the end of the
monitoring period; whichever is longer.
VIII. CREDIT RATIOS AND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
The Mitigation Plan is intended to result in the forms and amounts, in acres, of wetland
compensatory mitigation depicted in Table 2. The credit release schedule (Table 6) is
adjusted to reflect the sectioning of the Barra H bank site. Successful implementation of
all three section of the mitigation bank site will result in the creation of 1,139 nonriverine

30
wetland credits. As. agreed to by MBRT members, the following ratios have been used to
calculate available bank credits:
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement 2:1
Preservation 5:1
The credit release schedule for the Bank, as depicted in Table 6, will be based upon
successful completion of the following tasks for each of the three Bank sections:
Task 1: Task 1 entails acquisition and protection of the Barra Farms (Phase II) Bank Site
(Section 1), completion of detailed mitigation planning, review of plan parameters by the
MBRT, and signing of the MBI Amendment. Protective covenants, easements, and
bonds on the property acceptable to the MBRT will also be obtained. Upon completion
of Task 1, 15% of the Bank credits for that section will be released.
Completion of Task 1 is a prerequisite for release of any credits from the Barra H Bank,
not withstanding completion of other tasks described below.
Task 2: Task 2 includes completion of all construction activities within a section of the
Phase II Bank. Ditches will be filled and spoil/roadbed material will be recontoured
within ditch corridors. Subsequently, soil preparation (if needed) and planting of
characteristic wetland trees will be completed. Documentation will be submitted to the
MBRT certifying completion of Task 2. Upon completion of Task 2, 15% of the section
bank credits will be released (30% cumulative).
Task 3: Task 3 involves implementation of the monitoring plan and submittal of annual
reports to the MBRT for a five-year monitoring period, or until success criteria have been
fulfilled, whichever period is longer. Hydrology and vegetation sampling will be
completed toward the end of each growing season (between September 1 and October

31
31). The data will be compiled and success/failure documented within the Bank. The
data will be submitted to the MBRT as an Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR).
Upon submittal of the AWMR demonstrating that success criteria are being fulfilled,
wetland credits in the section will be released as follows:
First AWMR (February 2006):
Second AWMR (February 2007):
Third AWMR (February 2008):
Fourth AWMR (February 2009):
Fifth AWMR (February 20010):
10% (40% cumulative)
15% (55% cumulative)
15% (70% cumulative)
10% (80% cumulative)
20% (100% cumulative)
Credit releases for Task 3 will occur only if success criteria are fulfilled as stipulated in
Section V of this plan.
IX. FINAL PROPERTY DISPENSATION
Ownership of the Bank will reside with the Sponsor who intends to provide fee simple
transfer of the property to the Sandhills Area Land Trust (SALT). Fee simple transfer
will occur upon completion of debiting of the Bank or the end of the monitoring period;
whichever is longer. A Conservation Easement Deed will be recorded on each section of
the Bank Site prior to the implementation of restoration activities. As the grantee of this
easement, SALT will be responsible for maintaining the Bank in strict accordance with
the provisions expressed therein and will be responsible for protection of the Bank Site in
perpetuity. A copy of the Conservation Easement Deed is attached in Appendix I.
32
X.. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Griffith et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands (Second Edition). Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Oaks, R.Q., Jr. and J.R. Dubar. 1974. Post-Meiocene Stratigraphy, Central and Southern
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Utah State University Press. Logan, UT.
Richardson, C.J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands?
BioScience 33 (10): 626-633.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakely. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
N.C.
Sharitz R.R. and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs
(pocosins) and Carolina bays: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Sciences. FWS/OBS-82/04. 103 pp.
Skaggs, R.W. et al. 1995. Reference Simulations for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology, in
Campbell, K. (ed.), Versatility of Wetlands in the Agricultural Landscape.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 1-10.
Sprecher, S. W. (2000). "Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands," ERDC
TN-WRAP-00-02, U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS.
Thomwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather. The Water Balance. Philadelphia, PA; Drexel
Institute of Technology, Climatological Laboratory, Publication No. 8.
Thom, B.G. 1967. Coastal and Fluvial Landforms: Horry and Marion Counties, South
Carolina. Louisiana State University Coastal Studies Institute. Coastal Studies
Series 19, Technical Report 44. Baton Rouge, LA.
USDA-SCS. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland County, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 01-01.
Guidance for the Establishment and Maintenance of Compensatory Mitigation
Projects under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404(a) of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 13 pp.
C
33
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use
and Operation of Mitigation Banks; Notice. Vol. 60, No. 228. l Opp.
Walbridge, M.R. 1993. Functions and values of forested wetlands in the southern United
States. Journal of Forestry 91: 15-19.
Walton, W.C. 1989. Analytical Groundwater Modeling. Lewis Publishers: Chelsea,
Michigan. 173 pp.

34
?D
rnr
rn
U,
TABLE 1: ELEVEN-DIGIT HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE
AREA OF BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
(PHASE II)1
03030006010
03030004060
03030006020
03030006090
03030004110
03030004090
03030004070
03030004080
03030004120
03030004100
03030004130
03030004140
03030006030
03030006080
03030006060
03030006040
03030006110
03030006100
03030006050
03030005020
03030006120
03030006130
03030005030
03030006140
03030004150
03030005010
i Based upon standard mitigation guidelines (including those set forth by NCDENR and the NC WRP, the
Barra II bank may be suitable for providing compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts occurring
anywhere within the same 8-digit hydrologic unit (03030005 - Lower Cape Fear). Therefore, use ofthe
Bank for compensatory mitigation will also be considered outside of the 11-digit units listed above upon
review and analysis of other mitigation alternatives at the time of permit issuance.
TABLE 2. MITIGATION ACREAGE & CREDITS BY SECTION - BARRA
FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
Replacement
Section Mitigation Type Area Mitigation Credit (acre
(acres) Credit Ratio credits
Nonriverine
1 Pocosin/Carolina Bay 304 1:1 304
Restoration
1 Nonriverine Wetland 152 2:1 76
Enhancement
1 Nonriverine Wetland 660 5:1 132
Preservation
1 Upland Buffer 55 ---- ----
Subtotal 1,171 512
Section 1
Nonriverine
2 Pocosin/Carolina Bay 304 1:1 304
Restoration
Nonriverine Pine
2 Flatwoods/Savannah 24 1:1 24
Restoration
2 Upland Buffer 7 ---- ----
Subtotal 335 328
Section 2
Nonriverine
3 Pocosin/Carolina Bay 299 1:1 299
Restoration
3 Upland Buffer 7 ----
Subtotal 306 299
Section 3
TOTAL . 1,812 1,139
TABLE 3: WATER BUDGET - BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
Year Precipitation PETS Seepage Loss
(Ezfdtration 4 Change in
Storage
D Year -1976
Jan-76 3.44 1.01 0.04 2.39
Feb-76 1.29 2.58 -0.04 -1.33
Mar-76 2.82 1.73 0.04 1.05
Apr-76 0.18 1.06 0.04 -0.92
May-76 6.75 4.80 0.04 1.91
Jun-76 3.51 4.86 0.04 -1.39
Jul-76 2.37 5.69 0.04 -3.36
Aug-76 3.66 4.29 0.04 -0.67
Sep-76 2.84 3.82 0.04 -1.02
Oct-76 4.65 1.74 0.04 2.87
Nov-76 4.06 0.94 0.04 3.08
Dec-76 5.00 0.75 0.04 4.21
Annual Totals 40.57 33.28 0.48 6.81
AveraLye Year -1980
Jan-80 3.77 1.13 0.04 2.60
Feb-80 1.77 1.09 0.04 0.64
Mar-80 5.93 2.17 0.04 3.72
Apr-80 3.61 3.06 0.04 0.51
May-80 1.77 4.83 0.04 -3.10
Jun-80 6.16 4.91 0.04 1.21
Jul-80 2.64 3.28 0.04 -0.68
Aug-80 2.46 4.76 0.04 -234
Se 80 7.91 2.74 0.04 5.13
Oct-80 4.99 1.11 0.04 3.84
Nov-80 2.52 0.79 0.04 1.69
Dec-80 2.55 0.65 0.04 1.86
Annual Totals 46.08 30.52 0.48 15.08
Wet Year -1975
Jan-75 5.72 1.57 0.04 4.11
Feb-75 5.45 1.98 0.04 3.43
Mar-75 5.76 3.00 0.04 2.72
Apr-75 2.27 3.51 0.04 -1.28
May-75 3.69 5.65 0.04 -2.00
Jun-75 1.99 5.73 0.04 -3.78
Jul-75 9.08 5.07 0.04 3.97
Aug-75 1.12 5.35 0.04 4.27
Sep-75 10.28 2.89 0.04 7.35
Oct-75 1.52 2.48 0.04 -1.00
Nov-75 2.20 1.67 0.04 0.49
Dec-75 4.70 0.98 004 3.68
Annual Totals 53.78 39.88 0.48 13.42
2 Values obtained from WETS Tables (Cumberland County).
3 Potential evapotranspiration (PET) calculated using temperature-based Thornwaite PET formula
(Thornwaite, 1955)
4 Hydrologic conductivity rate of confining layer obtained from Walton (1989).
TABLE 4: PLANTING REGIME'- BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE II
Nonriverine Pine Flatwood/
Community Type Pocosin/
Savannah TOTAL
Carolina Bay
Stem Target: 435/acre 435/acre
Area (acres): (907) (24) (931)
SPECIES # planted # planted #planted
(Wetland Indicator (% of total) (% of total)
Status
Atlantic White 39,454 (10) 39,454
Cedar
(OBL)
Bald Cypress 78,909 (20) 78,909
(OBL)
Black Gum 39,454 (10) 1,044 (10) 40,498
(FAC)
Pond Pine 78,909 (20) 78,909
(FACW+)
Swamp Tupelo 78,909 (20) 78,909
(OBL)
Red Bay 78,909 (20) 78,909
(FACW)
Longleaf Pine 7,308 (70) 7,308
(FACU+)
Water Oak 1,044 (10) 1,044
(FAC)
Willow Oak 1,044 (10) 1,044
(FACW-)
TOTAL TREES 394,544 10,440 404,984
'Please note that plant material will be ordered at least six months prior to planting from nurseries
providing trees/shrubs of local genetic stock. Plant material will be obtained primarily from the
NC Forest Tree Seedling Nursery Program (Claridge Nursery in Goldsboro, NC). Other nurseries
may include Coastal Plain Nursery (Edenton, NC) and Cill Ide Nursery (Raleigh, NC). If the
nurseries fail to deliver the ordered plant material, acceptable replacement plant species
characteristic of bay/pocosin wetlands (e.g. loblolly bay, sweet bay, etc.) will be used.
TABLE 5. PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING / MAINTENANCE BONDS
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
Section Performance Bond
Amount Monitoring / Maintenance
Bond Amount
1 $80,000 $50,000
2 $160,000 $100,000
3 $225,000 $120,000
TABLE 6. MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE - BARRA FARMS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H (SECTION 1)
Task Projected Percentage Credits Cumulative
Completion of Credits Released Credits Released
Date Released (%
cumulative
1.0 Signing of the MBI 4/2005 15(15) 76.8 76.8
Amendment
2.0 Completion of all 3/2006 15(30) 76.8 153.6
Restoration Activities
3.0 Monitoring Plan ___ __ ___ e
3.1 Year 1: Fulfill Success 2/2007 10(40) 51.2 204.8
Criteria
3.2 Year 2: Fulfill Success 2/2008 15(55) 76.8 281.6
Criteria
3.3 Year 3: Fulfill Success 2/2009 15(70) 76.8 358.4
Criteria
3.4 Year 4: Fulfill Success 2/2010 10(80) 51.2 409.6
Criteria
3.5 Year 5: Fulfill Success 2/2011 20(100) 102.4 512
Criteria
TOTAL 100 512
I ?
W
rn

nu ' " -
H011
SCALE I"= 2.4 miles
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional EC®BANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11 Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 1. Vicinity map.
Cumberland County, NC December 2004

Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
PIN
--
SCALE I"= 3000'
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK Figure 2. USGS topographic
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc. map. Site located within
Cumberland County, NC December 2004 the Autryville quad.
UWA Categories For 8-Digit Hydrologic Units in North Carolina
&EW
WATALIGA ^?£+aA'at user Y.v}(-n L _ _ t! •, '01DWAN
?' _ 1 O+C 4;'J7
1.102
mks "`'"t'• - __ '^
704?: -3C9G2D",' •:aW•^•
is
' ti:dC1C? -
td?.JxxxJ vADKJN `'xs ROANOKE PASQVOTANK
_... ^ i OE a•_ _a:.a>2 TAR-PAMLICO
Lim- ax- .. finds Yrd:A '.• _
CATA}4BA ??t -we,?... •..i... r e•ik.:
91 WIILW?t L-1 Ttl
. -_:" .%' t_•.._-,. i 03CCF?• •r=02103
_. -. _ rat :le.xa:a-
- 70th i1'_G':CJ CY:_1?3 NELrSE • :.?. Yv,bma
LIE.. FRE*M BROAD •?xc2c2c'.
:. - evt. ?r .1 ?• Ps?tca ., _..,:•,?
to i 1 ,3050705 BROAD R-
r B-1 CAPE FEAR Lt 203 s: 1
tsv,.:L.e_• woe „1'+ ... W(W10
E020CY`< 0E0+G231 ?lc:u'v--'o4 - " • "t'- _ _L1 -?
/
SITE LUMBER ;WTEC/1rK
i
NC River Basin Boundary Lower Cape Fear
UWACategones ®?®?®®O?
Category 6 - Need'snq Restoration - High Pri®rky c t J
Category G - Naedinq Restoration
Category H - Watersheds Meeting Goa% ?nCRUdiaiq Those Needing Action to Sustain Water Quaky x4'wa is r
Category IR - Having Pr sfine,Sensitive Aquatic Condi'tucns on Lands Adat,ilni,stered by GovernlEnt
Category i`J - 'nsutfi:cient Data to Assesw
ti
ICU a 100 fN' k+
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional EC®BANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 3. 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Map.
Cumberland County, NC December 2004
Project boundary
Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11
Cumberland County, NC
EC®BANK
Lund Management Group, Inc.
December 2004
SCALE I"= 3000'
Figure 4. 1998 aerial
infra-red photograph of the
Barra Farms Tract.

NC Highway 210
-------------- ----------
LEGEND
Existing Soil Roads
Existing Collector Ditch (4'-7' deep)
Existing Lateral Ditch (2'-4' deep)
Drainage Canal (ie. primary ditch)
Property Boundary
--- Existing Roads
?- Direction of Surface Flow
+ 1 t, t I T T T
Not to kale
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Cumberland County, NC
EcC®BANK
Land Management Croup, Inc.
December 2004
Figure 5. Drainage network showing
direction of surface flow.
SCALE I"= 3000'
LEGEND
Nora-jurisdictional areas
Jurisdictional 404 Wetlands
Existing Barra I Mitigation Bank

Note: Results of mapping are based on DRAIN MOD studies and site evaluations.
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Cumberland County, NC
EC®BANK
Laud Management Group, Inc.
December 2004
Figure 6. Mapped jurisdictional wetlands.
LEGEND
CC Approved commenced areas that were not completed by January 1, 1995
CC Commence conversion areas completed by January 1, 1995
PC PC Areas (wetlands converted prior to December 23, 1985) SCALE 1" = 3000'
EC®BANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
Figure 7. PC/CC status.
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11
Cumberland County, NC
December 2004
1
?j
i-

J}
??'0' i

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Cumberland County, NC

Ij
r'
? rvb ? ? _ ? A4A

EC®BANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
December 2004
V i

SCALE I"= 3000'
Figure R. SCS soil survey
for Cumberland County.
Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
z? ? •? ' } 1's\. ` r? , ? .;? ?? ? ?ti,.'• a ? v ??`.l'?,?-' : ? . i J'? (,, ?. ? / 7?? ?',.. ?,??;-`r J?.-\? .risc.?i ,.?zi? _
1 - ??'.._?,.??`? ?. /mil / J' ( •? Y `?`+. ?'
ate( (r , , ?¢ r y, /\ /? ' a -
10
( o.r'ir'e nw?.? .. . \.:... a..i? _' r? ?• ?? 1 ' _ 1?Y? (? ? J i:.?Gi is.r..,T,
>11 . . ?.
h 0303
40
_s 17
Miti
gation Bank Service Area
Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank
Legend - `
-1 Service Area
IN 0 T CJ Municipality 14-Digit Boundary
11-Digit Boundary
_ r
- 8-Digit Boundary
?? --? -3" V
° s ?o eats Hydirogralt'hy
p x
Figure 9

LEGEND
PocosinBay restoration (883 acres)
PocosinBay Enhancement (215 acres)
PocosinBay Preservation (621 acres)
Pine Flatwoods/Savannah restoration (24 acres)
Remaining Uplands (69 acres)
Existing Barra 1 Mitigation Bank

NOTE: All restoration areas will be planted with characteristic species at a density of 435 trees/acre (see Table I in mitigation plan)
SCALE 1" = 3000'

Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional EC®BANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11 Land Management (croup, Inc. Figure 10. Mitigation plan for site.
Cumberland County, NC December 2004
SECTION 3: 306 ac total (Yield = 299 credits)
SCALE I" = 3000'
ECOBANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
December 2004
Figure 11. Phase II
Bank Sections
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regic
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11
Cumberland County, NC
SECTION 1: 1,171 ac total (Yield = 512 credits)
SECTION 2: 335 ac total (Yield = 328 credits)
Exi
Vertical Scale: I"- 3'
Horizontal Scale: I ° , 3'
L,ECEND
Areas of restored grade (ditch backfill)
Berm (12"-18" in height; 2-3' in width)
Property Boundary
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11 Land Management Croup, Inc.
Cumberland County, NC December 2004
SCALE I"= 3000'
Figure 12. Grading plan.
W*
W'
W•
?i
w w
LEGEND
Existing Barra I Mitigation Bank
W Well station only (reference wells denoted by W*)
SCALE 1" = 3000'
NOTE: Vegetation plots and wells within restored areas
will be located via stratified random sampling at the time
of planting. Plots and wells within enhancement and
preservation areas will be located in representative sites.

Color
Designation Habitat
Tye Mitigation
Type Size
(Acres) # of Veg.
Plots # of
Wells
Pocosin/Bay Restoration 908 181 18
Pocosin/Bay Enhancement 153 - 4
Pocosin/Bay Preservation 676 - 3
® Pine Flatwoods/Savannah Restoration 24 4 2
TOTAL 185 27
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional EC®BANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc.
Cumberland County, NC December 2004
Figure 13. Monitoring plan.
D
Drn
z
0
x
MITIGATION BANKING. INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA i
Prepared for:
I
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
6200 Falls of Neuse Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
i 1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
i
Prepared by:
I
EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina .27605
EcoScience
becernber 1998
MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR RllGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1=0 RHgAMIBLE
This agreement made and entered into on the day of.JW 1991, by Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Rank Corporation, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)•, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the North
Carolina Division of `V.*dtor Quality (NCDWQ), hereinafter collectively refers-; to as the
Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT).
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a mitigation bank designed to provide
t - compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section
` - 404 Clean Water Act permits or Section 401 Water Quality CartificatiOns in appropriate
circumstances.
The Sponsor is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing approximately 623
acres located in Cumberland County, North Carolina described in the Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank Stream and Wetlsnd Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan). The
Mitigation Plan is attached hereto. The Mitigation Plan is hereto revised as described in
Exhibit A of this Banking Instrument (Supplemental Appendix to the Mitigation Plan. Response
to MRRT Comments and Revisions to the Mitigation Plan).
The agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the Bank Site is a suitable mitigation bank site,
avid that implementation of the !Mitigation Plan is likely to result in net gains in wetland and
stream functions at the Funk Site.
Therefore, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the fallowing
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this agreement-
Paga 1 of 14
1
MB I
f
s
i
2.0 GENERAL PRO
2.1 Goals: The goal of the mitigation bank is to restore and enhance streams, riverine
wetlands, nonrivenne wetlands, and their functions and values. Restoration and enhancement
activities are designed to compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable wetland
and stream impacts authorized by Clean Water Act permits or Water Quality Certifications in
circumstances deemed appropriate by USACE or NCDWQ after consultation with members
of the MBRT.
2.2 Additions to the Bank Site; The Sponsor may request the addition of adjacent lands to
the Bank Site. Such a request shall be accompe-isd by a Site-Specific Restoration Plan which
follows the general format.of the Mitigation Plan and depicts the location and describes the
hydraulic interaction between the addition and th's existing Bank Site, In addition, the Site-
Specific Restoration Plan shall include specific provisions concerning oredit.ratios, a schedule
i" for release of credits, financial assurances, and property disposition.. The MBRT shall review
the Site-Specific Restoration Plan, request. additional information if needed, and
approveldisapprove the request for addition within 90 days of submittal. In the event.the
request for addition is not approved, specific modification suggestions may be provided by
the MBRT to the Sponsor. In the event of approval, the additional area shall be deemed a
portion of the Bank Site and the contents of this agreement not inconsistent with the
approved Site-Specific Restoration flan shall apply to that area: An updated mitigation credit
determination will subsequently be submitted which depicts the amount of credit, type of
credit, and credit release schedule generated by approved additions to the Bank Site.
2.3 Use of Credits: Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and stream impacts
authorized by Cleary Water Act permits or Water Quality Certifications must be in compliance
with the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations, including but not limited to the
404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable
Federal and State legislation, rules, regulations, and policies. This agreement has been
drafted following the guidelines set forth in the "Federal Guidance forthe Establishment, Use,
and Operation of Mitigation Banks," 60 Fed. Rec. 58606, .November 28, 1995 (Guidance).
Page 2 of 14
IMB 1 2
2.4 Role of the M613D The MBRT shall be chaired by the representative from USACE,
Wilmington District. The MBRT shall review monitoring and accounting reports more fully
described in Sections 3.3 and 4.4 below. In addition, the MBRT will review requests for
additions to the Bank (Section 2.2), or proposals for remedial actions proposed by the
Sponsor, or any of the agencies represented on the MBRT. The MBRT's role and
responsibilities are more fully setforth in Sections ii.C. 3 & 6 of the-Guidance. The MBRT will
work to reach consensus on its actions.
USACE, after any required notice and comment process, shall make all decisions concerning
the amount and type of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted
wetland and stream ' impaC~, and whether-or not the use of credits from the R:ink is
appropriate to offset those impacts.
The parties to this agreement understand that, where practicable, on-site, in-kind
(? J compensatory mitigation is preferred, unless use of the Rank is determined by USACE to be
t environmentally preferable orit is determined by USACI_ that practicable on-site andlor in-kind
mitigation opportunities are not available.
3.0 MiTtCATION PLAN
3.1 General pas -dotion. The Bank Site is composed of approximately 623 acres (ac) of
interstream flats, former Carolina Says, and historic stream origins which have been ditched
and drained to support agricultural and siivicultural activities. This size offers opportunities
for nonriverine wetland, rivedne (riparian) Wetland, and stream restoratian and enhancement.
_ j
In addition, surrounding areas within the former wetland complex are available for expansion
of the Rank Site which can be phased over a period of time. A more detailed description of
the baseline conditions on the site is contained in Sections 1.0 through 4.0 of the Mitigation
Plan.
3.2 Site Modifications: The Sponsor has completed all work described in Section 6.0 of the
l mitigation Plan, Stream repair and ephemeral pool construction has been completed and ditch
flaws diverted into the restored floodplain where planned. Ditches have been backfilled and
Page 3 of 14
MS 1 3
spoidroadway fill recontoured within the ditch corridors. Soil preparation and planting of
characteristic wetland trees has been completed. The purpose of the modifications, and the
objective of the Bank., is to re-direct the watershed into 2400 linear feet of historic stream
channel; to restore 451 acres of drained former wetlands to riverine and nonriverine wetlands,
and to enhance 172 acres of disturbed wetlands (Table 1, copied from Table 10 in the
Mitigation Plan),

3.3 Site Monitoring: The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described in Section 7.0
of the Mitigation Plan- (Monitoring Plan ) and as amended in Exhibit A (Revisions to the
(Mitigation Plan). The Bank Site will be monitored for a five year period after implementation
is completed or until such time as the MBRT determir_ =-s that the Success Criteria have been
met, whichever occurs later.
The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities at the Bank Site, and for the overall operation and management of the bank.
The Sponsor shall provide the reports described in Section 7.0 of the Mitigation Plan to each
member of the MBRT.
3.4 Contingency: USAGE shall review said reports, and may, at any time, after consultation
with the Sponsor and the MBRT, direct the Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank Site.
Remedial action required by USAGE shall be designed to achieve the success criteria specified
in Section 7.0 of the Mitigation Plan and Exhibit A. All remedial actions required under this
paragraph shall include a schedule, which shall take into account physical and climatic
conditions.
The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above
paragraph.
in the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required monitoring and maintenance criteria, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial
action to all members of the MBRT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the
concurrence of USAGE, in consultation with the MBRT.
[Z___ A -,C 1 A
ru
H
(A

TABLE 1
MITIGATION CREDIT
BARRA FAR?t s CAFE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
Mitigation Design Unit Area
(acres) Mitigation Credit Ratio' Replacement Credit
(acre credits)
stream Restoration (2400 linear fleet) 1:1 2400 linear feet
Riparian (Riuerinel Wetland 14 1.9:1 7
Restoration
Headwater Slope Wetland Restoration 38 1.90 20
(cropland)
Headwater Slope Welland 60 41 15
Enhdnoement (forested landl
Nonriuerlne Groundwater Fiat Wetland 324. 1.8;1 170
Restoration, (cropland and forested'
land within-60 to 100 f.t from ditches)
NDridverine Groundwater Flat. Wetland 112 4:1 28
Enhancement (forested land)
Upland/Wetland Ecotone Restoration 49 ----? ---?
Wetland Drainage Buffers2 26 --- ----Z
TOTAL 623 2.8:1 240

1: Mitigation credit ratios denote mitigation acres : impact acres
2: Restoration of upland.ecotones and wetland buffers generates reduced credit ratios for wetiand restoration in the complex,
Based'on MBRT discussions, mitigation ratios in restored wetiand areas are reduced to. 1.9 : t to reflect wetiand functional
benefits resulting from upland buffers, aootones, and streamside management : Ones (SMZ5l.

4.0 USE OF MITIGATION CREDITS
4.1 Geographic Service Aiea: The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area
wherein a bank can reasnnably be expected to provide appropriate compensation for impacts
to similar wetland aridlor other stream or aquatic resources. The, geomorphic setting of the
Bank includes rionriverihe flats, nonriverine depressions, and riverine, first order blackwater
streams within the Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Bank is located in
proximity to, or -on the boundary between three hydrophysiographic cataloging units depicted
on the "Hydrologic Unit Map - 1374 State of North Carolina", prepared by the U.S, Geological
Survey. Cataloging units, located within the inner Coastal Plan region of the river basin,
inc:.:de 03030004, 03030006, and 03030008 as depicte in Figure 15 of the Mitigation
Plan. These Cataloging Units support similar Coastal Plain-natural communities, wetlands,
and drain into the lower Cape Fear River. Therefore, the eastern and western limits of the
service area are defined by the outer boundaries of the Cape Fear River Basin contained within
the above-listed Cataloging Units.
The southem and riorthem boundaries of these river sub-basins have been modified based
primarily upon 11 digit watersheds in the region. To the south, watersheds in the Wilmington
Area have been excluded due to Karst geomorphology and regional aquifer issues identified
by the MBRT. The MBRT has further restricted the service area north of Wilmington due to
expected development patterns in the region and the, potential for wetland compensatory
mitigation in proximity to these developments. To the north, the service area has been
reduced along 11 digit watershed boundaries to exclude Raleigh Belt portions of the Cape
Fear basin (Figure 15 of the Mitigation Plani. The service .area is inclusive of the 11 digit
watersheds listed in Table 2,
Use of the Hank for compensatory mitigation may also be considered outside of the
designated Geographic Service Area if this option is preferable to other mitigation alternatives:
It is understood that Geographic Service Area expansion will be considered if the area of the
Bank is expanded.
Page 6 of 14
MBI 6

?V\
A 2
ELEVEN DIGIT ROL©GICAL TWITS IN BARR.A FARMS CAFE FEAR
REGIONAL BANK SERVICE AREA
03030006010
03030004060
03030006020
03030006040
03030004110
03030004040
03030004070
03030004080
03030004120
03030004100
03030064130
03030004140
03030006030
030300060&0
03030006060
03030006040
03030006110
03030006100
03030006060
03030005020
03030006120
03030006130 _
03030005030
03030006140
03036004150
03030005010 .

MA'r 7
4.2 Arnount and Typo of Credit= The Mitigation Plan is intended to resurr in the forms and
amounts, in acres, of wetland compensatory mitigation depicted in Table t (copied from Table
10 of the Mitigation-Plan). Successful implementation of the Mitigation Plan will result in the
creation of_ 240 riparian (riverine) and nonriverine wetiand mitigation credits, In addition,
2400 linear feet of first order, stream channel credit will be generated (Table 11.
It is anticipated by the parties to this Agreement that use of mitigation credits shall be "in-
kind"; riparian (riverine) wetland, nonriverine wetland, and first order, stream channel credits
will be used to offset riverine wetland, nonriverine wetland, and first order, stream channel
impacts.
It is anticipated by the parties to this agreement that in most cases in which USACE, after
consultation with members of the MBRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the bank
may be used to offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by Department of the Army
permits, for every acre of impact, one credit will be debited from the Bank. Deviations from
the one to one compensation ratio will be based on considerations of value of the wetlands
impacted, the severity of the impacts to wetlands, whether this compensatory mitigation is
in-kind, and physical proximity of the wetland impacts to the Bank Site.
All decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits from the Bank to offset impacts
to waiters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning the amount and type of such
credits to be used to offset wetland and water impacts authorized by Department of the Army
permits, shall be made by USACE,. pursuant to the Clean Water Act. and implementing
regulations and guidance, after notice of any proposed use of the Bank to the members of the
MBRT, and consultation with the members of the MBRT concerning such use.
4.3 Credit Release Schadule. The credit release schedule for the Bank, as depicted in Table
3, will be based upon successful completion of the following tasks:

Page B of 14
ME 1 H

6
H
lD
TABLE 3
MITIGATION CREDIT HELEASE SCHEDULE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
Projected Percent of Wetland Cumulative Stream Cumulative
Task Completion Credit Allotted Credit Wetland Channel Stream
Date f% cmiriulative) Allotted Credo Credit Channel
Allotted Allotted Allotted
1.0 Signing of the MBI 1211998 15115) 36 36 --- --
2.0 Completion of all ' 311998 15(301 36 72 -- ---
Restoration Activities
9.0 Monitoring Plan
3,1 Year 1: FulfiJI Success 1111996 10 (401 24• 96 - --
Criteria
3.2 Year 2t Fulfill -Success 4111999 15(65) 36 132 960 960
Criteria
3.3 Year .3: Fulfill Success 11/2000 11151170) 36 168 720 1660
Criteria
3.4 YearA: Fulfill Success 11/2001 10(801 24 192 240 1920
Criteria . ,
3.13 Year 9. Fulfill Success 1112002 20 (10UM 48 240 480 2400
Criteria
Insufficient data has tmen collected to fulfil success criteria for the Year I AWMR. Therefore, release of stream credit will, begin at
the end of Year 2-monitoring as depicted When sufficient data has been collected to evaluate restoration success.
r
i?
J!?
i?

Task 1: Task. 1 entails acquisition and protection of the Bank site, completion of detailed
mitigation planning, review of plan parameters by the MBRT, and signing of the MBI.
Protective covenants, easements, and bonds on the property acceptable to the MBRT will also
be obtained. Upon completion of Task I, 15% of the wetland Bank credits will be released.
r _
Completion of_ Task 1 Is a prerequisite for release of any credits from the Bank, not
withstanding completion of other tasks described below.
Task 2: Task 2 includes completion of all mitigation implementation activities at the Bank.
Stream repair and ephemeral pool construction will be completed and ditch flows diverted into
the restored r'.:odplain where planned. Ditches will be backfilled and ::poilfroadway fill will
be recontoured within the ditch corridors. Subsequently, soil preparation and planting of
characteristic wetland trees will be completed. Documentation will be submitted to the MBRT
certifying completion of Task 2. Upon completion of Task 2, 15 OA of the wetland Bank
credits will be released (30% cumulative), but no stream credits.
i ask 3; Task 3 involves implementation of the monitoring plan and submittal of annual
reports to the MBRT for a five year monitoring period, or until success criteria have been
fulfilled, whichever period is longer. Stream, hydrology, and vegetation sampling will be
completed towards the end of each growing season (between September 1 and October 31),
The data will be compiled and success/failure documented within the Bank. The data will be
submitted to the MBRT as an Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR). Upon submittal
of the AWMR showing that success criteria are being fulfilled, wetland credits will be released
as follows.
First AWMR {November 19"58): 10% (40% cumulative)
Second AWMR (November 1599): 15% (55% cumulative)
Third AWMR (November 2000): 15% (70% cumulative)
Fourth AWMR (November 2001): 10% (80% cumulative).
Fifth AWMR (November 270021; 20% (100% cumulative)
Page 10 of 14
MHz 10
?
- e
Credit releases for Task 3 will only occur if success criteria are fulfilled as stipulated in the
Mitigation Plan and Exhibit A. Stream credit release will begin at the and of the second year
of monitoring, assuming all success criteria are met. The released credits will be cumulative
to total 40% of the available straan credit at the en-d of the Second AWMR and
corresponding to the percent of wetland credit released in years 3,4, and 6 (Table 3), If
wetland or-stream recovery for the applicable year is delayed (i.e. lacking wstland plants, in=
stream aquatic fauna, or hydrology), the credit will be reserved for release upon submittal of
a subsequent report which verifies restoration success.
The final credit allotment will be released upon completion of the fifth AWMR, fulfillment of
success criteria, and provisions for dispensation/for:. term management of the property
acceptable to,the MBRT. ECOBANK reserves the right to request an expedited release of
credits if wetland restoration success is apparent over a period of time, and success criteria
are met and exceeded.
4.4 Accomdria Pmeadgraw - The. Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the.Bank, acceptable to the MBRT. Such
procedures shall include the generation of a report by the Sponsor showing-credits used at
the time they are debited from the Bank, which the Sponsor shall provide within 30 days of
the debit to each member of the MBRT. In addition, the Sponsor shall prepare an annual
report on each anniversary of the date of execution of thin agreement, showing all credits
used, and the balance of credits remaining, to each member of the MBRT, until such time as
all of the credits have been utilized, Dr. this agreement is otherwise terminated. All reports
will identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit (e.g., nonriverine forested
watland), and shall -include for each reported debit the USAGE Action 10 slumber for the
permit for which the credits were used, Exhibit B comprises a sample master credit ledger
which will be used to track and report Bank debits.
5.0 PROPERTY OtSPOSMON
Ownership of the Sank will reside with the Sponsor who intends to provide fee simple
transfer of the property to the appropriate land tmanagament-organization-as deterrninsd 11y
- the MBRT. Fee simple transfer will occur upon completion of debiting of the Bank or the and
Page 11 of 14 NCI
of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The transferee will be responsible for
maintaining the Bank in accordance with a Conservation Easement placed on the Bank Site
for perpetual protection as described in Section 8.0 of the Mitigation Plan.
6.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
6.1 Monitoring and Maintenance Bonds: The Sponsor is responsible for securing adequate
construction, monitoring, and maintenance bonds as a form of financial assurance to cover
contingency actions in the event of Bank default or failure. Construction and implementation
activities at the Bank Site were completed in January 1998; therefore, construction bonds
are no longer necc-7ary. However, monitoring and maintenance bonds ha;•^ been obtained
to ensure monitoring for a five year period and to ensure that contingency actions are
implemented in the event of wetland or stream restoration failure. Financial Assurance
Documents in the form of Monitoring and Maintenance Bonds are included as Exhibit C.
6.2 Management`Trust Fund
A separate, long-term trust fund will be provided by the Sponsor for long-term maintenance,
management, and remedial actions acceptable to the iVIBRT. The trust fund will be
established upon completion of debiting of the Bank or at the end of the monitoring period,
which ever is longer.
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS
This agreement may be amended with the written consent of all the parties:
Notices, requests, and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at
their respective addresses provided below:
Sponsor:
Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Page 12 of 14
MBI 12
USACE:
Scott McLendon
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 27889-1000
USEPA:
Kathy Matthews
Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsythe St.
Atlanta, GA 30303
USFWS:
Kevin Moody
L-1. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 3326
Raleigh, NC 27636
NCWRC:
Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
901 Laroque Ave.
Kinston, NC 28501
NCDWQ:
Mac Haupt
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
I
k--
Page 13 of 14
MBI 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.

(See Attached Page 14c)
Col. T rry R. Y n Bluth William L. Cox
Wilm" gton Dis ict Engineer Chief, Wetland Section, Wetlands
U. S. Army Co ps of Engineers Coastal, and Water Quality Grants
Branch, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(See AttachedPage 14a)
John M. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(See Attached Page 14b)
Frank McBride
Director
North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission
(See Attached Page 14d)
Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
& It"
Miller McCarthy
President
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation
Alan G. Fickett
Secretary
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation
(Corporate Sea[)
Page 14 of 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Gape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
Z' 22_
John M. Hef er
Ecological ervices Supervisor
U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service

Page 14a
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
(t -
Frank McBride
DiFeetor t'c w` ACt-?cL8C?
North Carolinaldlife Resources Commission

Page 14b

?r
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
tlI m L. Cox
Chief, Wetlands Section, Wetlands,
Coastal, and Water Quality Grants
Branch, Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
t- l
Page 14c
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(t
Page 14d
D
co rn
z
0
x
ir.
i
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 5)
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:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina. 28402
[phone]
November 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .........................................................................................ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................:..............................................................................................1
2.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING ........................................................................................ 4
2.1 Monitoring Program ....................................................................:...........................4
2.2 Monitoring Results ..................................................................................................6
Groundwater Flats (GI) ..................................................................................... 6
Riverine Hoodplains (RF) .................................................................................. 7
Headwater Slopes (HS) ....................................................................................... 8
2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ................................................................................ 8
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ................................................................................12
3.1 Monitoring Program ..........................................................................................:...12
3.2 Monitoring Results ...............................................................................................13
Herbaceous Vegetation .....................................................................................13
Groundwater Flats ............................................................................................13
Headwater Slope ...............................................................................................13
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ..............................................................................14
4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT ........... 18
4.1 Pre-Restoration Conditions (January 1997 to November 1997) .................. ....... 18
4.2 Wetland Construction Activities (November 1997 to January 1998) ..................18
4.3 Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1998 to November 1998) ......................... 18
4.4 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1998 to October 1999) ............................20
4.5 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1999 to October 2000) ............................ 21
4.6 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001) ...........:................ 22
4.7 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2001 to October 2002) ............................ 22
5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 24
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 25
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mitigation Credit Release Schedule
Appendix B: Wetland Hydrology Data and Hydrographs for 2002
Appendix C: Wetland Vegetation Data for 2002
Appendix D: Summary of Hydrology and Vegetation Data (1999-2002)
Appendix E: Summary of Monitoring Plan
Appendix F: Photographs of Barra Farms
Appendix G: Heterogeneity in Soil and Vegetation Properties of a Restored Carolina Bay
Wetland
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map ................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2. Location of vegetation plots and wells ......................................................................... 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of hydrology monitoring data ......................................................................10
Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat .......................................................16
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat ....:....:...............................................17
ii
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 5)
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 (the 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). Wetland restorationlenhancement 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).
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 wetland parameters. The mitigation credit
schedule and monitoring plan are attached for reference in Appendices A and E.
This document represents the Annual Wetland Monitoring Report (AWMR) for Year 5 of the
monitoring plan. Monitoring was performed during the 2002 growing season for hydrology and
vegetation, 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 5 monitoring.
J.
In the beginning of the restoration process at the Bank, extremes in weather made achieving
success criteria difficult. Heavy rainfall in the winter/spring of 1998 and in the fall of 1999 created
ponding over much of the site and contributed to seedling mortality. As expected, Year 2
monitoring performed in the fall of 1999 revealed low seedling survivability, and subsequent
contingency measures were employed to increase survivorship. Six drainage pipes were installed
to alleviate ponding and over 40,000 seedlings were planted in the winter of 2000 to increase
species abundance and achieve success criteria. Because of these measures and subsequent
achievement of success criteria in 2000, Year 2, 3, and 4 credits were released and the Bank is on
schedule for release of Year 5 credits.
Year 5 hydrologic monitoring at the Bank has been occurring throughout the year, with
regular checks of manual and automated wells within the Bank and adjacent reference areas.
Vegetation monitoring was conducted in October of 2002 and consisted of identifying woody and
herbaceous species within 344 plots that are each 0.1-acre in size. After compiling and analyzing
the data, it has been determined that the hydrology and vegetation success criteria identified in the
mitigation plan have been achieved. This will be the final monitoring report for the Barra Farms
Mitigation Bank.
:? 2
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank
ECOBANK
Figure 1. Vicinity Map Cumberland County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
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. In addition, five automated recording wells were 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 manual monitoring wells
are-set to a depth of approximately 24 inches below the soil surface and had bentonite .
plugs to prevent surface flow introduction.
Five manual monitoring wells and two automated recording wells were placed in reference
wetlands to compare hydrology between the Bank and relatively undisturbed wetlands in
the region. Four wells (3 manual and 1 automated) were located in the reference
groundwater flats along the northwestern periphery of the Bank. Three additional wells (2
manual and 1 automated) were located in the reference riverine wetland along Colly Creek
in the Bushy Lake/Horse Shoe Lake Natural Area. These wells provided comparative
annual hydroperiods within the organic soil flat and riverine floodplain physiographic areas
of the site. The headwater slope physiographic area was 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 17, 2002 (1s reading within the growing
season) to September 28, 2002 (last reading prior to submission of this report) have been
utilized is this Year 5 monitoring report.
4
OOQ5
0
0
0
ll
W
LU
N

Room
I
P4
0
? U
PT-
d
U ?
w U
0
5
0
0
?n
0
0
U
O
Q?
T3
1-44
cl,
0
Pt
N
0
w
0
C'7
m
a
2.2 Monitoring Results
The raw well data are depicted in hydro graph and tabular format in Appendix B. Wetland
hydrology criteria in number of consecutive days and percent of the growing season are
also summarized in Table 1. Dine 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 previous years,
groundwater levels were highest in early spring, followed by dry periods during summer
months.
Well data have been subdivided into three wetland physiographic wetland types: 1)
groundwater flats (G F); 2) headwater slopes (HS); and 3) riverine floodplains (RF).
Groundwater Flats (GF)
Three wells located within reference groundwater flats provided a general indication of the
average 2002 hydroperiod on groundwater flats supporting steady state forest structure
and organic soils. Data indicated that the reference groundwater flats habitat maintained
wetland hydrology during 15.1% of the growing season. The automated reference well
located within this same reference area was not functioning for most of the growing
season and did not document wetland hydrology (Appendix B).
The groundwater flats data from the restoration wetland area had an average wetland
hydrology of 14.3% of the growing season and ranged from 9.2 to 15.1% (Table 1). Year
1 and Year 2 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 5 results are similar to Years 3 and 4 in
that there was no significant difference between the average hydrology of former farmland
and pocosin vegetation, or between that of mineral soil flats and organic soil flats. This is
likely because as more vegetation becomes established within the bank, causing
evapotranspiration, hydrological differences between these areas are diminished.
None of the automated monitoring wells located within groundwater flats habitat at the
Bank (wells A, B, and E; Figure 2) documented wetland hydrology (Appendix B). All of
these wells did not read during the early part of the growing season, and may have
confirmed wetland hydrology had data been collected throughout this time period.
According to data from the manual wells, the early part of the growing season in 2002
was the most likely time for wetland hydrology to be demonstrated due to below normal
rainfall during the summer months (Please see section 2.3 for more information on
automated well problems.)
Riverine Floodplains (RF)
Two manual wells are located in reference riverine floodplain habitat. The data from these
wells indicated that the average wetland hydrology for small stream swamps was
approximately 18.0% of the growing season. The two reference hydrology wells had the
same number of consecutive saturation days and therefore no difference in hydrology due
to proximity of well to stream channel was noted. The automated well located in the
reference riverine floodplain habitat documented wetland hydrology for 11% of the
growing season (26 continuous days; see Appendix B).
Data from the two manual wells located in the restoration riverine floodplain habitat
showed that wetland hydrology averaged 13.6% of the growing season.

Headwater Slopes (HS)
Reference wetland hydrology for the headwater slope habitat was simulated by averaging
wetland hydrology exhibited by adjacent riverine floodplain and groundwater flats. The
average amount of time the reference headwater slope habitat met wetland hydrology was
16.3% of the growing season and ranged from 15.1 % (groundwater flats) to 18.0%
7
(riverine floodplain).
Headwater slope in the restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging
13.3% of the growing season, and ranged from 12.1% to 15.1%. Hydrology did not
appear to be influenced by landscape position within the headwater storage area or
vegetation cover.
The automated monitoring wells located within the headwater slope habitat are wells C
and D (Figure 2). Well C was only functioning for approximately one month (mid-June to
mid-July) during 2002 and did not document wetland hydrology during this period.
(Please see section 2.3 for more information on automated well problems.) Well D
documented wetland hydrology for 71 continuous days, between mid-March until the end
of May.
2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria
Success in the restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank required 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 was applied separately to each of the restored
habitats.
The reference groundwater flats, riverine floodplain, and headwater slope habitats
exhibited wetland hydrology for a period averaging 15.1%, 16.3%, and 18.0%,
respectively. In the Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging
14.3% (94.7% of reference), 13.6% (75.6% of reference), and 13.3% (81.6% of
reference), respectively. Therefore, all three habitat types fulfilled the wetland hydrology
criterion in 2002.
Automated wells are dependable and accurate ways of recording hydrology. It should be

noted, however, that in 2041 and 2002 it became increasingly difficult to keep the
automated wells at the Bank functioning continuously because of black bears in the area.
They use these wells as scratching posts and often chew the caps off of the tops of the
wells. A subcontractor reads both the manual and automated wells frequently and repairs
any problems promptly. However, gaps in the data have occurred. Most of the gaps that
have occurred in data at the Bank are due to natural circumstances that actually
demonstrate that the mitigation site is providing habitat for wildlife.
9
_ rnnnn Aata af- flies Rank
1aule 1. 0
Well
Number vt /-VV- y..y?v
Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Days. E'J
Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'n Daps/239)
Comments
Groundwater Flats
Restored
Wetland
WI 36 15.1 former farmland (FF)
W2 36 15.1 FF
W4 36 15.1 FF
W5 36 15.1 FF, mineral soil flat
W6 36 15.1 FF, mineral soil flat
W7 36 15.1 FF
W10 36 15.1 FF
WI1 36 15.1 FF
W12 36 15.1 FF, mineral soil flat
W14 29 12.1 FF, mineral soil flat
W17 36 15.1 FF, located on fill material in back8lied ditch
W20 29 12.1 FF
W21 36 15.1 Existing pocosin vegetation (PV), end organic
soil flat (targeted swamp forest community)
W22 36 15.1 PV
W23 22 9.2 PV
Average 34.1 14.3 Range: 9.2-15.1%
Reference
Wetland
JBI 36 15.1 Existing forest vegetation (FV), mineral soils
JB2 36. 15.1 FV, organic soils
JB3 36 IS.I FV, organic soils
Average 36 15.1 Range: none
10
m , t _ 1 'kTTAV^In(TTT mnnltnri-ncr (iatn. st he Ban
1 aDIC 1 C O.ULMUG

WeltNumber U. L3 S t iuwa y vi c vv?.

Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Days ai7.,y.

Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'n Days/239)

Comments
77
Riverine Floodplain
Restored
Wetland
W15 29 12.1 existing forest vegetation (FV), upstream
each, outer floodplain
W18 36 15.1 FV, downstream terminus, inner floodplain
Average 32.5 13.6 Range: 12.1-15.1%
Reference
Wetland
SSI 43 18.0 FV, outer floodplain
SS2 43 18.0 FV, inner floodplain
Average 43 T
_L8-0 Range: none
_
Headwater Slope
Restored
Wetland
W3 36 15.1 Former farmland (FF), upper reaches
W8 29 12.1 FV, interior slope
W9 36 15.1 FF, interior slope
w16 29 12.1 FV, interior slope
W19 29 12.1 existing pocosin vegetation (PV), upper
reaches
Average 31.8 133 Range: 12.1-15.1%
Reference
hydroperiod* 38.8 16.3 Average of riverine and groundwater flats
The reference hydroperiod for the headwater- slope physiographic area is calculated as the average
hydroperiod exhibited by both the groundwater and riverine floodpiain reference wells.
1
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Monitoring Program
Quantitative sampling of vegetation was conducted in October of 2002 and was similar to
the sampling performed in previous years. Thirty-four plots that were each 0.1-acre in size
were sampled resulting in 3.4 total acres of former cropland being surveyed (Figure 2). The
center of each plot has been permanently established with a labeled, white polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe marked with orange flagging. The coordinates of each of these plot
centers has been identified with a global positioning system (GPS) unit.
Plot centers are located within two community types at the Bank: groundwater flats
habitat, which represents 324 acres, and headwater slope habitat, which comprises
approximately 39 acres. No plots are located within the riverine habitat since none of this
habitat type was formerly cropland. Twenty-nine plots are located within the groundwater
flats and 5 plots are located within the headwater slope.
At each plot center, woody species within a 37.2-foot radius of the plot center were
flagged, identified, and measured for height. Diameter at breast height (DBIT)
measurements equal to or greater than one inch were also recorded. In most cases, clumps
of multiple black willow (Salix nigra) stems originating from a common root source were
counted as a single stem_ Although differences between the two 1Vyssa species that were
planted (Nyssa biflora and Nyssa aquadca) are beginning to appear, such as leaf size and
serrations, we continued to group them into one category because these differences were
still difficult to distinguish in many trees.
Herbaceous vegetation at each plot was recorded and assigned to one of seven cover
classes: 1 = 0-0.5%, 2 = 0.5-1%, 3 =1-3%, 4 = 3-15%, 5 =15-33%, 6 = 33-66%, 7 = 66-
99%. Cover classes for all species were determined by visually estimating the area of
ground surface covered by its vertical projection.
12
3.2 Monitoring Results
Herbaceous Vegetation
During year 5 monitoring, a total of 25 herbaceous species were identified within the 34
sample plots (Appendix Q. As in previous years, the most common were woolgrass
(Scirpus cyperinus), goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus).
The headwater slope and wetter groundwater flats plots, located within the center of the
site, contained dense stands of woolgrass. The drier plots, located at the western and
eastern ends of the site, supported more aster, goldenrod, and panic grass. Broomsedge
was found throughout the Bank in areas not exceptionally wet or dry.
Groundwater Flats r -.
Within the groundwater flats habitat, 28 woody species were surveyed among the 29 plots.
Of the 28 species, 21 were tree species and 7 were shrub species. Of the tree species, 14
were planted and 7 were volunteer. All shrubs were volunteer. As in previous years, the
most common tree species included red maple (Acer rubrum), bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa biflora, N. aquatica), and black
willow (Sal ix nigra).
The vegetation observed within groundwater flats averaged 972.8 trees/acre with
approximately 233.4 trees/acre from planted species. When using the number of trees/acre
by species that can be applied to the trees/acre criterion (s 20% of 320 trees/acre for
hardwoods and < 10% of 320 treesiacre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can
be counted per acre was 372.9 (see Table 3, column 5).
Headwater Slope
A total of 14 woody species was identified within this habitat, of which 8 were planted and
6 were volunteer. The most common tree species included red maple (Acer rubrum), black
13
willow (Salix nigra), and swamp tupelo and/or water tupelo (Nyssa bflora, N. aquatica).
Density averaged 1848.0 trees/acre, with 286.0 trees/acre resulting from planted species.
When success criteria percentages were used (_< 20% of 320 trees/acre for hardwoods and
10% of 320 trees/acre for softwoods), the total number of trees that can be counted per
acre was 384.0 (see Table 4, column 5).
3.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria
Success criteria for the Barra Farms Mitigation Plan included 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 (64 stems).
Softwood species cannot comprise more than 10 percent of the 320 stems/acre (32 stems).
As in Year 4, several plots within both the groundwater flats habitat (P7, P14, P32, and
P35) and the headwater slope habitat (P8) contained an abundance of red maple stems,
which elevated the average number of maple stems well above 20% of the total number of
stems. These plots are located near the forest edge, where the seedlings are growing
opportunistically in areas of open sunlight. The effect that these seedlings may have on
planted species was evaluated by comparing vegetation data in 2000, 2001, and 2002,
specifically the number of trees observed in each plot and the average height of each
species in all three years (Appendix D). As was shown from a similar analysis in the Year 4
Monitoring Report that compared 2000 and 2001 data, it was determined that although a
few plots continue to support large amounts of maple, this species is not inhibiting the
number or height of planted species. In fact, the average height of most planted species
within these plots continues to increase. Observations made in plots that support many
maple seedlings demonstrate that they are growing in place of herbaceous vegetation and
are having no greater effect on planted trees than any other herbaceous species.
Furthermore, research has shown that red maple is a typical component of early
successional forest regeneration of a bay forest community type (Sharitz and Gibbons,
1982).
14
When evaluating the success criteria, only 20% of the 320 trees/acre criterion (64 stems)
was used for maple or any other hardwood that exceeded this value. Only 10% of the 320
trees/acre criterion was used for softwood species.
Tables 2 and 3 show the number of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the
trees/acre criterion. For groundwater flats, a mean density of 972.8 trees/acre was found
across 21 character wetland tree species, with an average of 8.6 tree species/plot. An
average of 372.9 trees/acre cant be applied to the vegetation success criterion. In the
headwater slope habitat, a mean density of 1848.0 trees/acre was found across 14 wetland
tree species, with an average of 8.4 tree species/plot. An average of 3 84.0 trees/acre in this
habitat can be applied to the vegetation success criterion. Therefore, both of these wetland
community types meet the vegetation success criteria.
15
Table 2. Woody species found in groundwater flats habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number oftrees
alInaaetl in err"r"ace eriteria_
C_ ommon name Scientific Dame Avg # of trees/
acre % of total # of
trees/ac # trees/ac allowed
in criteria Comments

Red Maple
Acer rubrum
519.7
53.4
64 Volunteer hardwood,
three plots had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D)

Winged Sumac
Rhus copallina
117.6
12.1
32 Volunteer softwood,
mostly from 2 plots
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 88.3 9.1 64 Piantedhardwood
Black Willow ,SaIN nigra 66.6 6.8 32 Volunteer softwood
Swamp/ Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 65.9 6.8 65.9 Planted hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 24.5 2.5 24.5 Planted hardwood
Wi71ow Oak Quercus phellos 17.8 1.8 17.8 Plantedhardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 15.2 1.6 15.2 Volunteer hardwood
Atlantic V/hite Cedar Chamaecyparis thymdes 14.1 1.4 14.1 Planted
Loblolly Pine Rni s taeda 10.3 1.1 10.3 Volunteer softwood
Red Bay Persea borbonla 9.3 1.0 9.3 Volunteer softwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michazWi 5.2 0.5 5.2 Planted hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted hardwood
Longleaf Pine Phw palustris 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted softwood
Pond Cypress Taxodium ascenders 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted hardwood
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 3.1 0.3 3.1 Planted hardwood
Pond Pine Ph= serotina 1.4 0.1 1.4 Planted softwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 1.0 0.1 1.0 Volunteer hardwood
Water Oak Quercus nigra 1.0 0.1 1.0 Planted hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 0.7 0.1 0.7 Planted hardwood
TOTAL 972.8 100 3729
16
Table 3_ Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average number of treeslacre, and the number of
4 ciCr3 EtL[Ei W v(2 itt .?c.cvwu
Common name u v
Scientific Dame
Average #
of trees/
acre
% of total
# of
trees/ac .
% of total/ at
allowed in
criteria
Comments
Red Maple Acer rubrum 1316.0 71.2 64 Volunteer hardwood;
one plot had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D)
Black Willow Salix n1gra 218.0 11.8 32 Volunteer softwood
swamp/water Tupelo My= spp. 154.0 83 128 Plantedhardwood
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 52.0 2.8 52 Plantedhardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 28.0 1.5 28 Planted hardwood
LoblollyPine Pinus taeda 22.0 12 22 Volunteer softwood
Green Ash Fraxinus penns*anica 18.0 1.0 18 Planted hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 12.0 0.6 12 Planted hardwood
Swamp Cottonwood Populus heterophylla 8.0 0.4 8 Volunteer hardwood
Willow Oak Quercusphellos 8.0 0.4 8 Plantedhardwood
Eastern, Sycamore Platanusoccidentalis 4.0 0.2 4 Plantedhardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambarstyracrflua 4.0 0.2 4 Vofinteerhardwood
Pond Cypress Taxodiumaseendens 2.0 0.1 2 Plantedsoftwood
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina 2.0 0.1 2 Volunteer softwood
TOTAL 1848 100 384
17
4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND MITIGATION CREDIT
(Information taken from previous monitoring reports written by EcoScience and
Land Management Group, Inc.)
4.1 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 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 of ditches and canals. The drainage area that
historically flowed through the Bank was diverted into constructed canals, which
bypassed Harrison Creep and the riverme wetland corridor. Drainage networks
effectively eliminated stream and wetland functional attributes in the Bank.
4.2 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. Former canal flows from the upper watershed were
diverted into the headwater slope physiographic area of the Bank through
construction of ephemeral or intermittent drainage ways. The headwater slope and
former floodplam were reconnected through berm removal and cleaning of the relict
stream channel. Soil surfaces on former cropland were scarified to increase
microtopography and surface water storage. Subsequently, the site was planted with
192,000 diagnostic tree seedlings as detailed in the mitigation plan.
4.3 Post-Restoration Conditions (January 1998 to November 1998)
In February 1998, surface water from the upper watershed inundated the entire 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
18
plugs in northern reaches of the Bank were blown out during this period and
subsequently reconstructed to prevent overtopping by surface water. Significant
stream flows of greater than 20 cubic feet per second were initiated in the headwater
slope and riverine floodplain physiographic areas of the Bank during the early spring
of 1998.
Inundation and influent surface waters generally continued from February through
June 1998. Blooms of algae and large populations of amphibians and fish developed
within the Bank. Characteristic species associated with aquatic wetland habitats
included sunfish (Lepomis sp.), lesser siren (Siren interrnedia), 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
(Heradia 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 album), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), great blue
heron (4rdea herodias), green heron (Butorides striatus), wood duck (Aix sponsa),
mallard (Antis 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.
In late June 1998, rapid groundwater draw-down occurred during a period of
negligible rainfall. During this period, wetland hydrological patterns were similar in
the Bank and in the reference wetland sites. Drought conditions caused strearn flows
to cease at the Bank and within the reference stream reach. However, isolated pools
and i termittent storm flows persisted through the stream reaches during the late
summer months.
Water tables generally remained over two feet below the soil surface in the Bank and
reference until 9 September 1998. Surface flows from the upper watershed have
(J subsequently re-inundated portions of the Banks in September.
19
Wetland vegetation began to colonize the site after inundation ceased in late June.
Characteristic hydrophytic species include panicum grasses, sedges, cat tail, seedbox,
knotweed, Ludwigia, 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 (primary 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 sue, 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.
Although the Year 1 monitoring report concluded that the Bank had fulfilled success
criteria for wetland hydrology and wetland vegetation in 1998, the MBRT disagreed
and credits were not released.
4.4 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1998 to October 1999)
Heavy rainfall in the winter/spring of 1998 and in the fall of 1999 has created ponding
over much of the site and contributed greatly to seedling mortality. Steps have since
been taken to alleviate this ponding but these actions were not taken in time to affect
Year 2 monitoring results and vegetation success criteria were not achieved in 1999.
Year 2 monitoring was, therefore, used to pinpoint areas at Barra Farms that need
more planting and to ascertain what species should be planted.
20
4.5 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 1999 to October 2000)
Three hurricanes affected the coast of North Carolina in September and October of
1999, producing large amounts ofrainfall that inundated most of Barra Farms. This
rainfall was heavy enough to produce standing water on both the former crop land
on-site and forested sections within the reference site.
In. October of 1999, six drainage pipes (18" diameter) were placed through the
northern farm road/berm to drain the standing water from the restoration areas.
Despite these efforts, water levels were still aboveground in some places during
November and December. These pipes significantly reduced, standing water at Barra.
Because of the ponding, seedling survival did not meet success criteria in 1999. To
compensate for this, over 40,000 seedlings of twelve different woody species were
planted at Barra in February of 2000. These seedlings have been able to survive in
strong numbers and vegetation success criteria have been met.
Some ponding still exists in the middle of the tract, which provides a freshwater
marsh habitat for certain bird species like the great blue heron and the American
bittern. However, these areas are not as extensive or as deep as they were in 1998
and 1999, and tree species like bald cypress, water tupelo, and swamp tupelo have
been able to survive. The remainder of the tract is no longer ponded and supports a
variety of planted and volunteer trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Many of the
trees are greater than 7 feet tall,
Species noted this past year: great blue heron (Ardea herodias), American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), quad, black bear (Ursus
a7nericanus) tracks (Picture b), otter feces, crayfish remains, mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon). In addition, there are a
21
great deal of insects throughout the tract including grasshoppers, dragonflies, and
butterflies.
4.6 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2000 to October 2001)
Species noted this past year. great blue heron (Ardea herodias), American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), quail, black bear
(Ursus americanus) tracks, mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon). In addition, many insects were observed throughout the tract
. including grasshoppers, dragonflies, and butterflies.
Compared to Years 1 through 3, Year 4 at the Bank has been uneventful. Rainfall has
been at normal levels for a majority of the year and the tract is no longer ponded. This
change was also noted in the duration of wetland hydrology across the tract, which
was shorter than in previous years- Many trees throughout the tract are continuing to
f lourish. The average heights of most species are considerably higher than last year.
The preponderance of black willow, which was noted in Years 1 and 2, has lessened
considerably and other species, including red maple, winged sumac, groundsel bush,
and sweet pepperbush are volunteering into the tract.
4.7 Post-Restoration Conditions (October 2001 to October 2002)
Species noted this past year: American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white-tailed deer
(Ddocoileus virginianus), quad, raccoon tracks and black bear (Ursus americanus)
tracks. As in past years, many insects were observed throughout the tract including
grasshoppers, dragonflies, and butterflies.
The Bank experienced below average rainfall between 2001 and 2002. According to
the rational Climatic Data Center, North Carolina had its driest recorded year
22
between September of 2001 and August of 2002 (NCDC). This is reflected in the
rainfall analysis for 2002 (Appendix B). The 30-day running total shows below
normal rainfall for approximately four months; March, May, Jane, and July. The lack
of rainfall has affected the hydrology at the Barra Farms tract, including the reference
areas, and explains the large difference in hydrology results between 2002 and
previous years at this site. Fortunately, the planted trees at Barra Farms were at least
3 years old and able to withstand the stress of short-term drought. Year 5 vegetation
monitoring found a majority of the trees throughout the tract continuing to flourish.
The average heights of most species are considerably higher than last year. Although
the preponderance of black willow and winged sumac, which was noted in previous
years, has lessened, the number of red maple continues to be high. However, it still
appears that the red maple trees are not negatively affecting the survivability of the
planted species.
23
5.0 SUMMARY
Success in the restoration of wetland hydrology in the Bank required 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 floodplam, and headwater slope habitats
exhibited wetland hydrology for a period averaging 15.1%, 163%, and 18.01/o, respectively. In the
Bank, restoration wetlands supported wetland hydrology averaging 14.3% (94.7% of reference),
13.6% (75.6% of reference), and 13.3% (81.6% of reference), respectively, when comparing data
from manual wells. Therefore, a0. three habitat types achieved the wetland hydrology success
criterion in 2002.
The wetland vegetation success criterion was met during Year 5 monitoring. According to the
mitigation plan, at least 320 trees/acre and at least five character wetland species must survive in
order to meet success criteria. Amer factoring in acceptable percentages of hardwoods and
softwoods, the groundwater flats habitat contained 372.9 stems/acre across 21 wetland tree species.
Headwater slope habitat supported 384 stems/acre and 14 character wetland species. Although the
number of red maples in several plots within the Bank is above the 20% hardwood threshold, these
maples are not inhibiting the growth or survival of planted species.
Year 5 monitoring found both hydrology and vegetation at the Barra Fauns Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation-Bank to meet the success criteria stated in the mitigation plan. Therefore, the conclusion
of this monitoring report is that this mitigation site is successful and Year 5 credits should be
released. Based on this conclusion, this is the final monitoring report for the Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional. Mitigation Bank.
24
6.0 References
Sharitz, R.R. & J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Poeosins) and
Carolina Bays: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November, 1982.
25
Trees within a typical plot at ]Barra. Many trees are greater than 8' tall.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site
Year 5
Cumberland County, NC
Willow Oak
Bald Cypress
a
Lund Management GFoup9 Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
November 2002
Pictures of site.
Typical plots at Barra ]Farms.
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Land Management Group, Inc.
]Environmental Consultants
Year 5 Wilmington, N.C.
Cumberland County, NC November 2002
Pictures of site.
D
Z
C7 rr
R
z
c

Abstract and conclusions from a research gager entitled:
"Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water quality of a
Carolina bay complex"
by
Gregory L. Breland, Matthew F. Hanchey, and. Curtis I. Richardson
Duke University Wetland Center
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Durham, NC
Accepted for publication in the scientific journal.:
Wetlands Ecology and Management
4??

S*
Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water quality of a
Carolina bay complex
Gregory L. Breland, Matthew F. Hanchey, and Curtis J. Richardson
Duke University Wetland Center
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90328
Durham, North Carolina, USA 27708-0328
Phone: [phone]
Fax. [phone]
E-mail: glb5Cduke.edu
Key Words.: Agriculture, Carolina bay, hydrology, land-use, North Carolina, soil properties,
wetland restoration, water quality

1
Abstract
We compared hydrology, soils, and water quality of an agricultural field (AG), a two-year-old
restored wetland (RW), and two reference ecosystems (a non-riverine swamp forest (NRSF) and
a tall pocosin forest (POC)) located at the Barra Farms Regional Wetland Mitigation Bank, a
Carolina bay complex in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Our main objectives were to: 1)
determine if the RW exhibited hydrology comparable to a reference ecosystem, 2) characterize
the soils of the AG, RW, and reference ecosystems, and 3) assess differences in water quality in
the surface outflow from the AG, RW, and reference ecosystems. Water table data indicated that
the hydrology of the RW has been successfully reestablished as the hydroperiod of the RW
closely matched that of the NRSF in 1998. and 1999. Jurisdictional hydrologic success -criterion
was also met by the RW in both years. To characterize soil properties, soil cores from each
ecosystem were analyzed for bulk density (Db), total carbon (CO, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus
(PO, extractable phosphate (PO4w), nitrogen (NeO, and cations (Ca,,,, Mg,,,, Ke., Naeo, as well as
pH. Bulk density, Pt, Ca,-,, Mg,,,,, and pH were greatly elevated in the AG and RW compared to
the reference ecosystems. Water quality monitoring consisted of measuring soluble reactive
phosphorus (SRP), total phosphorus (TP), nitrate + nitrite (NOX), and total nitrogen (TN)
concentrations in surface water from the AG, RW, and reference outflows. Outflow
concentrations of SRP, TP, and NOX were highest and most variable in the AG, while TN was
highest in the reference. This study suggested that while restoration of wetland hydrology has
been successful in the short term, alteration of wetland soil properties by agriculture was so
intense, that changes due to restoration were not apparent for most soil parameters. Restoration
also appeared to provide water quality benefits, as outflow concentrations -of SRP, TP, NOX, and
TN were lower in the RW than the AG.
2
Introduction
Wetland restoration is a promising strategy for alleviating water quality problems in
watersheds dominated by agriculture. The effectiveness of the wetland at improving water
quality will depend on the flow of the water through the system (hydrology), as well as the forms
and amounts of nutrients in the soil (soil properties). We report here the early results of a study
investigating the effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soil properties, and
water quality of the Barra Farms Regional Wetland Mitigation Bank, a Carolina bay complex in
Cumberland County, North Carolina.
The conversion of a wetland to agricultural production has implications for all components of
the ecosystem. In terms of hydrology, the establishment of networks of drainage ditches lowers
the water table, promotes rapid drainage during and after precipitation, and creates conditions of
continuous surface water flow; in contrast, prior to ditching, water tables would be higher,
drainage would be slower, and only intermittent flow would occur (Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982;
Richardson and Gibbons, 1993). Reversal of these effects, to reestablish wetland hydrology is
often cited as the most critical component to wetland restoration success (Kusler and Kentula,
1990); as hydrology has been considered the master variable controlling redox status, pH,
nutrient cycling, community composition, and wetland development (Bridgham and Richardson,
1993). Thus, the first objective of our paper was to determine if the restored wetland (RW)
exhibited representative wetland hydrology and met jurisdictional hydrologic* success criteria.
This was accomplished by comparing the seasonal pattern of water table depths of the RW to
that of the reference non-riverine swamp forest (NRSF).

3
Upon conversion to agriculture, wetland soils that were once subjected to reducing
conditions and low rates of decomposition are subjected to oxidizing conditions and high rates of
decomposition (Armentano and Menges, 1986; Schlesinger, 1986). Artificial drainage leads to
the loss of organic matter and subsequent soil subsidence (Lilly, 1981): Following the initial
impacts of ditching and clearing, come the secondary impacts that result from tillage, liming and
fertilization. Tillage has been shown to increase compaction of wetland soils (Brady and Weil,
1999; Braekee, 1999). Liming increases soil pH and elevates base cation content (Simmons et
al., 1996; Braakee, 1999). This, in turn, can further increase decomposition (Lilly, 1981;
Compton and Boone, 2000). Fertilization often leads to over-saturation of agricultural soils with
inorganic nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. This occurs as more nutrients are applied as
fertilizer than are taken up by crops during the growing season. Like hydrology, the restoration
of wetland soil properties is another important factor in restoration, as soils are the physical
foundation of wetland ecosystems (Stolt at al., 2000). Our second objective was to characterize
and compare the soils of the agricultural (AG), restored wetland (RV), and two reference
ecosystems to assess the impacts of land-use on wetland soil properties. Unlike hydrology, soil
properties are more difficult to restore, less often considered in restoration plans, and rarely
monitored in years following restoration (Shaffer and Ernst, 1999).
Conversion-of wetland to agriculture in the North Carolina coastal plain has also been shown
to affect surface water quality (Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982; Ash et al., 1983; Richardson, 1981;
Richardson and Gibbons, 1993). Specifically, conductivity, pH, sediment, phosphorous and
nitrogen concentrations have been shown to be much higher in agricultural ditches draining
converted wetlands compared to streams draining unaltered wetlands in the coastal plain
(Kuenzler et al., 1977; Kirby-Smith and Barber, 1979; Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982; Ash et al.,
4
1983). Channelized streams are also more likely to be located in heavily managed areas that
tend to export large amounts of nutrients as a result of fertilization and liming (Sharitz and
Gibbons, 1982). The third objective of our paper was to assess the differences in water quality in
the outflow from the AG, RW, and reference ecosystems at Barra Farms.
Characteristics of Unaltered Carolina Bays
Carolina bays are elliptical depressions found on the southeastern coastal plain that are
consistently oriented in a northwest-southeast direction (Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982). Common
features of these bays include an ovate shape with the large end at the northwest, a sand rim
prevalent at the southeast margin, the presence of shrub bog communities, and a water table
dependent on precipitation and evapotranspiration (Shantz and Gibbons, 1982). According the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service system, Carolina bays are classified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as either forested or scrub-shrub palustrine wetlands (Cowardin et al., 1979).
However, due to their variability in size,, depth, and substrate conditions, Carolina bays do not
have a single characteristic cover type and may contain woody, shrub-scrub, herbaceous, and
even aquatic vegetation (Shantz and Gibbons, 1982).
Although the general features and vegetative communities of Carolina bays have been
characterized, few in-depth studies have been conducted on these ecosystems (Richardson and
Gibbons, 1993) and thus, despite their abundance in the southeast, relatively little is known about
their hydrology, community structure, succession, trophic dynamics, and mineral cycling
(Schalles and Shure, 1989). When land-use effects are overlaid upon the complex pattern of
natural succession in Carolina bays, the ecosystem structure, function, and successional patterns
become difficult to predict or quantify. For instance, over the last 300 years, Carolina bays have
been frequently burned by Native Americans (Wells and Boyce, 1953), and more recently
l?
5
drained for agriculture, forestry, industry, and other land management activities (Kirkman and
Shantz, 1994).
Study Site
The four ecosystems chosen for our research.were all part of a 975 hectare (ha) Carolina bay
complex located in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Clearing and ditching
beginning in the 1960's converted the natural vegetative communities into a large-scale farm
operation (Land Management, 2000a). A system of primary and secondary ditches was
established with tertiary ditches added later in the 1970s (Land Management, 2000a). During the
1970s and early 80s, Barra Farris was one of the largest farming operations in the North
Carolina coastal plain (J. Bullard, personal communication). For the last 10 years, the site has
been farmed much less intensively.
During a four-month period, from October 1997 to January 1998, 250 ha at the southern end
of the site were restored from agriculture to wetland, creating the Barra Farms Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank (Figure 1). The restoration was conducted by Ecosystems Land
Mitigation Bank Corporation (ELMBC), a mitigation banking firm based in Winter Park,
Florida, USA. The restoration process consisted of two main components: 1) filling 3,360 in of
linear ditches to reestablish surface and groundwater flow through the restored wetland, and, 2)
planting 192,000 individual woody seedlings (see below). Secondary activities included stream
restoration in Harrison Creek and supplemental planting in an adjacent riparian forest.
Prior-to agricultural activity, the bay complex comprised the majority of the 2,500 ha
drainage area for Harrison Creek. However, the network of agricultural ditches used to drain the
site reduced the drainage area of Harrison Creek to 130 ha (Environmental Services, 1997).
6
After restoration, the drainage area of Harrison Creek was increased from 130 ha to 380 ha.
Surface runoff and subsurface flow from the RW pass through the riparian forest before exiting
the system. Improvements to water quality most likely result from the filling of ditches in the
restored wetland and the redirection of flow through the riparian forest. Thus, in terms of water
quality, we considered the restored wetland and the riparian forest a unit and will refer to them as
the RW.
Seedlings planted in the RW are typically found in these bay complexes and included bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum [L.] Richard), Tupelo (Nyssa ssp.), Atlantic White Cedar
(Chamaecypw is thyoides [L.] BSP.), water ash (Fraxinus caroliniana Miller), red bay (Persea
borbonia [L.] Sprengel), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera, L.), cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda Raf.), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata Walter), willow oak (Quercus phellos L.), swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii Nuttall), and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia Michaux).
Interestingly, while T. distichum might have been found in the near-stream area or the floodplain
of the riparian forest, it probably would not have occurred in the central portions of the bay
removed from the stream (Rheinhardt and Brinson, 2000). In these areas, it may have been more
appropriate to plant Taxodium ascendens, a more fire-tolerant species. To protect seedlings from
flood stress during the fall of 1999, ELM_BC installed a series of culverts to drain standing water
from the RW. Supplemental planting of an additional 43,300 seedlings was performed February
8-11, 2000 to replace dead seedlings and maintain a tree density of 320 per ha (Land
Management, 2000b).
Very little information is available to characterize the original status of the bay complex. A
historic timber map of the site identified areas of hardwood in central portion of the bay
!( complex, and areas of pine and juniper at the periphery (Flowers, 1924). The original Soil
7
Survey of Cumberland County classified the soils of the bay complex as Portsmouth loam, a
Typic Umbraquult (Perkins et al., 1925). Soils of this series are described as poorly drained and
range from dark-gray loam to muck. They are underlain by silty to sandy clay, and, in many
places, have accumulated large quantities of organic matter (Perkins et al., 1925). The survey
states that Portsmouth loam soils in Cumberland County supported forests of cypress, gum, and
maple with an understory of gallberry, huckleberry, and bay bushes (Perkins et al., 1925).
The most recent County Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties reclassified the soils
of the bay complex as Croatan muck, a Terric Haplosaprist (Hudson, 1984). This is a very
poorly drained, organic soil that is formed of highly decomposed organic material and underlain
by loamy textured marine and fluvial sediment. Intensive agricultural activities at the study site
have caused massive changes in the Croatan muck soils. Much of the organic matter has been
lost, and mineral subhorizons have been brought to the surface by plowing. For these reasons,
when choosing a reference soil, both a true Croatan muck and an organic rich mineral soil might
be considered appropriate.
It the absence of other more specific historical information about the vegetation of the site,
the nature of the vegetative communities that existed prior to cultivation must be inferred from
the surrounding ecosystems. However, due to the heterogeneity of vegetative communities
within Carolina bays, the restoration site may not have been originally identical to the adjacent
agricultural area. Therefore, sampling several local reference wetlands can provide information
about the range of values characteristic of regional reference conditions. Thus, we included in
this study two reference communities, each with different soil and vegetative characteristics.
Both reference areas are part of the bay complex, and are typical of communities observed in
other unaltered bays of this region (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Following the classification
1
8
scheme of Schafale and Weakley, we refer to them as the high pocosin (POC) and the non-
riverine swamp forest (NRSF).
The vegetation of the POC was characterized by a thick understory of Lyonia lucida
(fetterbush), Ilex glabra (low gallberry), Smilax lawifolia (green briar), with emergent tree
species such as Pinus serotina (pond pine), Magnolia virgiana (sweetbay), and Gordonia
lasianthus (loblolly bay). The vegetation of the NRSF consisted of a much more open shrub
layer of L. lucida, and S. laurifolia, with a closed canopy of tree species such as Acer rubrum
3
(red maple), T. distichum, M. virgiana, Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip poplar), and Pinus taeda
(loblolly pine).
Importantly, recent management practices in-the study area have involved long-term fire
suppression. Thus, our control sites may not represent truly unaltered conditions. However, at
the time of the study, no other reference areas were available that had been subjected to any other
type of fire regime.
?I

Conclusions
Despite 30. years of intensive drainage anal agricultural land-use. at Barra Farms, wetland
hydrology was quickly and effectively reestablished in the RW by filling in ditches. Both the
seasonal pattern of water table depths and duration of time that water table depths were within 30
cm of the soil surface were very similar in the restored and reference monitoring wells. The
major effects of agricultural land-use on wetland soil properties were to increase Db, Pt, Ca,,
Mg,,, and pH of the AG and RW soils. Upon comparing the soils of the AG to RW, the main
differences between the two ecosystems were in Ct, Nf, and P04, which were higher.in the -
upper 0-440 cm of the AG. Interestingly, the soils of the RW had relatively' high amounts of Ct
that may enhance ecosystem function in the early years of development. Even though large
changes in most soil properties weren't observed following restoration, it appeared that
restoration activities did provide water quality benefits as shown by the 30, 27, 97, and 19 %
lower concentrations of TP, SRP, NOX, and TN respectively, in the RW as compared to the AG.
Further process=level research is necessary to determine which mechanisms are responsible for
nroviding these water duality benefits.

O utline o f
Carolina bay
Bay Forest
Reference
Q ,ha)
Reference
Outflow
?
R,ocosln
ReNrence
(270'ha)
\? p

AgricitRral
Outflow V Wet
a
(AG) % `? •
Riparian Forest 250
Up] • `(S-0-Ira •
Barra Farms Cape (UPL) 0
Fear Regional ' Restored
Wetland
Mitigation Bank Outflow 0
;Ilk
N • Water quality monitoring outflow point Harrison Creek
• Water table monitoring well
-r Direction of surface water flow
T 1 Km
V? Agricultural
Q
\Area (240 ha)
0
D \`
0 • ?`.
\ 0 Restored
and 0
Forth Carolina
'17
r-
0
a
0
2 CO
n
? n
r w
Paz ?..n j
o ? 7
6 y
?j
c a m CAD
n
N
r V o _ >
E .
a a
C ° o
o
o
_

? a
'
a n

$ ? F
°
3 F o I
R
o
o o
E 1
"
n
?V
P o = ? COj
°o o?
°
N ?
n
o n P
1
v "FF
c: n

° ?o
° o z
o CD
R

P
S o
O
"
E ? K p
p
` E I

a - n - -
a a
r
o -
v w° o 1,'
° o a
a t
?I? 00
0 nR C7° "L
C •O ^ .ti. 6
?v-° ? p -'-•• 0.7.°^ o o d ''?
N
O ?1 v a ? n
a ao ff., E,w ?v n F? 1 J
'^ a G= Tao N •' -- oa M ^,?^,
° 2 d o. 0 o"z"O ?o.o5 A?
P, u a y a s -°n C K n t'D
o d •O° " " N S
" p,? "•e g oo
o 5 S "
v C ? ° ?*
f? I
Nom. o. o ?
INS' ?
I$I s. z 8 5
q U)
F '77
a P?
N J
a E; O
ao.?
o ?
n' C ro
c P,' x
? a w
o y n
H ? o
c c ='
.O w
s
? ? ao
p ? n
s
rn
o c n
H o
C N
u, S
00 5'
o- ?
?E?
0 00
C

n T
? K
o ?
? N
o
so
q
o
o d
P n'
y
a
n
G ?
R CD
E
p•
N
C
o
N
0
0
u
0
c
G
0 3 _ o r
w a E s v° O ?. E o. a o 0 0. o.
° .o °" ,o G 33 0" o a p o, o
ja a s a "- 3 m ^r o f
.r 2. Too
o'?d_ r as
o n n
ov ° r n i? 2= a u 3
rn
,feu ^dti2?.aGud pq
uo °
E E! ?vN 4n E,; o° n (?
F- o
0 7" x r 1 "_ d ? r"' F
n
1, 0
^ ? s o ° n n
° n F o
?'??nno2nooao
o o 3 c a
_ L % d o n °o
" n n o°c v = n
9
u5?33 o?
G d ?.
F E a I°^ ? use °
N _ G o
n
Depth (cm) v, rn o .n _ 7)
?: g . .. ? a I; tro. N a' ao II ^ P04-P (µGV `-i.
s 0 0o n
? gyro _ _
o. m ? W? ?, o n o r. a L °? o
?. .I O o o D a o" 0 N n m 0
c. s i u a `I\n n^ - •i, y° is o m o
° C 1 d 3^ m n
o
oo' `? ro - rn b w w i 1 H m
cr.
1 2.
o c ti 3 o a l...i 'I wO?q o p
a •o °° m y m m o'
r, 0
CD 0 1, ?' ° n ? ro ?: 'n A
co G' y o _, ?I j m n o
w
o Depth (cm) ?' C!i w 0d ` 2 m o
? u o? I I o -oi
I+ o a'
C
a m ro
III o -- -- ???
N03+NO2+NH4 (jig/g) o
n y
o
a IS: 1. ,
F no
r o
7. ° -Cray yoo
c°
EL o
Q1 rp
g a 9 a 5 0. I m J a o
n pox C?
mo g Z; 'o
00 no w IAA ° o ,P
0. m
m
C m
rn v,
g ro ?
<.?
y.
F y ? v
-.. f n
C1 t9
n a
° o PS.
I
n c CD
o ti ro ?,
w
0 0• w Cil
O
0 y'
O
°a
ny
c z
0o w rc
ti n. I!
Oxalate Extractable Fe (µg/g)
a6Ca98dBe
?, 1I _.tt I Y I??
r! ?' ? #`a tl
c I- 1 y a a?' n:.nl
? 5 O o
o b o
w ? c. E
< ° rn a
w o o D".
S N n.a ?.
D - ^ rv
o
0 o.
o
ry c
w R 0-
? x oa
p w a O
y
n ? .w
0
0
? o
a
5 y
(off w
n
? c. 00
? y O
y ° n'
°
ti
G n w
w 0c
y o
O
l
?' Itl
19
rn
I O o° o r Z ° n' Y
*

?' rn M
0.
o C)
x
y m

£• O

°w w n
c
" oy 'rl
y 0
o
y
° w
`G
°
Yo [°
(

9
y W
9
9 ?
(l ? 0. D y
Q
4
+4
4
49 o ? o
S
D
o J
7 ?-]'O C ?
.
c''i n o
o P
a
" E .
O
•o

0- .0
.-- .. rn Q w 0. o
c ?
o a a
o a y rn c
D o n
n
n., S w o
a
o
><
?? w <n
? O N
n
N o
z ??a
p
c?yo w v
y ro a
y < ?
ro O. o p•

to
>< y
p? o
w in n
n+ o
'o
o• a0 0
?. cwGi o _
io 'O R
o P
' awo q
n
N te
N 0. H O C n 0
4
n f9 Ev
H x
0 ??•o
y
w i
j
n o
rn a O
d "t
0 c. S
o o ry
. x rn
l
:,- y m
m o
.a <s°
IT
O
p
E'r
a
rn P
u?u,'o? ? ? °a K a
N c
H ^ n
F ae y °o° N
S u ._ 3 F o ,'b.,l
n D n
o-'
° ^ R n
3 > .
vE $, ?.5
G S' ? N cf =? ? O
o " =
a S a n
_ e
n
i
\? L
0
? R
o rn ?, 00 ?'
5 w °' °o K
o f ? o s>_
N E3
d O
N
c, b ° If! o a°o°o
w ?' o cn $ ?,,
? O O O
o^n y 0 p 6
.o °n ^ 9
=r ° -
o ? -' a
C. o• o
`G y' N
o 0 0
w ? a
"-G
a?
E
s
Amsz

?n n?n> o
?a n
o oho 0
d ??4o c
Mo
y ?
i
0
Dcptlt (cm) -
d 11 J
o -
° Ii
-_._. -._,._.- _J
Depth (.In)
o_
Depth (cm)
o - `
m
°S
? s t

C6]
97
f?
l
?J
y l `ar'
y ?
Y
r yfn?
) ? \ F?
r'T
Y
(
n
¢Y
l r ? ?
f ? ~ Qq
?fl
(OD
/-+•
1 ::?, 0
l 1 ?0
1 r7
I
Y
1 ,rr'
1 N
Oo

O
5
bud a
O
O
O
0
00
e-ool
® O
ff?l
kasEd

1
1
1 1J
. t
y d? E g. 8 0 o D l-' t+f E 5Pa. s o y w o s d 7 '-3
w C o ti rn B 1--d
o m , v°o `= g o' `0 = a 2, i
rr. F "P a° o o a 9 F ° a rv „ w 2, x7
,O = c w 9. n 5 rn o a ro ,cwy D° w `< = F p
ET 'R '
S. Doti.' .t0i, f• cni n m ?• u x c a g ?, tai '" H n ° ° c a.
0 0' w fi. o 0 o 5 5y.
° w o b
a •nw--. a E .?w- b n Pte-' o E cue
a CJ " C ,oT o "O Oti ?• O E3 2 ry P
I
g R' o . 'tD+ w w
y w c °? o 0. coo co 0
O a d o ^' N f t<4 P' y <° O. N. w
C, 0
o w a < o
° f O o° o ?• s o° a n a
a n Pj' w a N ° "17 = w 0.b ^a M ?. a
t0.o m E: "- =; 's v ?+ R a n o rn E £•
n B _ n
w 'J w H
ro n F °°. m ° w v -ni o 0 o. rv° w a^ 9
w g o. o' ?. w ,< ?: w z a o .n o to
_ D o o a ?a 14
S y ^? C n n C w w n' C p C
p 0
E N. w Py' ?i G - = Oti ^. .n R ,°.? ,°ti.' '?V ,v' •an- y
°
rn moo, ?. y.n n o. a ?E .b 0
0
I `e o >' ° o, o coo N rn
o o
a
I
I O
I a
I I
I - m
?t r
t
0
n
I `

1
- I

erg ? i? ? ?
o

7
-???iT
N-?- oa
3 O ?o ?

3- 0
z 0 0

?
?•
on ? a ? `m ?8
aBso a _ $
N C C_ r C ® Q ?'I

71
G-
i

•i
4 S 4

- J

r
a
1
0 0 o d y w
' y o
o E n y y g w< D
0
0' w C
°
n° o o w
n ? , o c
c: - 0
a' m I???yy
lid
° ° m ° h
_ w a
E w
n ' „ o
w CD
p ? m
a '° H ?. o n
y ?. n. C1
:V °°-, o H H
ro 0 y a n w
C o o n 5 y ?, (D

0 9
y y c
-
= o
m o

F1 t o
N q 21 0
n (D
?n
Vl °'? ti
o 01 .C C]
o.
En
n w
a 5' S =? cni n ? '"
"< a H ci
v o v
•
< ` a
,wy
0° w. m WW a w
m y ei' 'n^' a,

n H
C co ^.

o "
n '°

v
..' n
?. d o ti0 ?' C a ? N

y O g
o O m
N
0
w o g m N
w` ° C+ Cj'
n P.
7 ?. 5
a o.
Z •iry1 ?' n n w = n '° rt f-i
0 o a o D
1 o0. ° e'•a rv` °' y o D
F; cn
Fl
G.j m F ?' c H ,haw
roN w
g° w o c o g= F v o
4 w m o o' 0 Z a w
0
w rv
?•O•n .nn. o row, T v.v
o ... re < v o
E a w n' a n°
o 0 F o
o g n
is.
-0 5!
_ o
n F o ?,' ° o H' < a o
.v •°
4 C N b°. o> w •o ^o w
c o E S' ? ?' p w ? ? .?. ?•
?' a rn w y ?' c y =° n
o a. w E 9 0- o
nS?
D o'O 0oao
n
? rv o 8 0° w a- rn ° @o;
N b R. n 7. ry a
o 0,
o n E c o N ?, .n go v w
rv w c. ?,
r.. 9 Fw g- Z
o n a .
? ?? G' m d w? N n 1
O.
W• y R l<i O G U .p -=i
a n
F)* F o p o
o a ,? o o- s n ,< w< o
.. ? y n n °' ?. ° n .n n
w `
O_ a' R G w o' o. P. N 0
w _ vy .
m o s o' b° y o w a g
5. o a g n c .° ..? v
y n y-
O ca n er n< p oo n `, N w
G o 0 o n n -°+, n
o a n' °: a y 0 w s c y N'
° b°. w m a.
S Fi w e T s w. 'd w n ?'
w 0 a° o v .°
rn o o F vo o a w w
o " P. y w .7 -ni E
o
ti p° y 0 p0. w a0 .-?? d R G
?ro?o "w
° "oo a °o o C' nl a °
c ?' F o w
n ?. o ? .a c o a
w w °
n w V w ?
H n? o o g
?j LE
ryryn p'Oti °
w a LL O< a O w
n y w `; uo N n I
O o
n
°
- p p
n a• n n ?° w ?. n° a.
- o a o .n of
n
10
c ro 5 P' ^ Q, 5 c o
s oo 3
y a
a H
ry C_ " w. n P. O
o. co o w EL a.
n _ n t=

-cl gar,
n°
p< s y y

a n
vo n O n - v G

°
rv
n o ° ?
.
<
rv o ° =
n
w n H "
w -0
to
?, o
^' < v. .
a rn
a•
rn+ c Vo no

w

rv m °
p 7.
n a Q.
o ^-
O < .
9 00 'Z

_• o

nao
o
E

,? c. c
O
G
d ry
o w o O
° _. ro rv
o n

o o o
0
y C+ O r a flo >' ?i

w O w O
Hs
O
C)'
!D
CD
i
i
I
A
CD
V?
C'
?l
O ? ?o
fy _
r•?
C
?jj
Cl)
i C•'f' k?
d
J
nn'? o
V?a
C d?
ry7,c?
Vl ?]
L=y 0
1
D
-0
T
om
z
0
x
Ir
N
C'.

- -
r'. _ ?
3 =..:.t
= > w w w W w w w w
O" (!0 f6 fi. ro Cam' Vi Vf Vt Vl Vr tr Vr (A
°• 0? •'+i cD h Cr w

ti]
' .l. Z ti Z ?. w (6 Utn H r'
T
=
- - c c
- x a ? ?, <
-r1 > > .
is ro ro co
o O3 y
k -? _
° a n '?
c 3 ;.. chi w CA r-. W ro ro
tl C
yy -r1 ? ' y w C? 7
?' ro a f CD
.
i3 z A.. w

zG'G 3? a d a
- o 5 n 3 O O
N d'
_ d
H
= Z1
l-
Z Z
d d
ro
G

3 a

?? 't

r ro
a
N N
?
_ - j
J - ?
ro
J
ON a, 0% ol G?
Gfi O? Oa\ P + rn
o cp, oa, & vpl N to c?ir W
_ _ ?-+ r-+ X ?. OG f4 d. h 'lam
w O p O
(z 6 fjo c:
M PI
g? x
7. ci ci c 3.'?n- o
U° 70 ? cL N y ro .roy ? '17 ? w C niH
' > j ? O N d 7 '= U ppO 'L ? ?
! fc a O N y 7J c
N 7 w
d a C D N
z w a ?
y v
N ro
T. N

f?
C?
Q
U?
?s
Q

C)
e- ? ``?-, n ?' ? o ?. ? r ? `Er '? :? ? % tin ? ? t ? ? ?•
^. 7 C G? a. ? }} ?' O r ? "I yr, ° Lc ; I;F
c. ? o V, ;6
55 L2,
9 > Poo 3;
"? o e o 3 c Q-Q o, C a 3
En n p. 0 3 °o
V c °c a
? L• 7 ° ? 5' ? w e ? n ? c :n ? ° c

4
1_J
El N

g
?J

? 1 U ®' N ? A !,dd :.J :aa C? did ?.9J '.ad ? CJl •? X90 C44 L?1 CAO '„AI Qdp
6 f; ? ? ? "' d a '
e C?
J A

a CD CD ft

.° 1 •9 d
•
? • PPr+ CA Y CD l C ® p?
p
?a d
Gt?g
a p
?
ff3

•
lV
' l ?. f ? R F=;'
f 4 d f? R
6 _

v ?' P Y? ? C A W7 C!n

F -7-1
0, g?, ??`• ? ear ? ? I?A ?A
cam' P? D W ? CO W W CO C?
VW
?J
!. •? ft
tv (5 IT; ?5
d
0 ® 10 ?•
e5- 5
€?)
o
[mod .• ?• Q?i
0
A .? o A
Fa
? ? td
f9 ? C ?
e ;V
•o ? 9
e P ?
b
e
A
(Y
? •r
a r? o e e e ga P r,
P 9 e yAg, n
ort
•.qr, fC ,? P; ? P. ? P. ? v ? ? d v ? A ?.
41
C91 P e P% g 2 P, d d
R- 9.
A ? ? ?? ? N ?, ?' ? ? ? ?• tip ? ?°. ? P ? ?? ?: ? ? ?' ? `¢ ? ?; ? N ;? a ;e. ?
d .(
d d P. ? A 0° ? P
cAa ? ? PP ? _ f> v c`S y
'ZV (I
'?. v
Q4 P.
?• t- o fa ea i F?
n ER r°„ o o

,t_,T

A

t/. B, - V J lk_'v
l bs

( C:N

E- -

91

k1w

I

,
m

11-7

G
'•.
?
I
y..
4

s-'• -
Jam
.

y
,? yyy

U
H
Ctl

....-

p ? • ua ? w ? a

[A (D

a .°

,
O U
U a,
W
N
o, g
id
°a?

N ..C M

? N M F??

K• {pgg

IO
N
?ld
o?

EE

' EEi a p
a N ? .
y HH' R
i
PN G,
"?i ?•
f, t`C3fh T
O E ? ?d

lD ?
E
p
(?M
C
?
'A
?
N N
O'
to
a E?
Q'? N
C
b 0
y y
C
?
/
D

?.
? aye'
.b%

C ?
0 y
wp
'(?
.
7
? .aa ? .
fn o
,? ?i
y?°+ ,
1]
N °
E ? '
• p ° Qn
°
Q
W
E ° ?`??
C
a ?
do ?
o q' ?:' cr
b
? o b
ps'

NN N
• U \CD

U N
tJh\N
Pw
? pH? p
O \O o

? N
lei.\? ao
?L,
U' ?Cf
O\ b* O

NUN U
lA\O

U, ?c????77
O \ ll?

?^{'be
o p o? ??
yN
?? C o ° ro
C ProN. x
0 ?b
a E o
p w,?o
o o ww
(?D
??'orn
° o°
' bwQ°Q
rn ?S ggrn
b
p'
b
o
`
d

?.
E.
, ?,
off - H ? 0 affi• m o ?o• •a
. •
. eh

a ro?°
AR.
g
NW o
p
b
?
y a
PL
o
H, a
?
? p'
cb,
o
o ¢
i Cv g m
uq a
. p All

.'? .Aj,
bi'

NO. °?ii' ?' ii.• G ?,'
v"
-. N
p•3Q??.ro?
. p, °?i•
N

°.F"i

!?. h

o.
'
? ?W

k? O G

O
?pp
m
?. p 'Ov"
.?G
. y ^ ?

1'D
a w
NNq Cpp/]
Fn' -?' ?•
Cn
ii
t

?

E
P. N C o
? p
w
•
1
' p
Q
p?ap o
G
•C
am
p
.E''i p w

?
.
' b
o ?°
B b
pp
y
h7
Y"?°
hj ?'

a
0
. C
°
O
HN? pp
'g
N ' O
?
'v " Vb Fy i
r? G
N" ,
g'
O
Q6
.

qr ihc•C7 ''"
. Q q E3 ?'
6 w o o to

W?W p S' o?-C:0:4 G]
°° c' y.?6Wf• 0•
a'r O ry F.PnO. .

.?
Q C ?' W. x.W
Ef b a• E:
U? pn?

° .? iV
p
.. r(?
Ro

r
Z °•ryz ?'td
E
a?05
r

?
y
?
r Hwro•'d
° ?i o'o
g o

R
P G
?
o bwc3- c??o o
p<1 F

p O d N
(? N?
C
'
SJ

o

t"''•

(]ppMM??.
..`• " r\
p
W 0 OR
2
C( fl"" QUO +-

1°f.? q?+
.f
T ?
'Q

q? O
?y

o ; .
[
y
R..pG?• ry'
~ f?A p
?
O Q 'eS+ FI.
Yj (td0
o c ;,
,
O y •? O
?°

?
•
?"
... °m-+ ? apyaf
1 4 H ? ?i. p
n
{Wu??Q??'
? y P' H ,..
p
p 't*
y, G
pbW? C? ?
P p f?
n
p ~M '
`° ?T '. ?'' '?y ??gj± p ?
FI O Pi L
P.
,
0 00" o P gg w ?Q ° F' ?
j p.

°

' A A

w - U
O
OUi A
m
o
A
00 U'
Q
'Q A
00
U k Q
n b
? g
?• n
P° 5 Q
Ea. 55 5 po 5 p
[r?o p o
o Q
o o o
Zo ap ? . C1
g a m
S
0,

,° U1
• p yP

VI
O V :?

OO lh

W
a,
00-0
pp U

•O N
?e
pp V,

J N 0,

pp U

i° V:

OO U

O0 N

?j
M
0 VJ yy°?' r
Rig. y
M r°+' O t.

(I{
° 9 '9 E

q?} V^ Q ro

Q dpi
:V
..n h
O°?k K ?, Fi w
o ?+ rn ° w
C ° °a
M
o ro ?°.. xpv? o E.. Ep G?? a
' rI o G
d
°
?°N,ca-
-" d-x-
'?-a? d b
-
vS= ° o '° ?. rF p
d ao
?m_?•- b ?n

---n .?'-m'94
o ?, ?
Ft''
v q
-- .B'sc' pry Fk
?'
0
:°.-Qn -
?qa• qg ?g+ ??jh fig}. i? rn wp. Eg
f "CID
p I
Q ?• ??... b? ?° ?• w C. C•Ob

Q ?'
o N a a° coor
W y N
o N .. p: 5.
?U to 2
?o

b q
R
,o w P ? P ?Fj Q ,
by
9
?([,I p
? ? ,
?Q
gyp
p
?a APAtlv°9cE oo??yrn? "Po?
° o o a a ?" aP H
? P
• y
• M w" ? c ?
(, 'f°
iY'.
P ?p'?
? •t?9 ? ?.
C. O G" F' Scores
Y' Q? ?•?
fD i-h
?
i
' A•
o
? ? ?.?
P.1
??
tt
N
O N
?",
O O
?, p? ((pp
P W p
r
P
M
? {
?p
?
R• ?
?• y
?? "
y
qO
q O. W
N p
...Ftt"' •.
q • y O
P? ?d p
?.

W i4.lll? •'r,
.Y?
M?
?W
z •
H ,
h?l
FI

Z
Z
rnR
L
C_
Twva,4(a??? 5waA, Jwc.
god §Pce am 252,2
Vim, Sodh Vwwk'na 2840,2
9e? 9Y0-452-0001
gzded _T. A 111d
GN! .?fefl. a&
DATE: August 15, 2002
.wife 14
.9805 wuk&d.- idle a4m=
%66;d?, . M 28403
SUBJECT: Land & soils evaluation and hydrologic drainage study *of Barra-II (1110 acres)
within the Barra Farms Tract to determine potential 404 Wetland areas vs Drained-
Altered_ Wetland areas. Tract located within Harrison Creek Bay, south of NC Hwy
210 & NCSR 2033 intersection, Cedar Creek area, Cumberland County, North
Carolina.
(UTM 17=710519 E; 3868292 N)
TO: ECOBANK
Mr. Alan Fickett_
1555 Howell Branch Road, Suite C-2
Winter Park, FL 32789
(888)`629-7774; [phone]; 629-6044 [fx]
INTRODUCTION -
The lands of Barra-II (1110 acres) within the Barra Farms Tract were evaluated and inventoried
to determine- general soil/land types, drainage alterations, and their locations. ' Soil
characterization, present drainage conditions, and general geohydrologic conditions were also
used as inputs for a computer modeling drainage study ("DrainMod v.5.0). The results of these
evaluations were compiled to determine the degree of historic drainage alterations to the site, and
to determine potential areas that appear to function hydrologically as potential 404 Wetlands,
versus those areas that should not meet the hydrologic criteria to be defined as 404 Wetlands.
LAND & SOILS EVALUATION
Barra-II is a portion of the Barra Farms Tract which is within southeastern Cumberland County,
North Carolina (see general USGS topo and USDA soil maps). The general area's
geomorphology. is characterized by organic Carolina Bays", sandy uplands, and slightly incised
black-water streams. The Barra-11 study site is within a. relatively large Carolina Bay named
"Harrison Creek Bay". The elevation of this entire area -varies between X120 to. -125 feet amsl
(see USGS topo map). Thus, topography is predominantly level (0-2% slopes), with very slight
undulations from edges of the bay rims. The Barra-II study site is situated within the interior
portions of the Carolina Bay with 0-1% slopes.
Natural drainage of the general. area is by rapid permeability through sandy upland areas to a
concave organic "Carolina Bay", Where permeability and water movement slows. Barra-[ I's natural
drainage and water movement appears to-be in a south to southwest direction towards an un-
named tributary that has truncated the southwest edge of the bay. Agricultural and silvicultural
drainage improvements have been historically established within portions of the study site. This
drainage consists of.+2=4 fl.deep lateral open ditching on -300 ft spacing, which.connectto 4-7
ft deep collector drainage canals. All of the artificial drainage drains is in a southwest direction°
l
Page 1 of
to an outlet canal with a water_control structure. Portions of Barra-li's original hydrology has been
altered to various degrees where the historic ditching exists (see Barra-11 map showing existing
roads & ditching).
Evaluations of the Barra-11 site confirmed the USDA-SCS mapping to be representative of the soil
types within the site being studied. The enclosed USDA-SCS soils map shows the major soil type
areas found within this area (see enclosed USDA-SCS soils map). The following is a brief
discussion of the major land & soil type areas found within the 1110 acre tract evaluated:
The "CT" Soil Areas (see SCS soils map & description) predominate within the study area. In
their natural state, they consist of very poorly drained organic soils of "Croatan". These soils
typically have an organic (+20% o.m.) surface and subsurface to +2-3 ft depths, where loamy sand
to sandy loam substratums are encountered (see enclosed USDA-SCS data). These land types
in their natural state have 404 Wetland hydric soil and vegetative characteristics, but significant
areas have been altered through prescription drainage improvements.
The "TR" Soil Areas (see SCS soils map) are minor and within the perimeter of the study area.
In their natural state,.they consist of very poorly drained mineral soils of "Torhunta". These soils
typically have an organic (+20% o.m.) surface and subsurface to <1-2 ft depths, where loamy sand
to sandy loam substratums are encountered. These land types in their natural state have 404
Wetland hydric soil and vegetative characteristics, but significant areas have been altered through
prescription drainage improvements.
The "Le" Soil Areas (see SCS soils map) are minor within the study area.- In their natural state,
they consist of somewhat poorly to poorly drained soils of "Leon". These soils typically have a thin
surface horizon over sandy substratums with hardpans or spodic horizons. These land types.in
their natural state have non-hydric 404 Wetland soil and vegetative characteristics, and typically
would be classified as uplands.
The "Pa" Soil Areas (see SCS soils map) are minor within the study area. In their natural state,.
they consist of moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils of ?actolus". These soils
typically have a very thin surface horizon over sandy substratums. These land types in their
natural state have non-hydric404 Wetland soil and vegetative characteristics, and typically would
be classified as uplands.
A hydrologic analysis and drainage modeling were performed to determine which areas of the
Barra-II Tract should or should not meet 404 Wetland hydrologic criteria. This is principally within
the bay areas of the tractwhere there is +2 to 7 ft deep historic open ditching. In order to assess
which portions of these tracts currently do or do not meet the hydrologic criteria to be defined as
jurisdictional 404 Wetlands, the soil, site, and drainage parameters were simulated using the
"DrainMod" hydrologic computer model; developed by R.W. Skaggs' - NCSU-MRCS version 5.0.
This hydrologic drainage model is one of the latest computer simulations to evaluate drainage and
its' impacts within an area.
Various DrainMod analysis were performed using the known and representative site characteristic
inputs to run various scenarios that reflect the various drainage depths and. existing drainage
patterns that occur across the tract. The DrainMod model is capable of querying the results to
determine the time periods and durations & depths of seasonal saturation from the ground surface
to determine those areas that would meet the minimum hydrologic criteria to be hydrolocaliy
defined or not defined as jurisdictional 404 Wetlands. All units within the models are in
centimeters, hours, and days. All "DrainMod modeling analysis were ran for a 31 year time period
1951-1981 using Wilmington, NC climatological data which is quite similarto Cumberland County's
rainfall periods, evapotranspirational rates, and temperatures (see enclosed Cumberland & New
Hanover County climatological date). The 404 Wetland hydrologic parameters for Cumberland
Page 2 of 5
County, NC ate soil saturation at depths <12" from the surface, for +12 consecutive days during
°
th
h
'
which is M
the "growing season F; a 240
(5% of growing season @>28
thru Nov 12
arch 17
day time period).
The following DrainMod inputs were used in the wetlands analysis for the Barra-11 Tract ,with
Croatan soil/land types.
Climate Data = Wilmington, NC climatological data
Time Period Analyzed = Years 1951 thru 1981
Annual Start/End Time = Day 76 and Day 316
Depth To Saturation = 30.5 cm (12")
Ditch Spacings Evaluated = 300 ft (9144 cm spacing)
400 ft (12194 cm spacing)
460 ft (14021 cm spacing)
510 ft (15545 cm spacing)
Ditch Depths Evaluated = 2 ft = 61 cm
?3 ft= 76 cm
4 ft = 107 cm
5ft=138cm
6 ft = 183 cm
Depth Of Surface Ponding = 1.2 in = 3 cm
Surface Storage To Drain = .1.2 in = 3 cm
Depth To Impermeable Layer = 10 ft = 305 cm
Effective Drain Radius = 7.0 -1-0:0 cm
Drainage Coefficient = 5.0 cm/day
Soil Ksat Rates = "Croatan Soils" [USDA-SCS data: Used lower values]
00-15 cm (00-06"); 2.54 cm/hr (1.0 in/hr)
15-91 cm (06-36'); 1.02 cm/hr (0.4 in/hr)
91-279.2 cm (36-110'x; 7.62 cm/hr (3.0 in/hr)
- Lateral Seepage = 0 cm/hr
Vertical Seepage = 0 cm/hr
Slope Seepage = 0 cm/hr
Initial Potentiometric Surface = 30 cm (beginning in year 1951)
Kirkam G-Factor = 4.72
Wetland Queries = Water-table <30.5 cm (12" from surface for>12 day time period,.
between day 76 and day 316.
The various runs of the model incorporate soil characteristics, precipitation, evapotranspiration,
surface storage, surface infiltration, and drainage influences on the fluctuation & duration of the
unconfined aquifer`s potentiometric surface. All inputs are fixed except drainage depths and
spacing. The data of each model is gcaeried.to tell how many times over a 31 year time period the
water table is less than 12" (30.5 cm) for durations of >12 consecutive days, during the growing
season of Cumberland County, NC (March 17t'thru November 12th). When >50% of the 31 years
meet these conditions (1-6 yrs out of 31 yrs), it hydrologically meets the criteria to be defined as
404 Wetlands. The enclosed data summary and graphs show these results (see Croata_ n
DrainMod data).
Within "Croatan" soil types of the Barra=ll Tract the following results were obtained within areas
of aarallel ditching:
Drainage Depths with 300 ft Spacing Number of Yrs 404 Wetland Criteria Met (%)
2.0 ft 21 out of 31 years (67.7%)
3.0 ft 15 out of 31 years (48.4%)
Page 3 of 5
Based upon the above results, when drainage depth:
ditch spacing the 404 Wetland hydrologic criteria will
types. Within Barra-11, the areas with parallel pattern i
maintained to these depths. The land areas with par,
hydrologic criteria within Barra-11 are shown on the en
conditions "white-shaded" areas).
3:0 ft or greater with parallel <300 ft
met within these "Croatan" land/soil
e have ditch depths of >3.0 ft or are
Ching that do not meet 404 Wetland
map (see map, hydrologic drainage
For the collector ditching within Barra-11, which are non-pa. rallel' and/orwith variable ditch depths,
DrainMod _is ran several times, varying only the ditch spacing -input, to determine the lateral
drainage effects of a single ditch at a specified depth. When 404 Wetland hydrological criteria
are not met (<50% of the 31 year time period), then Y of the ditch spacing is the lateral drainage
influence of a single ditch at the specified depth. The enclosed data summary and graphs show
these .results (see Croatan DraihMod data).
Within "Croatan" soil types of the Barra-11 Tract the following results were obtained for the lateral
riminaaP PffPrtG of single collector ditches-
Depth of
Collector- Ditch Ditch Spacing
In Model Number of Years
404 Wetland Criteria Met (%) Lateral Drainage
Effect in Feet
('/ Ditch Spacing)
4.0 ft 400 ft 15 out of 31 yrs (48.4%) 200 ft
5.0 ft - = 460 ft 15 out of 31 yrs (48.4%) 230 ft
6.0 ft 510 ft 15 out of 31 yrs (48.4°/x) 255 ft
Based upon the above results, the lateral drainage effects of single collector ditches at various
t depths were determined for the "Croatan" land/soil types within Barra-11. The land areas with
collector ditching that do not meet 404 Wetland hydrologic criteria within Barra-ll are shown on the
enclosed map (see map, -hydrologic drainage conditions "yellow-shaded" areas).
-SUMMARY
A land, soils, and hydrologic evaluation was completed to evaluate the drainage effects within the
Barra-I1 Tract (1100 acres). The bay areas have the hydric soil & vegetative indicators to be
defined as 404 Wetlands, but have significantly altered drainage conditions through historic, open,
parallel and collector ditching at various depths. The site was characterized through land/soils
mapping, aerial photo interpretation, qualitative determinations of soil properties, research of
existing reference materials, and "DrainMod" computer modeling. These evaluations were used
to further determine the general acreage that would or would not meet the minimum hydrologic
criteria to be defined as jurisdictional 404 Wetlands. Representative soil characterizations,
conservative hydraulic conductivity rates, and known ditch depths & spacing inputs were utilized
in the DrainMod drainage/hydrology model
Based upon the various DrainMod models ran with the Croatan land/soil types, 404 Wetland
hydrology is not met when parallel ditch depths are 3.0 ft deep or greater with 300 ft spacing. Also
the lateral drainage effects of collector ditches were determined at various depths and for
conditions when 404 Wetland hydrologic criteria were not met. Afinal map is enclosed that shows
the areas and planimetered acreage of potential jurisdictional 404 Wetlands vs drained wetland
areas (see map "Hydrologic Drainage Conditions").
?L.
Page 4 of 5
Hydrologic 404 Wetland Status Acreage'
***"` Inside Tract Outside Tract TOTAL
Non-Hydric 404 Hydrologic Conditions 315 acs 130 acs 445 acs
Based Upon DrainMod "Yellow-Shaded"
PC and Non-Hydric 404 Hydrologic
Conditions Based Upon USDA-ASCS 440 acs 0 acs 440 acs
Class & DrainMod "White-Shaded"
Meets Hydric 404 Hydrologic Conditions 355 acs 355 acs
Based Upon DrainMod "Not Shaded"
TOTAL ACREAGE 1110 acs 130 acs 1240 ac
1 Acreage is planimetered & approximate.
Based upon the soils evaluation and "DrainMod" hydrological analysis, there are -755 acres that
do not meet 404 Wetland hydrology criteria within the Barra-11 Tract. In addition, there are -130
acres directly adjacent to and outside of the Barra-li Tract that also do not meet 404 Wetland,
hydrology criteria. Thus, there is a total of -885 acres that do not meet 404 Wetland hydrology
This report, maps, and evaluations should be used for land planning purposes only. The U.S.
-Army Corps of Engineers-EPA and NCDENR-DWQ have final regulatory authority over 404
Wetland determinations, and permitted/non-permitted activities within 404 Wetland areas. This
4 information should be used as a supportive document to determine drained vs undrained
wetlands, potential jurisdictional 404 Wetland areas, and areas for possible wetland mitigation
credits within the Barra-11 Tract.
Larry F. Baldwin, CPSSJSC
ARCPACS #2183-1, NCLSS #1040
Page 5 of 5

U
O
QJ
tY
W
Q
J?
C
?O
rn L
V (?
Z U
2 .?
U?
F- o
oz
U =
O
0'a
U _
cu
I I E
L9
Z ?
L
co
X a
cu
U m
Z_ Y
d
O L
V) 0
0
?L
L L
tLS
V
co 05
t ? L
U ?-
a?

(t
O
Q.
co
4
0
co
ri)
a
m
0
?0^
UJ
0)
Cl)
X
LU
w
LL. N Fa
O C
ui 0 °
C? C4
IN E c
c Q ? ? CC
?2c!)
Z_
1
LU
_n
W
F-
M
ci
O
V
0
O
00
°.cu
Z U.
O?
CL
o
oz
w .
Lo
M
O
O0
H ?
0 cu
z d
O .a
Z ?
a?
?Q
v
U m
O-
=1 d
O p
U
= cn
L
V
CIS
Z =
.3-006
O ,?
= QY
SD
NV
L
cc a)
C3
co
T
t
U
Q
III
Q
CCl
U-
Q
cr
y
c
0
a
c
O
00
O c
o 'co
L L
mom
Q
o .>, cu
Zmm
m
v
LO
0
2
U_ Q
0.6
N
O
ca
=U
CO
C) C)
U Q
o<
2j
o c
z 0
c?
-0 (D
a) co
m
c co
a 00
U
L
CL dU
m
U
O
N
c
O
0 U
c U
o
O
+. 00
co Nt
U p t)
cu It
LO c
U 0
v L Q
=a
0
Z?
41
LL N
? N O
QN d C
gI ?$
V) to =
Q s Cc M O
r -3 20
- - -_.?... BARRA II 300 ft Spacing 2 ft Depth
------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.0 -- ---
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina state university
-------------=---------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan Soils; 2` Depth @300` Ditch Spacing
^^^_^^_^_^^__^^^^^^^^_------ --
WILN(INOTON,^NC^WEATHER^DATA^1951-1981^TIME ^PERIOD

----------RUN STATISTICS `------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 16:34
input file: C:\orainmod\inputs\Barra-I1.lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 9144. cm drain depth = 61.0 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.50 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
76 and ends on day 316 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.50 cm
------------------ --------------------
1951 0. 10.
1952 2. 16.
1953. .. Q. . 7.
1954 0. 7.
1955 2. 25.
1956 1. 16.
1957 0. 11.
1958 3. 38.
1959 2. 16.
1960 4. 14.
1961 2. 24.
1962 3. 15.
1963 2. 18.
1964 1. 21.
1965 3. 16.
1966 4. 16.
1967 0. 6.
1968 0. 3.
1969 4. 27.
1970 2. 27.
1971 2. 23.
1972 0. 4.
1973 3. 20.
1974 2. 29.
7975 0. 11. .
1976 0. 11.
1977 1. 18.
1978 0. 8.
1979 2. 35.
1980 1. 22.
1981 1. 13.
Number of Years with at least one period= 21. out of 31 years.

Page 1
-- _ ? - _ BARRA = 30D ft Spacing 3 ft Depth
° -----------------------------------------------------
`0 _ DRAINMOD version 5.0
Copyright-1990_94 North Carolina State University
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS sARRA-II; Croatan soils; 3` Depth @300` Ditch Spacing
^^^^^^^^^^_^_^^-^_^^^^^^?-?
WILMINGTON, -NC^WEATHER ^DATA ^1951-1981^TIME ^PERIOD
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 16:55
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\sarra-11-lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat'
drain spacing = 9144. cm drain depth = 91.4 cm
------------------------------------------------------------
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.50 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
76 and ends on day 316 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.50 cm
------------------ --------------------
1951 0. 7.
1952 0. 6.
1953 0. 6.
1954 0. 4.
1955 2. 24.
1956 1. 13.
1957 0.. 8.
1958 2. 20.
1959 0. 6.
1960 1. 12.
1961 2. 18.
1962 0. 11.
1963 1. 14.
1964 0. 10.
1965 3. :.: 14.
1966 1. 14.
1967 0 4.
1968 00 , 2.
-1969 1. 25.
1970 2. 20.
1971 1. 16.
1972 0. 0.
1973 1. 14.
1974 1. 27.
1975 0. 8.
1976 0. 11.
. 1977 0. 8.
1978 0. 0.
1979 1. 32.
1980 0• 7.
1981 1: 12.
Number of Years with at least one period = 15. out of 31 years.

Page 1
4 zt Depth -200 ft Dral- age Int -aence
---------------DRAINMOD version 5.0
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina-State University
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan soils; 4' Depth @400` Ditch Spacing
^^^^^^^^^^^^y^^^?^?,^??^^?????^
WILMINGi-ON,^NC^WEATHER ^DATA ^1951-1981^TIME ^PERIOD
- --RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 17: 4
input file: C.\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-II.liselds not calculat
parameters: free drainage and Yfi
drain spacing = 12194. cm drain depth = 122.0 cm
-----------------------------------------------------
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.50 cm
-for at least 12 days. counting starts on day
76 and * ends on day 316 of each year
YEAR Number of-Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.50 cm
------------------ --------------------
1951 0. 7.
1952 0. 10.
1953 0. 7.
1954 0. 0.
1955 2. 25.
1956 0. 7.
1957 0. 10.
1958 3. 38. -
1959 0. 6.
1960 2. 13.
1961 2. 19.
1962 1. 12.
1963 0. 10.
1964 1. 17.
1965 3. 16.
1966 2. 14.
1967 0. 0. _
1968 0. 1.
1969 3. 26.
1970 2. 24.
1971 1. 16.
1972 0. 0.
1973 1. 14.
1974 2. 25
1975 0. 4.
1976 0.' 11.
1977 0. 8.
1978 0. 0.
1979 2. 35.
1980 0. 9.
1981 1. 13.
Number of Years with at least one period = 15. out of 31 years.

Page 1
5- ft Depth -2-'30 ft Dra-i rage Influence
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.0 °
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University °
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan soils; 5r Depth-@460 Ditch Spacing
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER.DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD
-------=--RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 17:19
input file: C:\Drai nmod\inputs\Barra-I1.lis
parameters : free drainage and yields not cal cul at
drain spacing = 14021. cm drain depth = 152.4 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.50 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
76 and ends on day 316 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest consecutive
of 12 days' or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.50 cm
------------------ --------------------
1951 0. 7.
1952 0. 10.
1953 0. 5.
1954 0. 0.
1955 2. 25.
1956 0- 8,
1957 0. 10.
1958 3. 38.
1959 0- 6.
1960 2. 13,
1961 2. 19.
1962 1. 12.
1963 0. 9,
1964 1. 18.
1965 3. 16.
1966.. 3_ 14,
1967 0. 0,
1968 0. 0.
1969 3. 27.
1970 2. 24.
1971 1. 12.
1972 0. 0.
1973 1. 14.
1974 2. 25.
1975 0. 4.
1976 0. 11.
1977 0. 8,
1978 0: 0-
1979 2, 35.
1980 0, 8.
1981 1. 13.
Number of Years with at least one period = 15. out of 31 years.
l
Page 1
•6 f-t Depfi?i -255 ft Drainage Inf-1nenze
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.0
Copyright- 1990-94 North Carolina state University
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS SARRA-11f Croatari soils; 6` Depth @510` Ditch Spacing
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD
----------RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 18:38
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-I1.lis
parameters : free drainage and yields not cal cul at
drain spacing = 15545. cm drain depth = 182.9 cm
------------------------------------------- -------------------
Number of periods with water table closer than 30.50 cm
for at least 12 days. Counting starts on day
76 and ends on day 316 of each year
YEAR Number of Periods Longest Consecutive
of 12 days or Period in Days
more with WTD
< 30.50 cm
------------------ -------------------
1951 0. 7.
1952 1. 15.
1953 0. 3.
1954 0. 0.
1955 2. 25.
1956 0. 8.
1957 0. 11.
1958 3. 38.
1959 0. 6.
1960 4. 14.
'1961 2. 19.
1962 1. 12.
1963 0. 9.
1964 1. 18.
1965 3. 16.
1966 3. 16.
1967 0. 0.
1968 0. 0.
1969 2. 27.
1970 2. 25.
1971 1. 12.
1972 0. 0.
1973 1. 16.
1974. 2. 25.
1975 0. 5.
1976 0. 11.
1977 0. 8.
1978 0. 0.
1979 2. 35.
1980 0. 8.
1981 0. 11.
Number of Years with at least one period = 15. out of 31 years.

Page 1
=U-TS =RA-I1 WETLAND A=Y.SZS

D R. A I N -M O D
Copyright 1990-91 North Carolina State University"
VERSION: NORTH CAROLINA MICRO-UNIX 5.0
LAST UPDATE: FEB. 1994
LANGUAGE: MS FORTRAN v 5.0 & UNIX f77
DRAINMOD IS A FIELD-SCALE HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPED FOR
THE DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE MODEL WAS
DEVELOPED BY RESEARCHERS AT THE DEPT. OF BIOLOGICAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. W. SKAGGS.
= D R A I" N" M 0 D -- 5.0 °
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-I1.lis
cream selector (0=no, 1=yes) = 0
TITLE OF RUN
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan Soils; 2 to 6 ft Depths @300` Ditch Spacing
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD
CLIMATE INPUTS
DESCRIPTION (VARIABLE)
------------------- VALUE
--------- UNIT
----------
-----------------------------------------
FILE FOR RAINDATA ..............C:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\NWILMING.RAI
FILE FOR TEMPERATURE/PET DATA ..C:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\NWILMING .TEM
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ....... ....................(RAINID) 319457
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................(TEMPID) 319457
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ... ...............(START YEAR) 1951 YEAR
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION .. ..............(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..... .................(END YEAR) 1981 YEAR
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION .... ................(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE.. ..." ..............(TEMP LAT) 34.16 DEG.MIN
HEAT INDEX .................... ......................(HID) 85.00
ET MULTIPLICATION FACTOR FOR EACH MONTH
2.01 2.32" 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05
1.22 1.
44
DRAINAGE,SYSTEM DESIGN
CONVENTIONAL DRAINAGE =^
JOB TITLE:

404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan Soils; 2`-6` Depth @300
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD
STMAx = 3.00 CM
SOIL SURFACE

Page 1
J INPUTS BARRA-II WETLAND ANALYSIS
ADEPTH-=305. CM DDRAIN = 61 to 183 CM
0------------- SDRAIN = 9144. CM -----------0 -
EFFRAD CM
HDRAIN =218. CM
- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
CCM) (CM/HR)
.0 - 15.0 2.540
15.0 - 91.0 1.020
91.0 - 279.2 7:620
DEPTH TO DRAIN = 61.0 to 183 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH FROM DRAIN TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 218.2 CM
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRAINS = 9144.0 CM
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF. SURFACE PONDING = 3.00 CM
EFFECTIVE DEPTH TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 279.2 CM
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT(AS LIMITED BY SUBSURFACE OUTLET) = 5.00 CM/DAY
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY CSUBIRRIGATION MODE) = 2.50 CM/DAY
ACTUAL DEPTH FROM SURFACE TO IMPERMEABLE LAYER = 305.0 CM
SURFACE STORAGE THAT MUST BE FILLED BEFORE WATER
CAN MOVE TO DRAIN = 3.00 CM
FACTOR -G- IN KIRKHAM EQ. 2-17 = 4.72
°== SEEPAGE LOSS INPUTS No seepage -due to field slope
No seepage due to vertical deep seepage
No seepage due to lateral deep seepage
end of seepage inputs
WIDTH OF DITCH BOTTOM = 91.0 CM
SIDE SLOPE OF DITCH (HORIZ:VERT) = 1.00 1.00
INITIAL WATER TABLE DEPTH = 30,0 CM
SOIL INPUTS
TABLE 1
DRAINAGE TABLE
VOID VOLUME WATER TABLE DEPTH
(CM)
.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

(CM)
.0
3-6.5
47.2
55.5
63.0
69.4
75.7
Page 2
INPUTS BARRA-II WETLAND ANALYSIS

7.0 81.2
8.0 86.7
9.0 91.9
10.0 96.6
11.0 101.4
12.0 106.1
13.0 110.9
14.0 115.7
15.0 120.5
16.0 - 125.3
17.0 130.2
18.0 135.1
19.0 140.0
20.0 144.9
21.0 149.8
22.0 155.4
23.0 161.0
24.0 166.5
25.0 172.1
26.0 177.7
27.0 183.3
28.0 188.8
29.0 194.4
30.0- 200.0
35.0 223.8
40.0 247.7
45.0 271.5
50.0 295.4
60.0 343.1
70.0 390.7
80.0 438.4
90.0 486.1
TABLE 2
SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC VS VOID VOLUME VS UPFLUX
HEAD
CCM)
'.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0 -
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
WATER CONTENT
CCM/CM)
.4500
.4420
.4340
.4260
.4180
.4100
.4080
.4060
.4040
.4020
.4000
.3980
.3960
.3940
.3920
.3900
.3880
.3860
.3840
.3820
.3800
.3780
.3760
.3740
.3720
.3700
.3690
.3680
.3670
VOID VOLUME
ECM)
.00
.04
.18
.58
1.27
2.34
3.54
5.09
6.78
8.61
10.71
12.81
14.91
16.95
18.99
21.03
22.83
24.62
26.42
28.21
30.00
32,10
34.20
36.29
38.39
40.49
42.58
44.68
46.78
UPFLUX
CCM/HR)
.5000
.5000
.2167
.0777
.0331
.0170
.0071
.0040
.0020
.0010
.0008
. 000 5
.0003
.0002,
.0001
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
Page 3
INPUTS BARRA-II WETLAND ANALYSIS
290.0
i .3660 48.88 .0000
t
300.0 .3650 50.97 .0000
350.0 .3600 61.46 .0000
400.0 .3567 71.94 .0000
450.0 .3533 82.43 .0000
500.0 .3500 92.91 .0000
600.0 .3440 94.33 .0000
700.0 .3380 95.75 .0000
800.0 .3320 97.16 .0000
900.0 .3260 98.58 .0000
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D. A B
(CM) (CM) (CM)
.000 .000 2.540
10.000 .250 2.540
20.000 .430 2.160
40.000 .630 1.590-
60.000 .830 1.590
80.000 .910 1.590
100.000 .990 1.590
150.000 2.970 1.590
200.000 2.970 1.590
1000.000 2.970 1.590
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION
NO WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SCHEDULED:
-----------------------------------
. _ ..* wetlands Parameter Estimation *. ..
Start Day = 76 End Day = 316
Threshold water Table Depth Ccm) = 30.5
Threshold Consecutive Days = 12
Fixed Monthly Pet values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00 5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
Mrank indicator = 0
OF INPUTS
-----=----RUN STATISTICS -------- time: 8%20/2002 @ 16:34
input file:- C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-Il.lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
drain spacing = 9144, cm- drain depth = 61.0 cm
-------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------
FOR 7/1953, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
FOR 2/1956, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 3
FOR 9/1965, NUMBER DAYS MISSING TEMPERATURE= 1
**> COinpUtational Statistics . l**
**> Start Computations = 994.745
*> End computations = 994.840
=*> Total simulation time = 5.7 seconds.

Page 4
'?•. 38
-
SOIL SIIRwY

=E
F.' TABLE 1 .--TEMPEP,ATURE AND PREC IPITATION DATA

t. I l
_
I
1 Temperature) l
i
1 Preeipitationl
i i
2 years in
12 years in 1D 1 '

Month
A

vera

e
A 10 will, have--
Average
;will
have--
, Average ,

s;! I
r g

daily l
verage,
,.daily , Averagel

daily ,

Maximum , ;number oflAvera e;
g
; Minimum 1 growing 1 { Less
I
; More '
!number of,Aver;
;days withlsn
w:

E iinaximumlminimum l
i 1 ltemperature itemperaturel degree ; o
;than--)than--;0.10 inch;

1-:
higher
; lower ;
days2
;
;
; l
; or more
• than-- than-- r
F. F 1 F I F i In i In ; In
I h
a January"---
,
1 57.9 1 35.3 F !
I 45.6 I 77 , 17 , ! 57 1 3.41 i 1.94 i 4_61
F i 7 ;

February---1
58.3- ,
1 37.1 ; {
47.7
79 I i
1 19 1
69 i
'1 3.66 .i
1 2.40
-1 4.80 1 '
7 ;
Mar6h----__? 64.3 1 43.0 1 53.7 84 1 26 180 1 4.09 1 2.25 1. 5.58 8
April------1 73.7 1 51.6 1 62:7 1 91 ; 34 1 381 1 3.07 1 1.36 1 4.46 1 5
1

May-------- I 80.8 1 60.1 1 70.5 1 95 1 43 ? 636 1 4.09 1 2.27 1 5.57 1 6
Jurle ------- 1 86.2 1 67.2 1. 76.7 1 99 1 53 1 801 I 5.63 1 2.84
'
17-89
' '
1 8 1
July ---- 89.0 1 71.2 1 80:1 1 98 1 61 1 933 1 7.72 1 4.47 110.36 1 10
August-----1 88.3 1 70.5 1 79.4 1 98 1 6o
911 1
, 6.80 1
, 4.10 1
, 9.21 1 1
, 9 ,
1 1

• September— 1
1 -83.7 1 65.2 1
1 , 74.5 ; 94
, 50 1
735
1 5.55
1 2.66
1 7-40 ,
1 6 1
October--=-1 75.5 1 54.6 1 65:0 1 89 1 33 i 465 i 3-16 1 1
07 1 4
84 1
. . 5 1
November---1
t 66.5 i 43-7 1
1 1 55.1 1 82 1 25 i
i 162 1 3.19
I 1 1.28
I 1 4.73 1 5 1

-
December---1
1
59.1
1 37.4 1
L 1 I
48.3 1
!
78
1 18
1

115
1
1 3-17

1 1.59 1
1
1 4.44 1
1 1
1 6 ,

Year-----1
' 73.4 1 53.1 1 -63.3 1
F 99 1 15 1
1
5,445 1
1 53.514 1
147.28 1
1 1
.
82
4
1
1
11fecorded in the period 1 9522-74 at Wilmington, N.C.
2A growing degree day is
by adding the maximum and min an index
imum dail of. the amount of heat available
t for pla nt growth. It can be dalculat

below which growth
is minimal
for th y
emperatures, dividing the sum by 2,
in
ip and subtracting th-e tempera£ur
e pr
c
al crops in the area (5d degrees F).
R {{p
102
TABLE 1.--TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
[Recorded in the period 1951-73' at Fayetteville, North Carolina, in Cumberland County]
Soil survey
Temperature ; Precipitation
2 years in i

.10 will have--
; i
Average ; 12 years in 10;
; will have-- ;
A
Month
,
Average,A
verage,
Averag
e
; verage ;

;
?
daily 1
daily ; ,
daily ; Maximum 1
Minimum ;n
1 umber oflAvera e'
g
r
i
r
r
age

maximumlrainimum,
'

?
!temperature ,t

mperatur

l ow
ng
g
,
degree ; , Less

;than- , More ,d

-;than--;0 s
withis
ays s
.10 inch' no
no
wf
all
i ; higher ; lower ; daysl ;

1
; than-- ;
, than-- or more ;
of 1 of o F 1 F 1 ;
, ; Units ; In , In , In ; r In
January----; 54.0 1 30.0 1 42.0 1 78 ; 12
25 1
3451
2
22
4
67
8
. ,
.
"
February---i 57.0 1 32.9 1 44.9 1 80.
15
?
22
4.10
2
42
5
59 i
,
. . 8 i .5
March.-------1' 63.9 1 38.5 1 51.2 1 84
23
?
111 ;
4.10
2
59
; 5
45 ;
. . 8
April------1 73:5 1 47.4 ; 60.5 ;
91
30
315 1
3.21
1 1
87
4'0 ;
1 4
1 . . 5 D
MaY--- ----' 80.7 1 56.3 1 68.5 96, 37 "57h 1 3.5.4 ; 2
20 ; 4
74 ; 6
. . 1 .D

June-------;
,
87.5
64:7 ;
76.1 1
; 100
4
4 1

783 1

4.56 1

2.50 1

6.37 ,
"
7 1

July=------;
90. ;
68.9 1
79.6
; 16l ;
57
1
418 ;
4.94
; 3.02
; 6:66 ;
g ; .D

August-----1
89.1 ;
67.9 1
78.5
1 99 1
55
1
884 1
5.67
1 3.8i
1 7.36 1
8 0

o
September--'.
84.5 j
-61.8
73.2
96
45
1
69,6 ;
3.53
1 1.41
5.36 ; "
5 ; .

October---;
1
75.4 1
50.1 1
62.7
1 90
1

28

,

394 1

5..15

1 .78

1 5603 1

5 1 .0

November---1
1
1
66.0 1
?
38.4 1

52.2
1
'
, 84

9

,

03 i

.40

.94

`
61 ;
1 3

1--
4 ; -0

December---1
1 1
56.0 1
30.8 ;
43.4
79 !
12

?

78 f

2.85
1
1 1.27 .

" 4
19
1
b 1 .0
1 . 149
Yearly:
,
Average:-; 73.1 1 49.0 ; 61.1
,
, -

---

Extreme-=;
--- ;
-=- 1
---
1 101 ;
12 --;
Total----'. ---
1 -- ;
" --- 1
1 4,9D3 1 45.55 137.72
1
1? 79 1 3-2

lA growing degree day is a unit of heat available for-plant growth. It can be calculated
maximum and mini.muin daily temperatures
dividin
the s
b by adding the

growth is tinimal for
the pri
ncipal ,
g
um
y
cr
ps i
° 2, and subt ractin g the t emperature below whi ch
o
n the a •
rea (50 F).

TABLE 2.--FREEZE DATES IN SPRING AND FALL
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Fayetteville,
- North Carolina in Cumberland County]
i Temperature
Probability ; 24 F ; 28 F ; 32 F
;. or lower ; or lower, i or lower
? F F
Last freezing ;
temperature
in spring: ;
,
1 year in 10 ;
later than-- ; March Z7 ; April 13 ; April 30
,
,
2 years in 10
later than-- ; March 17 ; April 4 ; April 19
I I
? I 1
'S years in 10
later than-- ; February 25 i March 17 ; March 30
,
I
First freezing ;
temperature
in fall: ;
i `
1 year in 10 r
earlier than__ November 5 i October 27 ; October 20
2 years in 10
earlier than- ; November 17 ; November 1 ; October 24
'S years in 10
earlier than- November 22 ; November 12 October 31
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Pinehurst,
North Carolina, in Moore County]
i Temperature
r
Probability- ; 24 F ; 280-F
; 32 F
or lower ;. or itwer ; or lower
.Last freezing
temperature ;
in spring:
1 - , I
1 year in 10
later than-- ; March 27 1 April 2 ; April 24
, l
2 Years-in 10
later than-- ; March 19 ; March 30 ; April 18
5- ye ars in 10
later than-- ; March 5 ; March' 23 1 April 5
First freezing ; l l
temperature ; i
in fall: ;
r ;
l F i
- 1 year in 1b ;
earlier than-- i November 4 ; October 23 ; October 14
F I
2 years in 10 f i
earlier than=- l November 9 ; October 28 ; October 19
F I
5 years in 10
earlier than-- ; November 19 1 November 7 Octnhor 9R
104
Soil survey
Dumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina
TABLE 3•--GROWING SEASON
[Recorded in the period 1951-73, Fayetteville,
North Carolina, in Cumberland County]
Daily minimum temperature
' during growing season
Probability i Higher ; Higher ; Higher
i than ; than ; than
240 F i 280 F . 320 F.
Days i Days Days
9 years in 10 i 231 i 202 175
8 years in 10 ; 215 i 215 , 189
'
i
?
5 years in 10 ; 270 ? 239 214
,
2 years in 10 i 295 i 262 i 239
1 year in 10 i 308 275 ; 253
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Pinehurst,
North Carolina, in Moore County]
Daily minimum temperature
i during growing season
i
Probability i Higher , Higher I• Higher
' than i than i than
Z40. F. i 280 F i. 32° F
Da Z40.. Days i Davy
9 years in 10 i 228 i 210 i 180
8 years in 10 ; 238 i 216 189
205
5 years in 10 i .258 i 228 '
i ;
2 years in 10 1 278 i 240 ; 221
247 i 229
1 year in 10 G 288 I
105

Curnberiand and Hoke Counties, Norm Cardina
soil is suited to loblolly pine. The dominant trees
a lolly pine, sweetgum, yellow-poplar, and white
ok.he main understory includes holly, sourwood, red
-maple, and dogwood. Wetness restricts the use of
equipment and damages seedlings.
This soil is suited to most urban and recreational uses.
Wetness and slow permeability are the main limitations:
Erosion can be a problem on slopes if disturbed sites
are not revegetated promptly.
This soil is in capability subclass llle and woodland
suitability group 3w.
CT-Croatan muck. This nearly level, very poorly
drained, organic soil is mostly in large, oval depressions
the southeastern part of Cumberland
25
be difficult during very wet periods when the organic
surface layer becomes soggy.
Croatan soil is poorly suited to trees. Because the soil
u
is poorly suited to other uses, many areas of it probably
will remain in native woodland for many years. The
dominant trees are pond pine, water tupelo, baldcypress,
loblolly pine, sweetgum, swamp tupelo, and Atlantic
white-cedar. The understory includes sweetbay,
greenbrier, and gallbeny.. In, its natural, undrained state, R
this soil provides good habitat for wetland wildlife.
This soil is poorly suited to most urban and
recreational uses. Wetness and low strength are the
main limitations.
This soil is in capability subclass Vliw and woodland
suitability group 4w.
or Carolina bays in
County. Most areas of this unit have thick, almost De_.Deloss .loam: This nearly level, very poorly
impenetrable undergrowth; therefore, the soils were
examined mostly along canals, trails, and loggirig roads. drained soil is on terraces of the Cape Fear and Lower
In selected areas, transects were made across the land, Little Rivers and their tributaries in Cumberland County:
and borings- were made at specific points to verify the Individual ua and ra gof this nit gene all areore long and
acres
soils. The boundaries of the soils were drawn from
limited field observations, using aerial photographs as in size the surface layer is black loam 10 inches
aids for interpretation. Although this unit-was mapped Typically,
with fewer detailed observations than were most other thick The subsurface layer is dark grayish brown loamy
units in the survey, the resulting delineations meet the sand 3 inches thick. The subsoil to a depth of 72 inches
needs for the major anticipated uses of the soil. is grayish brown, light brownish gray, and light gray
Individual areas of this unit range from 100 acres to sandy clay loam in the upper part and gray sandy loam
than 500 acres in size. in the lower part
pical[y, the soil is black muck to a depth of 37 Permeability is moderate. Reaction ranges from very acid
all h
The F` es. The underlying material to a depth of 80 inches strongly
asonal highhwaterhtablle is at or near the surface during
-=;:> dark gray sandy loam.
'Permeability is slow to moderately rapid. Where the the winter and early in spring. This soil is subject to rare
soil is drained, permeability is moderate in the organic flooding, are small areas of
layer and moderate or moderately slow in the mineral Included with this soil in, mapping better drained Roanoke and Where soils and more
layer. Reaction is extremely acid, except where the clayey Cape e Fear soils. Also included are small areas of
surface had been limed. Except where the soil is drained, P
.the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface sandy soils that have thin subhorizons high in organic
from 8 months to the full year. matter content. These sandy soils are on small, narrow,
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of slightly elevated ridges that have distinctive, gray or
white surfaces.
Johnston, Torhunta, Lynn Haven, and Leon soils. All of
these are mineral soils. They typically are on the outer Several large areas of this soil have been cleared to
edges of oval-shaped delineations of Croatan soils. They grow corn and soybeans. The rest are in woodland.
may be in slightly elevated areas located randomly within This soil is suited to growing cultivated crops, such as
rhapped areas. Also included are small areas of similar cork, soybeans, and small grains. Good yields are
soils that have an organic surface tier thinner than. 16 common n drared and protected l which ha eg. Open
inches or thicker than 51 inches. These soils are properly
randomly intermingled with Croatan soil. Included soils ditches .are the most common method used to drain this
make up less than 20 percent of most unit. soil.
Most areas of this soil are in woodland. A small Delos§ soil is well suited to grasses and legumes for
acreage has been cleared for growing corn and hay and pasture. If this soil is used for pasture, proper
soybeans. stocking rates, pasture rotation, timely deferment of
This soil is poorly suited to growing cultivated crops grazing, and restricted use during wet periods help to
anal to pasture. Wetness is the main limitation. If the soil keep the pasture and soil in good condition. Grazing
: is drained, com and soybeans can be grown. Suitable when the soil is too wet can cause surface compactiari "
drainage outlets, however, usually are unavailable. and poor filth.
This soil is suited to hardwoods and pines- Water
m. fetness also limits the use of this soil for pasture or
spy. Even with proper drainage, grazing probably would tupelo and sweetgum can be grown without artificial
r..
+iri r ?nr?m m®arm?®
74 Soil Survey

Ap-O to 7 inches; brown (1 CYR 5/3) loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; common fine and medium
roots; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
-.W-7 to 23 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 516) clay;
moderate fine and medium angular blocky and
subangular blocky structure; firm, sticky, plastic;
common fine and medium roots; few discontinuous
clay films on faces of'peds and in. pores; very shiny
ped faces; very strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary.
Bt2-23 to 44 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) clay;
common medium distinct gray (1 CYR 611) mottles;
moderate medium angular and subangular blocky
structure, firm, sticky, plastic; few fine and medium
roots; few discontinuous clay films on faces of ,peds
and in pores; very shiny ped faces; very strongly
acid;_ gradual wavy boundary.'
Cg1-44 to 58 inches; gray (10YR 611) clay, common
fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles;
massive; firm, sticky, plastic;-very strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary.
Cg2-58"t6 80 inches; gray (1OYR 6/1) clay loam;
common fine distinct strong brown (7.5YR 5/6)
mottles; massive; firm, sticky, plastic; very. strongly
acid.
- The loamy and clayey horizons are 40 to 60 inches
deep to stratified deposits of the Coastal Plain. Reaction
is very strongly acid or strongly acid, except where the
surface has been limed.
The A or Ap horizon has flue of 10YR, value of 5, and
chroma of i through 3; or it has value of 4 and chroma
of 1 or 2. The E horizon, where present,, hag hue of
1 CYR, value of 6 or 7, and chroma of 3 or 4.
The BA horizon, where present, has hue of 1 CYR or
2.5Y, value of 5 or 6, and chroma of 4. It is loam, clay
loam; or silty clay loam. The Bt horizon has hue of 10YR,
value of 5 or 6, and chroma of 4 through 8; hue of 2.5Y,
value of 5 or 6, and chroma of 4 through 6;'or hue of
7.5YR, value of 5, and ch.rorna of 6 through 8. The lower
part of the Bt horizon is mottled with gray, brown; or red,
or it is dominantly gray. The Bt horizon is clay, silty clay,
silty clay loam, or clay loam.
The Cg horizon is gray with red, yeitow, or brown
mottles. It is clay, clay loam, sandy clay loarri, or sandy
loam-.
Croatan Series
The Croatan series consists of very poorly drained
organic soils that formed in highly decomposed organic-
material underlain by loamy sediment. The Croatan soils
are in the Carolina bays Slope is less than 2 percent.
Typical pedon of Croatan muck, in Cumberland
County, approximately 15 miles southeast of Fayetteville,
1:1 miles northeast of the intersection of State Road
2041 and 2042 along State Road 2041, and 1.1 miles
southeast, in a large bay.- ,-
Oat-0 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1 broken face and
rubbed) sapric material; about 10 percent fibers
unrubbed and 3,-percent rubbed; moderate fine
granular structure; very friable; many fine and
medium roots; common grains of clean sand; about
50 percent organic material; extremely acid; gradual
wavy boundary. .
Oa2--4 to 37 inches; black (1 OYR 2/1 broken face and
rubbed) sapric material; about 8 percent fibers
unrubbed; less than 4 percent rubbed; massive; very
friable; common medium roots; few grains of clean
sand; about 50 percent organic material; extremely
acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Cg-37 to 80 inches; dark gray (1OYR 4/1) sandy loam;
massive; friable; extremely acid.
Croatan soils have organic horizons that total 16 to 51
inches in thickness: They are extremely acid, except
where the surface has been limed. Logs, stumps, and
fragments of wood make up 0 to 10 percent of the
organic tiers. Fiibet content is less than 25 percent
unrubbed and less than 10 percent rubbed: The
underlying mineral horizon is extremely acid through
slightly acid.
The organic tiers have hue of 7.5YR through 5Y, value
of 2 or 3, and chroma of 0 to 2. They typically are -
rriassive under natural conditions: When drained and
cultivated; granular or blocky structure develops in all.-'or
part of the organic tiers.
The mineral horizon-has hue of 7.5YR through 5Y,
value of 2 through 6, and chroma of 1 through 3. It
typically is. sandy loam or sandy clay loam: Some pedon§
contain thin strata of sand or loamy sand.
Delass Series
The Deloss series consists of very poorly drained soils
that formed in loamy sediment on terraces along the
Cape Fear and Lower Little-Rivers' These soils are in
Cumberland County. Slope is less than 2 percent. .
Typical pedon of Deloss loam, in Cumberland County,
is 2 miles south of Fayetteville on N.C. Highway 87, 0.3
mile west on East Mountain- Drive, 150 feet south of the
road:
Ap=O to 10 inches; black N 210) loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; strongly acid; abrupt
smooth boundary.
E-10 to 13 inches; dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2)
loamy sand; weak medium granular structure; friable;
strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
Btg1-13 to 24 inches; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sandy
clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; common fine flakes of mica; few
medium pockets of sandy loam; strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary.
TABLE 15---PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTi-S OF THE SOILS
Symbol < means less than; > means more than. Entries under "Erosion factors--TIT apply to the entire
profile. Entries under "Organic matter" apply only to the surface layer. Absence of an entry indicates
-that data were not available or were not estimated]
-name and 1 Depth 1 Permeability ;Available; Soil 1
symbol i ; ; water ireaction;
capacity 1 i

A--------------; 0-il i 2.0=6.0
ltavista ; 11-37 ! 0.6-2.0
! 37-80 1 ---
?` I 1
![uA------=------ 1 0-25 ! >6. 0
,Atitryville 1 25-39 1 2.0-6.0
i 39-59 i >6.0
1 59-80 !
! 0.6-2.0
!
AYB-=------------l. 0-13 ! 2.0-6.0
Aycock ! 13-80 1 0.6-2.0
i
BaB, BaD=--=-----1 l
0-25 1
>6.0
Blaney 1 25-34 ! 0.2-0.6
', 34-80• 1
i 0.2-0.-6
1
Blaney----------1 0-25 ! >6.0
1 25-34 ! 0:2-0.6
; 34-80 1 0.2-0.6
I
Urban land. ,

!
!
BrB-------- ------i 0-6 i 2.0=6.0
Bragg ! 6-30 ; 0.2-0.6
1 30-80 1 0.2-0.6
!
----1 !
0-9 t
6.0=20
tters- 1 9-37 1 2.0-6.0
! 37-58 1 6.0-20
1 58-80 1 0.6-2.0
By---------------; 0-18 ! 0.6-2.0
Byars !
! 18-80 1
! 0.06-0.2
CaB, CaD--------- 1 0-20 .1 6.0-20
Candor ! 20-30 ! 6.0-20
! 60-80 1 0.6-2.0
i
Cf-------------- -', 1
0-16 1
o.6-6•.0
Cape Fear ! 16-52 1 0.06-0.2
1 52-62 1
! ---
!
Ch---------------! 0-25 ! 6.6-2.0
Chewacla 1 25-48 ! 0.6-2.0
; 48=64 1 0.6-2.0
Co--------------! 0-7 ; 0.6-2.0
Coxville 1 7-55 1 0.2-0.6
1 55-72 1 ---
!
CrB-------------- ! ',
0-7 !
0.6-2.0
Craven ! 7-58 ; 0.06-0.2
! 58-80 1
, 0.2-6.0
i
CT--------------- i ,
0-37 1
0.06-6.0
Croatan 1 37-80 ! 0.2-6.0
De---- =----------i 0-13 i 2.0-6.0
Deloss ; 13-48 1 0.6-2.0
,

!
48-72 1
',
---
See footnote at end of table.
Shrink-swell !
potential ;
!
Erosion i
factors ; Organic
i ; matter
1 Infin i pn -i +
+
' i
r + -
;0.12-0.2014.5-6.0 1Low------------ '
! 0.24
10.i2-0.2014.5-6.0 ;Low------------
! -=- ! --- l--------------- ! 0.24
', ----
10.D4-0.•0914.5-6.5 ]Low------------ 1 1 0.10

10.08-0-1314.5-5.5 1Low---- -------- 0.10
10.03-0:0814.5-5.5 !Low --------- --= 1 0:10
10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 !Low------------
i 1 0.17
,
i i
10.15-0.2014.5-6.0 1Loii=------------ '
1 0-37
10.15=0.2014.5-5.5 iLow------------ 1 0.43
10.05-0.0614.5-5.0 ;Low------------ ! 0.15
10.05-0:1014.5-5.5 !Low------------ ! 0.28
10.03-0.0814.5-5.5 ;Low---=--------
' ! 0.28
'
;D.03-0.06;4.5-6.D 1Low=--=-------- 1 0.15
10.05-0:1014.5-5.5 ',Low------------ ! 0.28
10.03-0.0814•.5-5.5 !Low------------ ! 0.28
10.06-0.1214.5-5.5 !Low------------ ! 0.20
10.10-0.1514.5-5:5 lLow--=--------- 1 0.28
10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 !Low------------ ! 0.28
+ 1
10.05-0-1014.5-5.5 !Low---------=-= 1
0.15
1

1.0.10-0.1414.5-5.5 1 Low ------------ 0
.15
'

10.03-0.0814.5-6.5 ;Low------------ 0.10
1
.
10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 !Low------------
+ 1 0
17
i
I +
10.15-0.2013.6-5.5 !Low------------ 1 0.28
10.14-0.1813.6-5.5 ;Moderate------- 1 0.32
1 +
10.03-0.06!3.6=6.0 !Low---------
! 0.10
10.06-0.1013.6-5.5 ]Low------------ ! 0.10
10.12-0.1613.6-5.5 !Low------------
' i 1 0.20
'
10.15-0.2214.5-6.5 lLow--=--------- l 0.15
;0.12-0.2214.5=6.0 !Moderate------- 1 0.32
--
I
10.15-0.24 14.5-6.5 ;Low------------
0.28

10.12-0.2014.5-6.5 1Low------------ 28
1 0.

10.15-0.2414:5-6.5 !Low---=--------
' i 0.32
F
10.12=0.17!3.6-5.5 !Low------------
1 0.24
10.14-0.1813.6-5.5 !Moderate------=
' ! --- 1--------------- 1 0.32
I ----
10.12=0.1814.5-6.5 !Low------------ ! 0.37
;0.12-0. 15!3.6-5.5 !Moderate------- ! 0.32
10.08-0.1413.6-5.5 !Low------------ 1 0.32
' ' , I !
10.35-0.451 <4.5 ;Low------------ ! ----
10.10-0.1513.6-6.5 !Low------------ 1 ----
i
i i '
10.10-0.1614:5-6.5 !Low------------
1

10.12-0.1814.5-5.5 !Low ------------
=------------= 24
It 0.
----
T i
Pct
!
5 ! 5-3
,
!
5 i -5-1
,
,
!
5 ! 1-4
,
,
1
!
5 1 <1
!
!
!
5 ! 0-2
1
!
5 1 5-2
,
,
,
5 ', 2-9
1
!
5 1 .5-1
i
!
5 i 5-i5
i
5 ! 1-4
!
!
5 2-4
,
,
!
!
5 i .5-2
1
--- ! 25-60
!
5 ! 2-5
!
,
,
TABLE 14.--FNGINEFRTNG.IND PROPPPT=FS--Ocitinued
• 1 1 ,
name and IDepth! USDA texture I
symbol Unified
E ;
anion irrag-
lments
AASHTO 1 > 3
finches
i In i , 1 ct
, 1 1
aB, CO-------! 0-20 !Sand---------! SP-SM, SM 1A-3, 1 0-2
andor ' ' ` ` A-2-4
120-30' loamy sand-----ISM, SP-SM IA-2-4 ! 0=2
130=60ISand- ---ISP-SM, SM !A-3, ! 0-7
1 1 1 1 A-2-4 1
'60-80'Sandy clay loam, IN, SM-SC, IA-4, 1 0-7
{ + sandy loam, I SM I A-2,
sandy clay. ! 1.A-7- 6

--~-- , I 1 1
---! 0-161Laam----------lML, CL-M1,IA-4, ,
A-6 1
f -
Cape Fear ! ! ! CL I I
116-52!Clay loam, clay, iML; CL, IA-7 I
I ! silty clay. I MH, CH
152-6.2!Variable------ --! --- ! -- -

1
I • 1
.Ch ---- --! 0-2511oam------ IML, CL, !A-4, A-6
Chewacla ! ! I CL-ML I
125-6413andy clay loam, ISM iA=4, A-6 i
clay loam, loam-ICI, SC, M11
Co-------- -=-! 0-7 !Loam------------ iSM, ML, 1A-4, A-6,!
Coxville ! I i Cl-ML, C11 A-7 I
7-551C1ay loam, sandy lCL, CH IA-6, A-7
1 1 clay, clay. I

1: 155-721Variable --- i 1 --- --
1
1
- `
1CrB ---- --! 0-7 !Loam----------!ML, CL-YL,1A-4
Craven i I 1 SM, smI SC I
! 7-58ICl1iy, silty clay,ICH 1A•-7
I silty clay loam.:
158-80I3andy clay loam, ISM, SM-30,1A-2, A-4,1
sandy loam, 1 SC 1 A-6
1 I
I ! clay loam.
1 1 1
?, '`.
CST-------- f 1 I 1
-i 0-371Muck !Pi ! - I
--
Croatan 137-80!Sandy loam, fine, ISM, SC, 1A-2, A-4 I
: sandy loam, 1 SM-SC I
' mucky sandy I
1 ,
I loam.
__-

De-------- _--?
0-131Loam ------ - ----- ISM, SM-SC,I1A-2,
A-4 !

Deloss 1
I 1 1 ML, CL-ML1
113-48[Sandy clay loam, ,SIi-SC, SC,IA-4, A-6,1
1 ! clay loam, fine 1 CL=ML, CL! A-7 1
1 ! sandy loam.
148-721 Variable---------1 --- i - - 1

DgA--------- 1
--=! 0-4 !Fine sandy loam 1SM, SC, IA-2,
A-4 1
Dogue ! I I SM-Sc I
1 4-55IClay loam, clay, 1CL, CH, SCIA-6, A-7
sandy clay loam.1
155-721Stratified sand 1SM, SC, !A-21 A=4,!
r , to sandy clay I SP-SM, I A-1
1 ! loam. ! sM-Sc
, I I 1
DhA----------- ! 0-11 !Loamy sand----ISM IA-2
Dothan 111-3BSandy clay loam, 1SM-SC, SC,IA-2,

A-4,
I 1 sandy loam. 1 SM - I A-6
138-72 !Sandy clay loam, 1314-SC, SC,1A-2, A-4,
sandy clay. 1 SM, CL I A-6
I I _ , 1 , A-7
Dn------- ---- ! 0-10 I Loam------- : SM, SM-SC 1A-2, A-4-
Dunbar 110-72!Sandy clay, clay ICL, CH 1A-6, A-7
loan, clay. ! 1
DpA------------! 0-6 (Sandy loam-----'SMSM-SC !A-2,
1 ' A-4
Duplin 1E, -CH, SCIA-6,
1 6-6513andy clay, clay A-7
loam, clay. :
I r !
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
' 0
1
' 0
1
0
1
,
1 -
,
1
1 0
0
i
!
0
0
.100
100
9o-100
90-100
100
100
rcentage passi
sieve number-
10 I 40 1- 200
100 155-90 1 5-15
100 165-90 110-25
I ,
90=100155-90 1 5-15
190-100155-90 125-49
! !
195-100185-100160-90
! ! !
195-100190-100160-85
Liquid 1 Plas-
limit ; ticity
index
c-G
I.
1
' NP

--- !
i NP
!
,

<45 1
1 NP-25
1
20-40 1 3=15
41-65 i 15-35
1
i
1 NP-2b
98-1:00195-100;70-10055-90 1 25-40
96-100195-100160-80 136-76 I <35 1 NP-28
? 1 i 1 1
1 100 1 100 185-97 146--75 1
1
100 ; 100 185-98 150=85 1
1 , r 1 I
1 , I r
1 100 1 100 175-100145-90
100 1 100 190-100165-98
1 100 195-100150-100115-49
1
r , , I
1 1 r 1
1100 1100 160-85 125-49
1 1 1 1
20-46 1 3-15
I
30-55 ! 12-35
,
1
<35 ! NP-7
!
51-70 124-43
!
<35 i NP-15
I
1
!
,
<30 1 NP-10
, 1 1 , 1 1
1 100 i 100 170-95 130-65 1 <35 1 NP-7
1 1o6 1 100 175-98 136-70 1 16-45 1 4-22
11 , I ? 1
I , , r 1 1
195-100175-100150-100120-50 1 <25 1 NP-10
195=100175-100165-100140-90 135-60 1 16-40
180-100160-100135-100110-40 1 <30-1 NP-10
195-100192-1001'60=80 113-30 I --- NP
195-100192-100158-90 123-49 I <40 1 NP-16
195-100,92-100170-95 b0-53 1 25-45 1 4-23
,
1 100 1 100 150-95 120-50 1 <30 I NP-7
1 100 1 100 1185-95 150-70 1 36-60 118-35
, t 1 1 i !
1 1,00 1 100 167-98 120-49 1 <26 1 NP-7
1 100 19B-100180-100145-75 1 24-54. 1 13-35
I
, I I ! 1 1
r 1
aee footnote at end of table.
164
Soil survey
TABLE 17.--ENGINEERING INDEX TEST DATA
[Dashes indicate oata were not available. NP means nonplastie]
Grain size distribution ; i ;Moisture
Classification density
Soil name, Percentage i Percentage
report number,, passing sieve-- ;smaller than--1 -? 114
xl
horizon, and r` ; o a?1 s_ ?',s z
depth in inches
! I 1 l 1 1 i l l , .,:1 I y C 1 ,-1 I E y
11 AASHTO {Unified{ No., No.1 No.! No.1.02 1.0051-0021 3 im -4 it -a °x
i l 1 I 1 1 F I Cr I CO x r_ ? -4
1 1 1 4 1 10 t 1 40 1 -200] 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 +1 , •••1 1 I 0 I1cl. o
{ 1 , r l 1• T 1 1 [ -.I 1 ?` f? 9 1D E
t 7 I 1 ,t ! 1 1 i 1 i G 1
;P ct i
? i ft3iPet
?
'

1
Blaney. • - 1
1
I t
1
1 l
!
1 1
1
t 1
1
f 1
1
1 f
[
/ 1
I
, 1
t
t
t 1
I
{ 1
1
1
i 1
l
I
1 1
I
t
I ;
r.
y

(S74NCO93-008) I
11 1
i 1
11 1
1 I
11 1
1 1 (
11
1 I
11
1
11
1 :..
3
1 1 1 1 t , 1 1 ! 1 F , l
E-----=---7 to 27 1 A-1-6 1 SP-SM 1100 1 92 1 40 11 9 1 7 1 4- i ' 2 1 - 1 NP 1 11411 12 ?
Bt1------ 27 to 39 1 A-2-7 1 SM 1100 1 95 1 34 1 22 1 21 11 19 1 17 1 46 1 19 1201 12
Bt2------ 48 to 64 1 A-2-4 1 SC 1100 i 91 i 33 1 19 1 18 1 15 1 13 i 33 1 10 1 1241 11
1
t 1
, 1
1 I
, i
, 1
1 I
1 1
t 1
1 1
, 1
, t
t
1 1
1
1
-"'
}

Cando.r:2

(874NC051-002) 1
,
1 1
,
1 1

1 1

1 1
,
1 t
I
1 ,
{
1 l

t 1

I l

1 1

1
1
t
1
1 ;
E1-------=8 to 33 1 A-2-4 1 SP-SM 1100 1100 1 72 i 12 1 7.1 4 1 3 1 - 1 NP 11 1161 10
Btl------ 43 to 50 .1 A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 74 1 22 1 18 11 15 1 13 1 21 1 3 i 1161 10
Bt3=-----60 to 80 1
1
I A-7-6 i
,
[ SC 1100
-I
? 1100
1
1 1 81
1
1 1
1
I 41 1
,
1 33 1
1
i 30 1
,
t 28 1
t
1 44 1
1
, 22 1
1
1 1121
{
1 16

Croa-tan:3 t
1
I
l 1
1
1
1 1
1

, 1
f
,
, , '
,
1
I t
1
,
1 1
1
l
1 [
1
1
i 1
i
,
I I
1
,
t I
,

i 1
1
,
i I
1
1
1
(S74NC051-003) 1 i i i i i
Cg-------37 to 52 1 A-2-4 SM 1100 1100 A 76 1 25 i 10 1 5 1 4 1 - 1 NP i 1181 10
CS-------52 to 64 1
r
1
1 A-4 1
1
I
t SM 1100
1
1
1 1100
1
1
, 1 81
I
•1
1 i
1
i
, 42 i
,
1
, 1b 11
,
1
, 4 1
t
I
1 3 11
I
1
, - 1

1
I NP 1
t
1
I
I 12211
i
i
, 8
_

.

Dothan:3
(S749CO93-009) 1

1

- t

It 1

1 t

1 t

11 i I

It t

1 i

11 i

1 t

11
t
1 1

1
Ap-=----- 0 to 7 11 A-.2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 t 77 1 27 i 13 1 7 1 4 11 - 1 NP 1 12011 09
Btl---- :-11 to 25 , A-6 i Sc 1100 1 99 1 77 1 46 1 36 1 30 1 26 1 33 1 16 1 1161 13
Bt2------ 25 to 38 1 A-7-6 1 CL 1100 1100 1 82 i 53 i 46 1 40 1 37 1, 45 1 23 If 108; 18
Bt3-----38 to 63 1
1
t A-7-6 1
1
I CL 1100
1
i. 1 99
1
I 11 81
I
1 1
1
1 50 1
,
1 43 1
,
1 37 1
r
I 34 1
1
1 44 1.
1
1 19 1
[
i 10911
,
t 17

Faceville: 1
{
, ,
f
1 i
1
1 I
l
1 1
,
I 1
{
, 1
,
a 1
1
1 1
,
I i
I
I I
1
1 I
I
1 I
I
1
(S741fCO51-006) i
Ap7------- 0 to 7 1 A=2-4 1 SM 1100 1106 1 84 1 22 1 8 1 4 11 2 1 - i NP 11 11211 10
Bt1----_-17 to 52 .1 A-7-6 1 CL 1100 1100 1 84 1 52 11 46 i 43 1 41.1 49 i 23 1 1071 18
Bt2------ 52 to 70 1
1
1
I A-7-6 i

I
, Sc 1100

l
1 1100

,
, i 86

1-
, 1

t
1 46 1

i
1 37 1

[
t 34 1

i
1 33 1

1
, 46 1

l
- I 21 1

1
i 1091

I
1 17

P'u ua
q Y'
(S74NCO93-o07) 1
1
t
1 1
,
t
1 7

1
11 1

I
11 1
r
I
1 1

1
1 1

I
1 1

1
1 1
,
I
11 1

k
1 1
{
1
1 1
t
1
1 1
1
1
1
E---------3 to 29 1 A-2-4 1 SM 11100 1100 1 80 1 18 1 8 1 4 11 2 11 - i NP i 1151 10
Be-------29 to 42 11 A-2-4 11 SM 1100 1100 1 79 11 26 1 19 1 15 1 13 1 20 1 2 1 124, 10 -
Bt1------ 42 to 60 1
t
1 A-7-6

- i
1
I SC 1100
l
1 1TOO
1
? 1 81
1
! 1
1
1 41 1
i
, 34 1
1
1 30 1
f
, 28 i
1
1 45 1
I
1 21 1
Y
1 •1071
,
t 18 ..
- -

Woodington:3
. 1
1
,
, 1
1
{
1 I
1
1
, t
I
,
I t
1
,
1 l
1
1
i 1
I
1
1 I
1
{
1 1
1
1
I t
1
,
I I
1
,
1 k
f
I
1 t
1
r
,
'

_
`
(S74NC051-004)
A-------- 0 to 5 i A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 i 71 i 26 i 19 1 11 11 6 1 - i NP 'r 1081 14' _
Btg------11 to 28 i A-2=4 i SM 1100 1100 i 63 1 25.11 21 i 15 1 11 i 17 1 3 1' 1261 10
BCgl----- 28 to 37 i
1
1 A-2-4 1
,
7 SM 1100
,
1 110.0
{
, i 65
1
. I 1
,
! 22 1
1
1 18 1
1
t 13 1
1
l 9 i
(
I 14
1
1
{
1 12711
1
i 69
- I I I 1 1 1 1 f t f .1 I. 1
1 This pedon is a taxadjunct to the Blaney series, because the medium and ooarse sand
content in the A hor izon an d t he liq uid l imit of the Bt ho rizon are higher tha n all owed for
the series- Pedon l ocatedd, abo rt 8 miles west of Ra eford i n Hok e Cou nty:, from the
_ -=
intersection of Stat e Road 121 8 and 1214, 1.5 miles southe ast a long State Road 12 14 , the n
200 feet northwest o f the r oad .
2 Pedon located about 1 mi le eas t of Inter state 95 int erchange a t Hope Mil ls al ong
State Road 2252, 0 .7 mile n ort heast along a fi eld road and 100 feet north of f ield road in
an idle field in Cum berland Co unty.
3 This is a typi cal ped on for the ser ies. See the sec tion, soil series an d the ir
1'? morphology for the l ocation of the pedon.

TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map Page 1 of 2
A L-l ca; MI
Target is UTM 17 709778E 3869088N - AUTRYVILLE quad FQuad Infol

ht-tp:INTww_topozone.com/printasp?z=17&n=3869088&e=709778&s=50&size=m . 8/20/02
0 f -0M 43M
mete mI i I
€ 3as I E
TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map
Page 1 of 2
WRIB'Com;
--
Tom-
Target is UTM 17 714519E 3868292N - AUTRYVILLE quad rQuad Info1

http://ww«.topozone.com/print.asp?z=17&n=3868292&e=714 19&s=25&size=m 8/20/02
? 0 Soo low
I r_ t
TT9 ?? '?.I? I r
D
-v
T
mm
z
0
X
Large outlet canal (i.e. Primary ditch)
Barra Farms Cape Fear regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase H
Cumberland County, NC
lEODBANK
Land Management Gromp, Inc.
September 2002
Pictures of site.
Collector (i.e. Secondary) ditch with adjacent road bed to be graded.
Existing PC fields in agricultural production.
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional IE(C®IBA NK
Mitigation Bank, Phase H Land Management Group, Inc. Pictures of site.
Cumberland County, NC September 2002
Cleared CC areas with existing lateral (i.e. Tertiary) ditches.
D
-v
?rn
z
0
x
Threatened and Endangered Species Report
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Cumberland County, NC
Introduction
Most of the 1812-acre Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank, Phase II .
tract has been cleared and drained over the past several decades in order to convert
Harrison Creek Bay into agricultural fields. Approximately 440 acres of Barra H are
currently in use for agricultural production for a corn, soybean, and winter wheat rotation.
An additional 260 acres have been historically cleared and ditched but are not currently in
agricultural use. This area has become overgrown with opportunistic vegetative species
such as broom sedge (Andropogon spp.), catbrier, and saplings of red maple and sweet
gum (Liquidambar styracif lua). The remainder of the tract is in active silvicultural
production, primarily for loblolly pine. On-going silvicultural activities include ditching,
construction of temporary forestry roads, and logging.
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database did not locate
any federal- or state-listed species within or adjacent to the site and it is unlikely that this
site contains any rare species because of its intensive land use history. However, since
certain sections of the tract are vegetated, the likelihood of observing federally protected
species known to occur in the area is discussed below.
1
Ta1,iP. 1 Ti-qt nffedernlly protected species observed in Cumberland Countv. NC.

Saint Francis' Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisca)
This small species of butterfly is dark brown with conspicuous eyespots
KEY:
Status
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Animals
Neonympha mitchellii francisci Saint Francis' Satyr E
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Plants
Isotria medeoloides* Small-whorled pogonia T
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough leaf loosestrife E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Schwalbea americans American chaffseed T
* Has not been observed within Cumberland County for over lu years.
Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Species
on the lower surfaces of the wings (USFWS, 2002). According to USFWS data,
only one metapopulation of this butterfly is known to exist in the sandhills of
North Carolina, in Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Habitat for this satyr consists
of wide, wet meadows containing a high diversity of wetland sedges. Although
some wetland areas currently exist within the tract (enhancement and preservation
areas), these areas are either densely vegetated or former cropland and would not
support the Saint Francis' Satyr.
2
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker is generally found in old-growth pine
forests (minimum age of 80 to 120 years) and prefers mature longleaf pines with
at least a 10" DBH for nesting and foraging (USFWS, 2002). Pine stands within
this site are dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and have been timbered
periodically. Therefore, appropriate habitat for this species does not exist within
the tract.
Small-Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
This perennial orchid has a smooth, hollow stem terminating in a whorl of
five or six pale green leaves that are somewhat pointed (Russo & Sweeney, 2000)..
One or two yellowish green flowers are produced at the top of the stem
Flowering occurs from mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers lasting only a few
days to a week. This species is generally found in open, dry, deciduous woods
with acid soil. It should be noted that this plant has not been observed within
Cumberland County for over 20 years. This tract contains cleared and drained
agriculture fields and pine stands and would not support this species.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)
This deciduous shrub grows to approximately six feet and spreads
vegetatively by stolons. Pale yellow flowers appear in the spring and the bright
red, oval-shaped fruit mature in the fall. Pondberry grows in wetland habitats such
as the interior of bottomland hardwoods, poorly drained swampy depressions, and
3
but may be found in full sun. Because of the site's intensive land use history,
appropriate habitat for this species does not currently exist within the tract.
However, proposed mitigation activities, such as ditch-filling, could create
suitable habitat for the plant.
Rough leaf Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Rough-leaf loosestrife generally occurs in the ecotones between pine
savannas and pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow
organic soils overlaying sand (USFWS, 1993). Because this plant is shade-
intolerant, moist areas exposed to sunlight, provide suitable habitat. Because of
the site's intensive land use-history, appropriate habitat for this species does not
exist within the tract.
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii,
Michaux's sumac is a low growing, deciduous shrub. Leaves emerge in
April and May. Small greenish-yellow to white, four- to five- parted flowers are
borne in dense, erect, terminal clusters from April to June. This species prefers
full sun or the light shade of open stands. Therefore, it is found in open areas such
as roadsides, powerline rights-of-way, and areas where forest canopies have been
opened up by harvest, blowdowns, or hurricane damage (Russo & Sweeney,
2000). Timbered pine stands within the tract may provide suitable habitat for
4
Michaux's sumac. However, proposed grading activities will only be conducted
within fields and, therefore, the project would not negatively affect this plant.
American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
American chaffseed is an erect, fuzzy, perennial herb with unbranched
stems and large, purplish-yellow, tubular flowers that are borne singly on the
uppermost leaves. The leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, and entire
(Russo & Sweeney, 2000). Flowering occurs from April to June. This plant
occurs in sandy, acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils. It is generally found in open,
moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty
wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open grass-sedge systems. Because of
its previous, intensive land use, it is unlikely that suitable habitat for this species
exists within this site.
Summary
A majority of the 1812-acre Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank,
Phase II in Cumberland County, NC does not provide appropriate habitat for federally-
protected species because of its intensive land-use history. However, it is possible that
marginally-suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac exists within timbered pine stands,
where harvesting may have created open areas within the forest canopy. Despite this
possibility, proposed grading activities will not occur in pine stands and this species
would not be affected by the mitigation actions. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this
5
l report that federally-protected species known to occur witbin Cumberland County will
not be negatively affected by this proposed mitigation project.
6
References
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
85 pp.
Frantz, V.L. 1984. Reproduction biology of the Atlantic Coastal Plain endemic,
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Primulaceae). Report to the North Carolina. Plant
Conservation Program, Raleigh.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
91 pp.
Russo, M. and J.M. Sweeney. 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of
North Carolina: A Guide to Assist with Forestry Activities. International Paper
Co.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Pondberry (Southern Spicebush) in North Carolina.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/plant/pondberry html..
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Red-cockaded woodpeckers in North Carolina..
http://ne-es.fws. g?ov/birds/rcwood. html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Saint Francis Satyr in North Carolina. h ://nc-
es.fws. goy/insect/stfrancis.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Technical draft rough-leaved loosestrife recovery
plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 41 pp.
7
D
-v
=rn
z
0
X
-- CONTRACT PERFORMANCE BOND
Date of Contract
Performance Bond Execution: +
Name of Principal:
(Contractor)
Name of Surety:
Name of Contracting Body:
Amount of Bond :
Project Number :
County Name (s) :
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY
above named, are held and firmly bound unto the above named
Contracting Body, hereinafter called the Contracting Body, in the
penal sum of the amount stated above for the payment of which sum
well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by
these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the
principal entered into a certain contract with the Contracting
Body, numbered as shown above and hereto attached:
NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall well and truly perform and
fulfill all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and
agreements of said contract during the original term of said
contract and any extensions thereof that may be granted by the
Contracting Body, with or without notice to the Surety, and during
the life of any guaranty required under the contract, and shall
also well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings,
co?renants, terms, conditions, and agreements of. any and all duly
authorized modifications of said contract that may hereafter be
made, notice of which modifications to the surety being hereby
waived, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in
full force and virtue.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the.above-bounden parties have executed this
±nz trument under their several seals on the date indicated above,
the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto
affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned
representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body-
-4-
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE BOND
(Seas of Surety Company)
(Surety Company)
By
Attorney-in-Fact
(Print, Stamp, or Type Signer's Name)
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
Witness
(Print or Type Signer's Name)
Address of Attorney-in-Fact
-5-
CONTRACT PERVOMI.NCE BOND
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR (PRINCIPAL)
(If a Corporation, use this sheet.)
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
(Print full name of Corporation)
(Seal)
D7 rat : 11e, m `Ca.rT toV
(Print or Type Signer's Name)
f
.Attest/'P'er
Secretary or (Delete inappropriate title)
(Print or Type Signer's Name)
Affix Corporate Seal
-6-
(Delete inappropriate title)
CONTRACT PAYMENT BOND
Date of Contract
pax,rment Bond Execa3tion
Name of Principal:
(Contractor)
Name of Surety:
Name of Contracting Body:
Amount of Bond:
Project Nbmber:
County Name(s):
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY above
named, are held and firmly bound unto the above named Contracting Body,
hereinafter called the Contracting Body, in the penal sum of the amount
stated above for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we
hind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors,
jointly and severally, firmly by these presents_
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the principal
entered into a certain contract with the Contracting Body, numbered as
shown above and hereto attached:
NOW THEREFORE, if the principal shall promptly make payment to all
persons supplying labor and material in the, prosecution of the work
provided for in said contract, and any and all duly authorized
modifications of said contract that may hereafter be made, notice of
which modifications to the surety being hereby waived, then this
obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-bounden parties have executed this
instrument under their several seals on the date indicated above, the
name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed
and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative,
pursuant to authority of its governing body.
-1-
CONTRACT PAYMENT BOND
(Seal of Surety Company)
(Surety Company)
By
Attorney-in-Fact
(Print, Stamp, or Type Signer's Xame)
Signature of Attorney-ice.-Fact
/ witness
(Print or Type Signer's Name)
Address of Attorney-in-Fact
-2-
CONTRACT PAYMENT BOND
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR (PRINCIPAL)
(if a Corporation, use this sheet.)
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Company
(Print full name of Corporation,)
(Seal)
D. NI : it., M?Cc?r r(ay
(Print or Type Signer's Name)
Attest V -{ f c z
Secretary ret - y
(Delete inappropriate title)
(Print or Type Signer's Name)
Affix Corporate Seal

?e rresz?errs?,
(Delete inappropriate title)
I
1
MONITORING ANDAWNTENANCE BOND
DOCUMENTATION
MITIGATION MONITORING ANCE
PERFORMANCE BOND
Date bond executed:
Effective date:
Principal: Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road Winter Park Florida 32789
Type of Organization: Individual
Joint Ventum-
Partnership
X Corporation
State of Incorporation: Florida
Surety(ies): Cumberland Casualty & Sure 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: $200,000.00
Surety's Bond Number: XXX)Q=
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.
WI=REAS, 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 NMI 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 NMI.
(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 contractor agreement other than a contract or agreement
entered into to meet the requirements of the NMI.
The Surety(its) shall become liable on this bond obligation only when the Principal has
failed to fulfill the conditions described above.
Upon notification by the USACE/DENR that the Principal has been found in violation of
the requirements of NMI for completion of Task 3 of the Nfitigation -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 NMI into
the standby trust fund as directed by the DENR.
The Surety(ies) hereby waive(s) notification of amendments ro the MEI 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(its) 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.

IN WITNESS WBEREOF, 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(]ES)
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
D- Miller McCarthy, President
(Corporate Seal)
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY
COMPANY
By::.
President
4311 West Waters Avenue, Suite 401
Tampa, Florida 33614
Florida
State of Incorporation
Liability Limit:, MOb.000.00
(Corporate Seal)
I
MITIGATION BANK STANDBY TRUST FUND AGREEMENT
TO DEMONSTRATE MONITORING NANCE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
TRUST AGREEMENT, the "Agreement,' entered into as of
Date
by and
between Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporatio„
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 of Florida N.A.
Name and Address of Corporate Tncrtee
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 ("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 of Florida, N, A., the
Trustee who enters into this Agreement and any successor Trustee.
(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.
ection 3. 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 5. Payment for Completing Monitorinz 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
. frnm nnri in f1,P rnTtrcP ?-F oT,-...t..<.,... - t,_. ... T . I . _. .
rom the ownership, maintenance, use, or
(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising f
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 6. 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 Bc - id
Insert "Lever of Credit" or "Surety Bond'.
Section 7. Trustee Mana ement. 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. Commingiin!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
(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 . 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, id 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 depositor 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 1 . Taxes and E2Menses. 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
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 12. 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 shaII 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. AII orders, requests, and instructions by the Grantor
to the Trustee shall be in writing, signed by such persons as are designated in the attached Exhibi
t
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. AIl 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.
Section 1 6. Amendment of Agrtment. 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. Irrevocability 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
&ction 18. 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 indemnif ?d 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 FIorida.
ection 20. Interpretation. 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.
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 LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
Signature D. Miller McCarthy, President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
ATTEST TRUSTEE
SOUTHTRUST ASSET MANAGEMENT
COMPANY OF FLORIDA, N.A. .
Signature
(CORPORATE SEAL)
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GRAN'10R'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
.On this _ day of 1998, personally appeared D. Miller McCarthy, who being
by me duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument to be his free act and deed. Mr. McCarthy is
personally known to me, or has produced her (state) driver's license
bearing number
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.
Signature
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
Commission expiration date
Serial Number, If any
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUSTEE'S SIGNATURE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
On this _ day of 1998, personally appeared ,
who being by me duly sworn, acknowledged said instrument to be his/her free act and deed.
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.
Signature
Printed Name
(NOTARIAL SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF
Commission expiration date
D
m
z
0
x
• :jF::f a : ` Ki ?'fY -.._ .. . - r::':.s • : f;::<v11; ? ? ' f e::
.. I ' „n a., .Y'a:sf'+w4q.?j..?• "h:7`.. a'.p? ::) ?• ,? ..
Jk l?A'9"''1??5 a $?? D00O Z CRI: D ors=mrn-I N
S.bF ?` 1?. ..? ? •.o ..?$• .. •.4 -°i.9•. `?p'y?+ '. _ • =fn 1. .y ?•N ?:u
7 ?a1 '!U? ?? Px ? r i10 ?: Z Ahr2{i I n- c o W OOM ?n
y4?•.
R 1E a mz Q?
Rz K
Q ° h ? ..1. ? •.. ?? ?:??'r Q • o an a3 gg'??. "•?••?, .?i ??+' ? ???C `? ' ? vrni n?
IV C C 5? 3 $ 36tr. oa '3i N n° y' ° a b
8p? yep m
C92 A-
?•.' ?1yi r,' ^?e R O (1 ?,"l:` A. c '??y? b
Q ?4j N
3Si MMT:, r1 tt ?i O
° -4 Zzv;POr'vcmrmmfs mVimm
•? ' St41i ? G fl. P. n < C4 s2?x? i 3:yH9
w• r ?a aTij p? 1 4 0? d?1?, mt?0'?mb?Q??"c??` oQ
G_9• ''O ? p v,m?=zclzr?, o+Yn u,a Z7n „bus ?n
cz 0:1
D z
MRS Mc
'Vm lsr'?N? Z m?0 m `OG7 Dr'-?9GZ1 G)!q, Z C)~Gz)?
°
A 9. Wes: 0 pp?N p.n aG t? ?G•,r? mAr '[1A n1-I tl'_
n yam. ?, = y ?. C? m? N toC C w r- p K -i z W i'c D-• or z
(p G?•?''P, O 3z? o y ?•? MOM m ?y+•v_o
C'm
IS 0 C) Im
[1 ••7 { y In
M
H
m $ Fn
n
n ? y C, mo
S
p, m
VIP cf)
zz
mm 4
1 ? c>0
x 6'? C-) O) N? 0)3q"F ?p n?
_? ..._... _ F~ ' aom.Q
"r:6:':F:? ?i '2/z'o:r,r:K.f:,:,1MSsv-?'?•::• ? : ? .,y . w•i^'-- -?•$1??.: ,. •:. ?• ._ y _....f._.._. o W ,p?? co to to
a ('S! Y W jTa m
oo .? f11 ? ?J; ? /))r ?i 'tl f
3: 4+1
;a Z
im'?p ?A`"'a4•? ` 09 cog
54
'
yr m•
?? •p< M-
? ti
G1j \ \ 90 3,r?68mliffi y N co Yn mv0
CT 14
m m m m RJ y g- V
S 2 W do Z V Ei P n 1 ?'v `O n u 4&1 32?q p O?
z 80
-_--? Icy \? ?. ys?Mes N 3???4tFs
s c) \ ? z yam '? ? S o@?Rt? 'N 't,
-M 4
{?Nx \ ?? ,, ,g N mg DqY/0?\ pB FBU? G+?<gRO 2 y 41,
m '? m 00' l9Ll \ BFyY??,,,\, 6AG??,9p?
_..r...._...,_?_?.p_„ 2169.1+3' ". -
/ a F
g ?n ?a .nrs.°^'^.'• ?y..?a.,....arww..y.'s.+..a.v.c,r: t .ra,c...w„? m b1¢ $?p0 y C
.41
COO Ti
F0 V.:
-4L 7:,
m-1 $
N° TA 140 -4 , ? mc)?" VIN
m v ? $r W G? ? rZZtl. 9 m Q1? dp5
z M5
b f :x! L
-n
? I 'il0 ?N$y ~ ?''12Y a, ti;?ocNiO???'w
P3?.???11 1 -•?,J yz fil/nY??
ca.
p`J ?f ° Yn fC (n A hear.
c) 4 0 Q
1m
oiDr3°D C()?+ ?. $• i? / N w 1' ?.. u,NwNOO°nz
A?1'41 at•• m dip"' i W+ \m asi4 1' alf?i pN,.?°qq?Ln?nA
m u,od T
Z % m n' , z
°i'y?n`t ?rr m Z
.r m? Ar' •X ital N i f?... / m GL! osN O F-!n
4yN
05
cn dGS11V030 W?F ai ?? $ J & C 1
.y \ om ?O FASEME'NTSFE Zi ?n?3 ?7e .? xs tVy m!A"w ;" rio
V(* • D84743PGWOD. -? gs?? ::? h? Sp m O °'z '?a
?pW 4Z?t N23 11 mYY t,. gigAn 47?o7 OOA I'1,
W d i
o 62 CA tin w a 13 v.) W4)
c"I
.s? ?? p q r 111 N p1 Y $?Fal W PAZ y '09
9 O
OU w w aW
?so A
co; On E)d EPOP
-j m
m -• ? ? • .p g.? z
\N1\414% 6 $ o g ??q m? n?i c? ° a O Qr w N ...
o° f'f+?yy*^?plQ?fi 11§1(°.v 01!p 3 Yn NO ? .0D ?eR!-,;6 fP. jy 5F - r ? 'R Iaa•'1 °$o r?r y ?.le o?m' q?ti
cnoarnD?ni'? ?o,,r? a o i r°i,t
r oNiA ?<
m 4i p ? vF CS g °m 3 ° m $o g to3?a?°w [rt0 a, ycom rmi ^Ih
yO2
o s OR IN ? m ?p?mn=i 3 Ng °Sm( D1 m?z~ :-r TO
?s8, d NhP Uk ' .dt?..+? i? ng 4b' s m R m o `$ c? a'G2'i v3' z +? ~ ° z (/)
(p m ° C (D > > 0 N p 0 ;u 0 f?/1 ?? ?V Q w m -{
g, N7 G "m'". G O' g?g N )C `O O CO '-+Z e'?' A O 8 (O? ?y?.. , 0 N nl
g?ta3§3,? av? 'g 3c3` in;Sg<?f7a1 7C?. Ozm> D SmI•.,?Itw C
-•?:? ?' S7i'(?p .c .0e. o o,n m cab 3 o? m ?_{ C NyaCp- w pip fZ'3
°2a7 o ?im'2'a? n ?'ci? $ $ r
'? `r9i t '? N 0 g W ?"'
sg3 Li op?°pp pt i^ j] 03 FL 0 EI ?•u?' p p2 q O ?G /1nr? ° n ri?rnc?7vtm mmn m^mm
w- MJI? P4 ps'.. P= mw coo) 9
a ff 3 yO SD 7 .+•.. ?0; ]? q ? ?'9? ? "" N s 2 A M M
M .3 014 ?O {Il w i^ G' ••3e 'Q H
? 'O"` ..?
- 9 Z c c? $ o boll) Q A3 Q " m ` sWj. S"S"'$cz_ic?`''v'"??x'!2k"ot;i?"?S2y"! .
IS' O m 4.?'? ?f °' 3 "t ?Sl T a t: `?yG-=iti o?_-NiN-Gnyg
s N?p (•I ?s ZZ,r2
X O ?"?m'?'d tTi-•m` ?. af7{' `• Z4)yyO.?PVtN .n m -1
`? 03 = _. W L1. W c '. Oj ao IC4 o ro O T r ?s,T?1 z
V N 7DC GS
7 `Z' j C
? "' ? O In a•[l i v i t'1
?'9y NN 1=C y 37 C ?nt? od ,? ?D Q<?N imp""" m00
3 Pt7 obi a° m = m d m ° m' $ 'Q n DS (° r1'opem? zo7epe =PN,1zz
t7 r.. r y 9 -n W UZ ° a m (? o d O fn Q A o z "G N
3 [[NDD 9 ?, mgy ? O. t?• ? q. Iy C C^ N O ??? QQ p z •Ta ?: q O
07 ? L7 ? .m fi a ? y ? r? m z 0 x ? c r, Nff 7b Z o ,n r r y fn m
m ?? ? PV CA O c r y
m
n yAA
o?
O \
Q ? ?•'G-•? E N O ? y L
m NoP?i "•TD me»
ti?3 •D "Oa1 n Q
2w? ` \ I
?1 ? N \
G7 W?x NyN \ AED ` I
rRt \ N?.
J8
lnj?
OG)
?OC \ NN pp
Q N
m
Im
/ 2169
z 2 ?? Ln
-9 Ch
Go $i ?i1 3 " .r?, M ou
fmn r 3 m v
C5 ;40
V? Sf ro `n'? "'? M2 a S?y
2 N4.17ZO•E ? ntc: 1 rf w
A?mm •y_i5''?j 923.85'?c??z°Qw
X w
pw tae 2, t3s au-i
tp W4f tgf3? of (° yNS DA?
N
? `hG
Q
0 o x 9"383 "?-- 1 4D rn y a'
_ p3 W g- C?` a ui \ v ?Y W 4 -4 p3 ,?. d (/?.
,V
OSaL?3i ,tQQVJGW t?yV? Al'+ N?s1 li M? '-'oil V M m COm 2C'
` ?l a? RF N \ N s? ~+? V! D I'T+ to b. A W ? O
N ° N V 'O N ,h fit ? "'P
?, l X
f?J "S NN O Nat'pD ?.
V A
/// m ? ?aav35va? '•tt ? p C1
or (11
r^
Fi/? a0N1AEJMlSYY3 ''''1111 N n
* qb q-- 1801.a5'_""'4. ^300 ?n m
/ 2 gDg'? n Rg ??ob 4aalR \ p? ry m =10
NO 7c °° '??/ mp , . m o w
S'? 0 oo1Gp1?1? p ????{{77 \ r0 3 P110f7 o10m
-10 ca
m TO C7 0 0 0? SSIM 42. A \ v4?iW?01?T of°w 7Cz
p " INS go
` W ? D . to .., nwi I i
o \ y 7C _ X r" N
11?? gg w L _
IWO
??d\i,
ra
q.jSO V ?m o - w
nA r^4O?tlbf
-S n A N rag
'! ", .. ? ?? y • V ,,,?' ?,^.G"4 (d i11 •yd O 'o •+ v3 ? si q' V . N v m ? ^•3 Vu
A ?`v
•.c.• :. r to ..
40
f'' ! r.? • ram':
ZIP-
i "?
:yam
i
uG
rv
I•R-
?? • : ?,- p. '• ?•?.• ? + Mfr' ' ,.
'kt,`: 'r ' +. .... ?'• • , •.yf• :"- s.,?• ... , Sri.
.a ?' Dc9'fiYQV'9 ;r•.'
l
:.f' at. ? :P l •'h•. .f.:
%
?r
"?:• .. X55.: +it. 'Sr:
f1` fi•
to
,r r• 1
•r-
i ' rl ti Y
•r
•t5• ar.L:'' .•h.
asS, •'3::1 'A
?j !'J1i •, 5
1 •. a •
. t?
S.f
f. t '• S? a frc.. '
,?'?,.,^ i:•".,,. a"i .,1??.\: ??q y 'Sn •d .:.t+.: Vii. "'?
" t•15 z (.. ? a.•.
•.L• f .•1 `13'?
`!T: .(L.n s t ' ?3 c tf....: .:.,?:. r: o :•??'? } .? i3'3. ''t`:. 4 m : 1.,'yp »o,
c}! 4A s''as°5?i 'i': ':ir `L?' .,••? ry•.•? '"J, C•+.: '+S'?as •.5.; '4•' ,r .r 1' •1
«>?ra . ,rYx?.:aTMSux...'Y'?.?..?:?"?r:'.? . ?!?i'??.,' .?}. ?,,;y} ? y?.? ' 'f?''':? ? !1 a ;Y' ()y Y.:? .rte: ?;r?: a F?',:., a1}, .,.s (? '•J'?' i ,,?• .•;• . ,f.?: ? s
A. ....I??H!5:..4Ilrr{?''ti??.dfu'•i3pi•I.i?o.?/.??: hY??.'.?.'CJALo43...?j:.... ,:.d.2?^!?r...,. 9 3 .1.'„!1r Y`•...?.tt. ....t. a :+•?, kF ?'(y?:y:?r'+.. J'?/. 'Sv. .:Eft. .?"?,./ .,??-it¢iG t _1.1, ?:ly
K?F. ?;x:.:?ls..dt:{Y,s:...t.•S?S,.csc8t....s a....r ....s,Yi -. i":it.,,r:r;.ael??:.w+?_?4?zto.„,?.?:1 :, = {{ ??. tt ,,.,;;;c-r:Kt a>, (. {?/'L.,r
.1(n s9?i•a .. .. !:?•, :..X. ?fi)•+,::/1»YM.''1I.v?fY?.:?•:23?I:1