20040325 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20030206

WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PHASE II
Submitted by:
FEB - 61.E
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, FL
Prepared by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC
February 2003
E_.]
ECOBANK
February 5, 2003
Mr. Mickey Sugg
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 26402-1890
Dear Mr. Sugg:
ECOBANK 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 discussed during the MBRT meeting held on
December 10, 2002 and subsequent discussions with you.
While the updated plan incorporates various comments and/or suggestions arising from the
meeting and discussions, key revisions to the document are summarized below. These include:
(1) The addition of Phase II of the Barra Farms Bank will be incorporated under the
existing Mitigation Banking Instrument (NMI) - originally executed for the establish-
ment and use of Phase I. In accordance with this decision by the COE legal
department, the enclosed wetland mitigation plan (i.e., site-specific restoration plan) -
with specific provisions concerning credit ratios,-a schedule of credit release, financial
assurances, and property dispensation - is being submitted to the MBRT for review
and approval.
(2) A survey of the property reduced the acreage from 1817 acres to 1812-acres.
(3) The acreage reduction caused a 5 credit reduction and the number of plants required
changed from 397,000 to 395,000.
(4) Supplemental information regarding watershed needs of Harrison Creek and expected
benefits to water quality and in-stream fauna is provided in Section III of the plan.
(5) A grading plan providing more detailed information, including typical plan view and
cross-sectional drawings, is provided irt-Section IV of the plan.
1555 HOWELL BRANCH ROAD • WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789
[phone] - FAX [phone]
w
ol?
6?
(6) More detailed information regarding hydrologic inputs and outputs of the restored bay
system is provided in Section IV. A water budget summarizing monthly and annual
inputs/outputs is provided in Table 1.
(7) A more descriptive summary of restored vegetative communities of the mitigation
bank site is provided in Section IV. This supplemental information is derived
primarily from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
(8) A discussion of the potential presence of federally threatened or endangered species
on the site is provided as Appendix G to the plan.
(9) Vegetative and hydrologic success criteria have been refined to more accurately assess
the development of the bank site over time (see Section V).
(10) More specific provisions regarding project implementation and financial assurances
are provided in Section VI.
(11) Detailed information regarding credit ratios and the schedule of release of credits is
provided in Section VII (see also Table 3 and Table 4).
(12) Measures regarding final property dispensation (including an identified, third-party
beneficiary) are discussed in Section VIII.
Upon acceptance of the enclosed document, ECOBANK will implement mitigation activities at
the site. It is anticipated that grading activities will begin in November 2003.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed plan, please telephone me at (407)
629-7774 or e-mail me at ECOBANK a worldnet:att_ net. We look forward to continuing to work
with the MBRT in the development and implementation of a successful Barra Farms, Phase II
project.
Sincerely,,_I ,
?r
Alan G. Fickett, Ph.D.
Enclosures
c: Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Howard Hall, USFWS
Mr. Bennett Wynne, NCWRC
Ms. Kelly Williams, NCDCM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................1
I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................3
H. MITIGATION GOALS ................................................................................................. 5
M. 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 SUITABII,ITY .........................................................................................13
Service Area Considerations .......................................................................13
Replacement of Wetland Functions and Values .........................................14
W. PROPOSED MITIGATION .......................................................................................17
A. RESTORATION ................................................................................................17
B. ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................................. 21
C. PRESERVATION ..............................................................................................21
V. MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................ 21
A. VEGETATION MONITORING ........................................................................ 22
B. HYDROLOGY MONITORING ........................................................................23
VI. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...............24
VII. CREDIT RATIOS AND CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ..................................... 25
VIII. FINAL PROPERTY DISPENSATION ...................................................................... 27
IX. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ................................................................................29
i
TABLES
1. WATER BUDGET
2. PLANTING REGIME
3. MITIGATION CREDIT
4. MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
FIGURES
1. 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. MITIGATION PLAN MAP
10. GRADING PLAN
11. SAMPLING PLOT AND WELL LOCATION MAP
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 DRAINIVIOD ANALYSIS OF BARRA II
F. BARRA II SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
G. THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES SUMMARY
H. SAMPLE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE DOCUMENTS
1. PROPERTY BOUNDARY SURVEY
ii

C') m
cx
?m
C7
DCI
m
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
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
River. 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 MBI provides for expanding the Bank to incorporate the remaining 1,812
acres (Phase II), 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) and to extend the geographic service area of
the Bank to the mouth of the Cape Fear River in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties.
Expanding the geographic service area is consistent with the "Ecoregion Map and
Ecoregion Characteristics of North Carolina", Griffith et al., 2002 (refer to Appendix D).
The Ecoregion Project is a collaborative effort among the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Service, the U.S. Forestry
Service, and the University of North Carolina. The ecoregion classification is based upon
the identification of areas exhibiting similar geology, physiography, vegetation, climate,
soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The Barra Farms site is located in Ecoregion 63,
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, encompassing areas of New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties within the lower Cape Fear River Basin.
The Barra Farms, Phase II Mitigation Plan includes 907 acres of wetland restoration, 215
acres of wetland enhancement, and 621 acres of wetland preservation. On-site
evaluations and DRAINMOD computer modeling has been used to determine the extent
of restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Based upon these acreages, the Barra
Farms, Phase II site provides for 1,041 bank credits. The following plan provides site-
specific information pertaining to 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
r?
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/stream 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.
Hydrologic and vegetative success criteria have been met and documented in each of the
four annual monitoring reports since restoration was completed. The Fifth Annual
Monitoring Report is included as Appendix B. Natural hydrologic regimes and water
quality benefits have been documented by research scientists from the Duke Wetland
Center, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke 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 II restoration and enhancement activities will
include filling approximately 125,400 linear feet of ditches/canals and planting
approximately 395,000 native trees.
This 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 II 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
H. MITIGATION GOALS
The objective of the Barra R 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
5
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).
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 II mitigation site is situated within the interior portions of the bay
with slopes of 04%. 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) "Ecoregions of North Carolina" (Appendix D).
6
B. PRIOR ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS
Agricultural and silvicultural drainage improvements have been historically established
within the Barra II 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 Oft-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 73,800 linear feet (lf) (equivalent to 14.0
miles) of lateral ditches on the tract. An additional 71,800 if (equivalent to 13.6 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
II 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 II site. The tract is located in the center of an ancient estuary created when
sea level occurred at elevations of 100 to 170 R amsl during the late Miocene to Pliocene
geologic epoch, 10 to 25 millions years before present (MYBP) (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
11
(Liquidambar styraciflua). In general, areas that are influenced by drainage effect of
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 (Sharitz 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; Sharitz and Gibbons 1982; Walbridge
1993).
12
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). This hydrologic unit has been rated as a Category I
(needing restoration) according to NC DWQ's Unified Watershed Assessment. 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
can 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).
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 II
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 pocosims 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
13
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. This ecoregion classification supports expansion of service areas
to allow for compensation of wetland impacts occurring within the same ecoregion and
the same river basin as the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
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
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 (N), phosphorous (P), and a suite of organophosphate-based herbicides
and pesticides. Currently, agricultural and silvicultural practices of Barra II contribute to
decreased water quality of downstream waters. Ditches and canals drain 1,812 acres of
14
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
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 is used by DWQ as a means of recording trends in water quality
impairment. According to data from the NC DWQ's Basinwide 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.
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 I Richardson), mitigation activities on Barra I resulted in a
significant decrease in nitrogen run-off from restored agricultural fields (refer to
15
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
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.
16
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION
A total of 1,812 acres of existing or previously altered wetlands will be either 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 9.
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
entire Barra II mitigation site will be placed within a conservation easement - the terms
of which will prohibit any land-disturbing activity.
A. RESTORATION
A total of 907 acres of the Barra II tract is targeted for restoration. Existing ditches and
canals on the tract will be completely filled, thus restoring the natural wetland
hydroperiod. 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. Earthen berms
(approximately 12" to 18") will be installed perpendicular to filled ditches to prevent
17
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 10. Fill material will come from existing roadbeds and
spoil piles. Removing roadbeds will also prevent access to the tract from trucks, SUV'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.
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 1. 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.
DRAWMOD 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
18
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 9. 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
topographic areas of the site (mapped as Torhunta and Leon soil series). 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
biflora), red maple, loblolly pine and Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides).
Understory species typically include fetterbush, American titi, and gallberry (Schafale
and Weakley 1990).
19
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 2 for a list of plant species and quantities targeted for
the bay wetland restoration.) It is expected that characteristic shrub species (including
sweet bay, loblolly bay, gallberry, American titi, 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).
20
(Refer to Table 2 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.
B. 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 9. 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.
C. PRESERVATION
A total of 621 acres of non-drained wetlands are targeted for preservation (Figure 9).
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).
V. MONITORING PLAN
Upon agency concurrence of the final wetland mitigation plan, mitigation site activities
will be initiated. 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
21
53 (,?G
mitigation site will be monitored annually for a 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:
6 ?5
3 C f J age 1) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 320 trees per acre
kh?? k0 at the end of 3 years (post-planting) and/or 260 trees per acres at they d of 5
vxod d? Jia„ years (post- lantin 2 onpre erre species may comprise up to 0 o the'
,.pr ;/? state target density.
o d
?h? 3a
(--12, LJ` (2)
a?LAft dj"ate
b1ig,?epo
No single species (volunteer or planted, ardwood or softwood) may comprise
more than 30% of the total number of individuals counted toward the success
criteria. I* ition, an average of at least three planted species per acre
must be present. oot\ _ f r6eo `j p ? 6 j ? t? Hydrology during the growing season musllt be sufficient to meet the guidelines
/et 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
15% of the growing season3 (equivalent to 12 days based upon SCS-established
growing season dates) during periods of normal rainfall for the restored wet
pine flatwood/savannah 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
srte. Thirty-six (36) permanent 0.1-acre plots (equivalent to 0.4% restored wetland area)
f 5 will e established and monitored for vegetative success criteria. Proposed sampling
?
Yoe (? of G2o.?-e(
f ?60 10 'Preferred volunteer species can be counted toward meeting the success criteria upon evaluation of
site- specific conditions and concurrence by MBRT members.
2 `Characteristic' or `preferred' species are considered those species naturally occurring in pocosin/bay
wetlands. `Non-preferred' species have been determined to include the following: (1) red maple, (2) sweet
gum, (3) loblolly pine, and (4) black willow. This list will be used for the determination of fiilfillment of
the stated vegetative success criteria (i.e. total individuals of these species may not comprise more than
20% of the target density).
3 As defined by the Soil Conservation Service, the growing season for Cumberland County is 241 days
(beginning March 17 and ending November 12).
\?j
ab??o
22
plots (with paired well locations) are depicted in Figure 11. 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. As stated above, no single
species (volunteer or planted, hardwood or softwood) may comprise more than 30% of
the total number of individuals counted toward the success criteria. In addition, an
average of at least three planted species per acre must be present.
B. HYDROLOGY MONITORING
Shallow groundwater hydrology will be monitored via twenty (20) automated wells
(RDS, Inc. Ecotone-20s) located within the restoration and enhancement areas. 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
(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.
23
A permanent reference well 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 well is depicted in Figure 11.
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. Monitoring reports will be
submitted no later than November 3e of each year.
If the site does not fulfill established success criteria, contingency measures will be
employed to remedy site deficiencies. For instance, selective re-grading may be
conducted if targeted hydrology is not achieved. In addition, supplemental planting may
be necessary in areas that do not fulfill the vegetative success criteria.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Upon acceptance of this mitigation plan for Barra II (including amended provisions to the
existing MBI), proposed mitigation activities will be initiated. It is anticipated that
grading activities will begin in November 2003. Subsequent site planting will be
24
conducted during January 2004. The conservation easement will be recorded prior to the
initiation of mitigation activities. Based upon anticipated start dates, an `as-built' survey
will be completed by March 2004.
The bank sponsor is responsible for securing adequate monitoring and maintenance
bonds as a form of financial assurance to cover contingency actions in the event of the
Phase II Bank default or failure. 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.
VII. 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 3. Successful implementation of the Phase II
Mitigation Plan will result in the creation of 1,041 nonriverine wetland credits. As
agreed to by MBRT members, the following ratios have been used to calculate available
bank credits:
25
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement 3:1
Preservation 10:1
The credit release schedule for the Bank, as depicted in Table 4, will be based upon
successful completion of the following tasks:
Task 1: Task 1 entails acquisition and protection of the Barra Farms (Phase II) Bank
Site, completion of detailed restoration plan, review of plan parameters by the MBRT,
and approval of the Barra II site-specific restoration plan by the MBRT. 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 will be released.
Completion of Task 1 is a prerequisite for release of any credits from the Barra II Bank,
not withstanding completion of other tasks described below.
Task 2: Task 2 includes completion of all mitigation implementation activities at 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 (including `as-built'
drawings) will be submitted to the MBRT certifying completion of Task 2. Upon
completion of Task 2, 15% of the 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
26
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). 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 will be released as follows:
First AWMR (February 2005): 10% (40% cumulative)
Second AWMR (February 2006): 15% (55% cumulative)
Third AWMR (February 2007): 15% (70% cumulative)
Fourth AWMR (February 2008): 10% (80% cumulative)
Fifth AWMR (February 2009): 20% (100% cumulative)
Credit releases for Task 3 will occur only if success criteria are fulfilled as stipulated in
Section V of this plan.
Vffi. FINAL PROPERTY DISPENSATION
A legal boundary survey of the Barra II bank site is provided in Appendix 1. Ownership
of Barra II will reside with the bank sponsor who intends to transfer fee simple title to an
appropriate land management organization (as approved by the MBRT) for long-term
protection of the site. The bank sponsor has been working with the Sandhills Area Land
Trust (SALT) for transfer of fee simple title of the Barra I bank site. Dr. Richard Perritt,
Executive Director of SALT, has also expressed interest in accepting the Barra II site for
the purpose of long-term protection and management. Fee simple transfer will occur
upon completion of debiting of the Bank or the end of the monitoring period; whichever
27
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
the Mitigation Plan.
28
IX. 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.
Thornwaite, 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.
29
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.
•
30
Q
i r
IT
U
TABLE 1: WATER BUDGET - BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
Year Precipitation' PET2 Seepage Loss
(Ezfiltration)3 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
Average 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 -2.34
Sep-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 0.04 3.68
Annual Totals 53.78 39.88 0.48 13.42
1 Values obtained from WETS Tables (Cumberland County).
2 Potential evapotranspiration (PET) calculated using temperature-based Thornwaite PET formula
(Thomwaite, 1955)
3 Hydrologic conductivity rate of confining layer obtained from Walton (1989).
TABLE 2: PLANTING REGIME'- BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
C
Nonriverine Pine Flatwood/
Community Type Pocosin/ Savannah TOTAL
Carolina Bay
Stem Target: 435/acre 435/acre
Area (acres): (883) (24) (912)
SPECIES # planted # planted #planted
(Wetland Indicator (% of total) (% of total)
Status
Atlantic White 38,411 (10) 38,628
Cedar
(OBL)
Bald Cypress 76,821 (20) 77,256
(OBL)
Black Gum 76,821 (20) 1,044 (10) 78,300
AC)
Pond Pine 76,821 (20) 77,256
(FACW+)
Swamp Tupelo 76,821 (20) 77,256
(O
Water Tupelo 38,411 (10) 38,628
(OBL)
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 384,106 10,440 394,546
'Please note final species composition dependent upon nursery quality and availability
at the time of plant ordering.
TABLE 3. MITIGATION CREDIT - BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL
MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
Area Mitigation Credit Replacement Credit
Mitigation Type acres Ratio acre credits)
Nonriverine
Pocosin/Carolina Bay 883 1:1 883
Restoration
Nonriverine Pine
Flatwoods/Savannah 24 1:1 24
Restoration
Nonriverine Wetland 215 3:1 72
Enhancement
Nonriverine Wetland 621 10:1 62
Preservation
Upland Buffer 69 --- ----
TOTAL 1,812 1,041
TABLE 4. MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE - BARRA FARMS
CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK, PHASE H
Task Projected
Completion
Date Percentage
of Credits
Released (%
cumulative) Credits
Released Cumulative
Credits Released
Approval of Restoration
Plan/Executed
Conservation Easement 5/2003 15(15) 156 156
Completion of all
Restoration Activities 4/2004 15(30) 156 312
Monitoring Plan - - -- --
Year 1 Success 2/2005 10(40) 104 416
Year 2 Success 2/2006 15(55) 156 572
Year 3 Success 2/2007 15(70) 156 728
Year 4 Success 2/2008 10(80) 104 832
Year 5 Success 2/2009 20(100) 209 1041
TOTAL 100 1,041
I C
?m
Cl)
I k,4-
`
.07
1 ifs, r >^?? \ \' .. - /'? '? 1 r tl It 1 1
.\ k s v F rat ?/Y C ;1 .'?<?g /J
b ('` ''4 \ ?° - w '' ro 'd=?1 ,r -'?. _ 1uw,.ryy,•?V?'"` -?:??. ?tr`?y.? ? -
?t , z> Al "SITE
ll4 l \ t
r ?
?? ? ?r _L? 1 ?`\ i 1 f ? w,?.. lne 1 9 d °?•\ ? ?r , aeeor,;
•? ? ^ \ lam. ?_
v
?jv p?1! »a » Nn `N1 RFC rR i d ?\ \ ? ~» Rv
2-1
- .,
SCALE I"= 2.4 miles
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Croup, Inc. Figure 1. Vicinity map.
Cumberland County, NC January 2003

r4?'
a4o'
b
f
I
i
i
n
Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
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 January 2003 the Autryville quad.
Q
0
z
c
c
D
c?
0
0
e?
cl
VV/
0
/yN
L
0
L)
D
41,

r.

P,
73
U
O
O
..O
bA
Q
M
L
bA
w
v M
O
O
ti
W?
Its
O U
xal
w o
? aj
m 71
U CCJ
w '
cd
CQ
F_J Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Ina
Cumberland County, NC January 2003
SCALE 1"= 3000'
Figure 4. 1998 aerial
infra-red photograph of the
Barra Fanns "Tract.
b7
rv
? n
n ?
w ?
zC-D
oN ?
O
w
O
b
S?
It
UQ
G
CD
R. CD
:y' to
CD '
n d
O A?
O W
n
0 0
0
? o

O
O

'h`_
t
1
-,?• k o d k K
O 00q ? QQ OpQ U6Q
,/ 'O+f O ? n T O
C n' R y m n
0
m i ?• C7 -s
'fl
a• N
? A A
d 6 J
a
A
S

b
va
O
0
a
a
Vi
r
I ?
d

Iz
in
I?
F
I?
I
I_N
I?
e
\
1
1
1
1
l
\
\
t7J
?oN
z(D CD
o.
A
A..
d0
G ?0
O
O ? Y?1
O
b
n
1-11
12
..,
CD
?cs
Ts
CD
ta.
n'
r.
o'
c?
a?
a.

00
m
W
O
O
O
LEGEND
CC Approved commenced areas that were not completed by January 1, 1995
ICC; Commence conversion areas completed by January 1, 1995
i 'PCPC Areas (wetlands converted prior to December 23, 1985) SCALE 1" = 3000`
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase 11
Cumberland County, NC
ECOBANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
January 2003
Figure 7. PC/CC status.
SCALE I" = 3000'
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional ECOBANK
Mitigation Bank, Phase II Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 8. SCS soil survey
Cumberland County, NC for Cumberland County.
January 2003
i I Barra Farms I Mitigation Bank
z
0
Y
CD ?. o
?, p cn o CrJ '? ?b "y ?b "'ti
? ? rte.. A? ?Sj y. ? y•
N QrQ r.. _
O p• Lv ? ? Cd
cr
CCD a b a b C?1
AD e• a
?' N N oe
11 ---I I I
® ef
o ?
A eD
\
li ?\ \ \\ .
".
ITI
I I
? w
o
? o
a

D

(TQ
o

y

?
ftQ

O
O

o

°

A
?

?
?p

Q
?
O
A?

p'
QQ

--i

O

D - L--?

00
OaLl 4. 4. 4.
?g
°
? A R' v'
to n
O to CD
to O CCD p
CP D p .-.
b

i

I ..

fl /
.- 00
N N W /T S
i
O y
C/

y

• 13
r-j
.

X17 O? j
cJw?
CAD C n

w
$ <

? CD
P
`
sy ~ ? II
w
0 O
O

_ O

O

-cs

? •
bo tra
2s
0

0
D
Dm
z
v_
X
MITIGATION BANKING. INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for:
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
6200 Falls of Neuse Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27609
1555 Howell Branch Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Prepared by:
EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina .27605
EcoScience
December 1998
h
MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR REGIONAL MITIGATION BANK
IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Za PRE610131-E ,,?
This agreement made and entered into on the day of 1991, by Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Bank Corporation, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IUSEPA), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission XWRCI, and the North
Carolina Division of `'V•'dter Quality (NCDWQ), hereinafter collectively referra-; to as the
Mitigation Bank Review Team (MSRT).
1
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a mitigation bank designed to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts authorized by Section
404 Clean Water Act permits or Section 401 Water auaiity Certifications 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 i
Regional Mitigation Bank Stream and Wetland 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 MBRT Comments and Revisions to the Mitigation Plan).
The agencies comprising the MBRT agree that the Bank Site is a suitable mitigation bank site,
and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan 'is likely to result in net. gains in wetland and
stream functions at the Bank Site.
Therefore, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of m?s agreement-
Paga 1 of 14
1 '
MB I
t
I
I
2.0 GENERAL PRO
2.1 Goals: The goal of the mitigation bank is to restore and enhance streams, riverine
wetlands, nonriverine 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 membees
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 accomp?- 'ed 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 the existing Sank Site, In addition, the Site-
Specific Restoration Plan shall include specific provisions conceming credit.ratios, a schedule
for release of credits, financial assurances, and property disposition.. The MEAT shall review
the Site-Specific Restoration Plan, request. additional information if needed, and
approve/disapprove the request for addition within 90 days of submittal. In the event.the
j
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 Plan 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 Clean 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 ed. Reg. 58605, November 28, 1996 (Guidance).
Page 2 of 14
MBI 2
2.4 Role of the MISEL 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 set forth 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 impae-:, and whether-or not the use of credits from the 0::-:* is
appropriate to offset those impacts.
The parties to this agreement understand that, where practicable, on-site, in-kind
compensatory mitigation is preferred, unless use of the Bank is determined by USACE to be
environmentally preferable or it is determined by USACE that practicable on-site and/or in-kind
mitigation opportunities are not available,
,
3.0 MITIGATION PLAN
3.1 Gepergj eescriotion: The Bank Site is composed of approximately 623 acres (ac) of
interstrsam flats, former Carolina Bays, and historic stream origins which have been ditched
and drained to support agricultural and silvicuitural activities. This site offers opportunities
for nonriverine wetland, riverine (riparian) wetland, and stream restoration and enhancement.
_ i
In addition, surrounding areas within the former wetland complex are available for expansion
of the Sank Site which can be phased over a period of time. A more detailed description of
the baseline conditions on the site )s 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
Mitigation Plan, Scream repair and ephemeral pool construction has been completed and ditch
flows diverted into the restored floodplain where planned. Ditches have been backfilled and
Page 3 of 14
MB I 3
spoh/roadway 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 formerwetlands 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 determi;.~5 that the Success Criteria have been
met, whichever occurs later.
The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
i 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
i
i member of the MBRT.
I
3.4 Contingency: USACE 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 USACE 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 USACE, in consultation with the MBRT.
a....., A of 1 A

a
Z
Q
H
to Z
Co C t?
F Q ?
?a
Lu
a
U
N
cr.
u.
cc
a
m

- ? m
b
U Z

`
A
Lo
co C4 t4
E e c n N r ti
r' N '
I
?
N

m
m ?
N
Q

10

'O

U r of co
r4
O

m
Q!

0
Q ,
m c
D N N N
vo cA
? O C m C C
O 07
F m QS O tC
_
C
O C um y w LL- C "
C C fl m fl Gf to

in 07 m

0
? "
o
R to

r

Q
47 r+
} 3 0 3: 4,
° 0 r
o CL 00 0°
M L C •
-
C13 y
C C
L d
03 C C
aJ
m ?
•
g 2a mp mE cam
r c. D

I_
G
A C

c0
? 47

? C m i °

C

m
ns Co o ?
-0 a
m a 1
-o -m
fa
C

N Q m
E tX
2° m e
Z wi 003 C
Z I= m O C
z LSL d
Z

'
m D

o G

r c

? h
D
$
n
m. ?
D
wm
m D r•

?
mmr`?

N
ca
D O C
. it
C
D
m -
r-
?
? ?
67
'L7 r
? F
U ?

?
7 ID

y M ?

« m t7
C
]
t0 01PZ7
E to a?m

m ? o 0

W
c c
? ?
G
C y
0) C

QI
t/ ? m Oa
G tm
E
m m~?
mEv
O
C
m C M
O .? Q

o b E
p O

t1 m
•
m D ?
5
U G
C ?^ d

O
N co C
0 Q3
N
MSI 5
l
4.0 USE Or MITIGATION CREDITS
4.1 Geographic Service Area: 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 aridlor other stream or aquatic resources. The, geomorphic setting of the
bank includes nonriverine flats; nonriverine depressions, and riverine, first order blackwater
streams within the Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The sank is located in
proximity to, or'on the boundary between three hydrophysiographic cataloging units depicted
an the "Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974 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, 03030005, and 03030006 as depicter 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-fisted Cataloging Units.
The southern and northern 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 gaomorphology 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 Plan). The service area is inclusive of the 11 digit
watersheds listed in Table 2.
Use of the Bank for compensatory mitigation may also be considered outside of the
designated 'Geograph'ic 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
MB I 6

TAKE 2
ELEVEN DIGIT HYDROLOGICAL UNITS IN BARRA FARMS CAPE FEAR
REGIONAL BANK SERVICE AREA
03030006010
03030004060
03030006020
03030006090
03030004110 `
03030004090
03030004070
03030004080
03030004120
03030004100
03030004130
03030004140
03030006030
03030006080
03030006060
03030006040
03030006110
03030006100
03030006050
03030005020
03030006120
03030006130
03030005030
0303000614.0
03030004150
03030005010 .
MHT 7
4.2 Amount and Type of Credit; The Mitigation Plan is intended to resuit in the forms and
amounts, in acres, of wetland compensatory mitigation depicted in Table 1 (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 wetland mitigation credits. In addition,
2400 linear feet of first order, stream channel credit will be generated (Table 1).
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 USACB, 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 Rank Site.
All decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits from the Bank to offset impacts
to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning the amount and type of such
credits to'be used to offset wetland and water 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 Cracilt Release Schedyja. 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 a
a
F
Y
Z
d
m
A
D Q
2 k
N
N d
?o
u, C7
oc wm
t
in ec
ri d
U.
W
OU
Q (n
22
H cc
s
ac
Q
m
a
Ira
Elm

m c a

( N

I ool

(

m
a
m
4
N
O
O
ENUQ ? ? to en N
V

Z
Z V i r. 0
M N
rl- Q
N DO
d'
Q
b
IM
~ c t:

9 'fl
c
t0
M
N
r
to N

- W

to N

CD

N
U . r r
Q
V
m m= m m N cn M N

?m

fl;

m -cn
s
mQ 0 ?.
9 u? o La L9 0 0

a mm
G,7 w ? r r r r N
9 0
?
x+ m
cn m
t7! O
rn O
O T'
O N
O
?
„
m
m a 4 cn
m N N N
o A
? N 1
ih ^ = .-
G
av r- ? ? .r r r
?e
d
'+.
U
U
U
v
V

'? p E U] to in N U]
Q m - - -
f' •? U. U. LL {L LL
O y O .? N t7 Lo
G Q
`
`

O IIf

O

m m

m N m

m ttt o
M
m m m
m
m ce
O O ? r? N C M? '? ;? (t7

r-
cj
cv
ca U
M U
M L)
M U Ua„
M U
La
c
m
ca ?
G y
p1
y V
m q
r ul
y
,r, C-
O 0
m
ra C
M O
m ?
O
m
a C
?M
m >
m
}? U
7 ?
Q O
M to
0
rm
L
0
m ?
m
U O
N
N
m y
V
h =
75
CD
o _
,O C}
43
U y
m ,p
O M
U c
G ?
? .r
•O
y E
m
L N
? L
m y
41
}
m C
c
c m
N t
9
MBI 9

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, 16% of the wetland Bank credits will be released.
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 f'--odplain where planned. Ditches will be backfilled and :boil/roadway 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 % of the wetland Bank
credits will be released (30% cumulative), but no stream credits.
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. 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 Sank, 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 19138): 10% (40% cumulative)
Second AWMR (November 1999): 16% (55% cumulative)
Third AWMR (November 2000): 15°/a (70% cumulative)
Fourth AWMR (November 2001): 10% (80% cumulative),
Fifth AWMR (November 2002); 20% (100% cumulative)
Page 10 of 14
MBI 10
,4
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 stream credit at the and of 'the Second AWMR and
corresponding to the percent of wetland credit released in years 3,4, and 5 (Table 3). If
wetland or-stream recovery for the applicable year is delayed (i.e. lacking wetland 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 dispensationllor:. 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 Accoyntina Pracedyres: -The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the Hank, 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 this 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, or this agreement is otherwise terminated. 'All reports
will identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit (e.g., nonriverins forested
wetland), "and shall include for each reported debit the USAGE Action ID number 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 OISPOSJTIDN
Ownership of the Bank will reside with the Sponsor who intends to provide fee simple
transfer of the property to the appropriate land management organization ,as determined by
the MBRT. Fee simple transfer will occur upon completion of debiting of the Bank or the end
page 11 of 14
MHI 11
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 orfailure. Construction and implementation
activities at the Bank Site were completed in January 1998; therefore, construction bonds
are no longer necc-sary. 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 MBRT. 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
U. 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
Page 13 of 14
MBI 13
F
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
ict Engineer
s of Engineers
(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 14c)
William L. Cox
Chief, Wetland Section, Wetlands
Coastal, and Water Quality Grants
Branch, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(See Attached Page 14d)
Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
filler McCarthy
President
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation
_ &
Alan G. Fickett
Secretary
Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation
(Corporate Seal)
i
Page 14 of 14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
Z Z.- .2
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.
Frank McBride
T=+ for -ter- N <-?.w? ACLI- tQ5('`Y-
North Carolina ?ildlife Resources Commission
Page 14b
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
ill m L. Cox
Chief, Wetlands Section, Wetlands,
Coastal, and Water Quality Grants
Branch, Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 14c

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for
the Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional Mitigation Bank.
. A::,-. lw.
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Director
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Page 14d
D
ao m
z
v_
X

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 (GF) ..................................................................................... 6
Riverine Floodplains (RF) .................................................................................. 7
Headwater Slopes (HS) ..................................................................................... 8
2.3 Evaluation of Success Criteria ................................................................................
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
H.
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 restoration/enhancement activities were completed in the
winter of 1997-1998 as described in the detailed mitigation plan. A mitigation banking instrument
has also been prepared through ongoing coordination with the mitigation banking review team
(MBRT) as outlined in the Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of
Mitigation Banks (60 FR 12286-12293, 1995).
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.
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 34 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.
5-1?) {00?
2
N ,. ?H.
</ 11 r sW vJbe.w l ;
9 ?>' two ) 5 r
• r 2A ?coorrw u., a _ a!n c'? 9 ?I ???
1 .b ; ?i s`? ?'4 •?`\`:1?5? - `t' ?, m:?.a /J(?3 ? ? !G l ?'''y.y
e a ?: r i C ?l L m
t Ivey 210 ?•.. _ '? . P r ++.r-. lr
{
NC'8? BARRA FARMS/CAPE FEAR
-? - 4 REGIONAL M1TIGATIQN, 1\I?
iF ??i tmwn ?,
_ 3 l s yrr ?_ ° -
\ ? Y _ ?q! IA ?`-_ .o ` 210 r-
C-k
?r ATE jthTUMI OZ?
{ i Eh.a+ r "i +ay?e+Gp "??r
Study Area 0 1 2 3 Miles
1 2 3 4 FGlometers - ?`
F.Prc4wod.^0?1_ Pw-a t-tM NortA Cuodu _ _ - T•• - -
AWs ar4 G&zolWof. De Ln IUPPr4. IM ?. f 1??r\\
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 (1' reading within the growing
season) to September 28, 2002 (last reading prior to submission of this report) have been
utilized in this Year 5 monitoring report.
4
2.2 Monitoring Results
The raw well data are depicted in hydrograph and tabular format in Appendix B. Wetland
hydrology criteria in number of consecutive days and percent of the growing season are
also summarized in Table 1. Line intersection at 12 inches below the surface was used as
the cut off for wetland hydrology, following the regulatory wetland criterion requiring
saturation (free water) within one foot of the soil surface. As in 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 (GF); 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 2001 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
,P-ute 1 Q,,,Y.-- „f ?nm Ii ArnIncry mnnitnrina data at the Rank
Well
Number Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Days Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'n Days/239) Comments
Groundwater Flats
Restored
Wetland
Wl 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
Wl l 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 backfilled 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 15.1 FV, organic soils
Average 36 15.1 Range: none
10
-' -4rnnn7 L..>a,.,,L,,.,>riata at the Rank
1QA1G 1 L:V11LJLUUG
Well Number U. VULlnUC vi
Maximum
Consecutive
Saturation Days
Percent of Growing
Season
(Saturat'n Days/239)
Comments
Riverine Floodplain
Restored
Wetland
W15 29 12.1 existing forest vegetation (FV ), upstream
reach, outer floodplain
W18 36 15.1 FV, downstream terminus, inner floodplain
Average 32.5 13.6 Range: 12.1-15.1%
Reference
Wetland
SS1 43 18.0 FV, outer floodplain
SS2 43 18.0 FV, inner floodplain
Average 43 18.0 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 13.3 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 floodplain reference wells.
11
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 38 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 (DBH)
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 Nyssa species that were
planted (Nyssa Mora and Nyssa aquatica) 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
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 (Salix 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 (< 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 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 Mora, 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 can 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 384.0 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 of trees
MLV Y1 Val 111
Common name
Scientific Name
Avg # of trees/;.
acre
% of total # of
trees/ac
# trees/ac allowed
in criteria
Comments

Red Maple

flcer rubrum

519.7 1

53.4

64 Volunteer hardwood;
three plots had many
seedlings (see
Appendix D)

:WZed S D'
Rhus copallina
117.6
12.1
32 Volunteer softwood;
mostly from 2 plots
Bald ress Taxodium distichum 88.3 9.1 64 Planted hardwood
Black Willow Salix nigra 66.6 6.8 32 Volunteer softwood
Swamp/ Water Tupelo NVyssa spp. 65.9 6.8 65.9 Planted hardwood
Oyercup Oak Quercus lyrata 24.5 2.5 24.5 Planted hardwood
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 17.8 1.8 17.8 Planted. hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 15.2 1.6 15.2 Volunteer hardwood
Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thymdes 14.1 1.4 14.1 Planted
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 10.3 1.1 10.3 Volunteer softwood
Red Bay Persea borbonia 9.3 1.0 9.3 Volunteer softwood
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 5.2 0.5 5.2 Planted hardwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted hardwood
Longleaf Pine Pinus palustris 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted softwood
Pond Cypress Taxodiumascendens 3.8 0.4 3.8 Planted hardwood
Tulip Poplar Driodendron tulipifera 3.1 0.3 3.1 Planted hardwood
Pond Pine Pinus 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 972.8 100 372.9
16
Table 3. Woody species found in headwater slope habitat, average number of trees/acre, and the number of
trace allnvuPA in cnnracc rritPria
Common name Scientific Name Average #
of trees/
acre % of total
# of
trees/ac % of total / ac
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 nigra 218.0 11.8 32 Volunteer softwood
Swamp/Water Tupelo Nyssa spp. 154.0 8.3 128 Planted hardwood
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 52.0 2.8 52 Planted hardwood
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 28.0 1.5 28 Planted hardwood
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 22.0 1.2 22 Volunteer softwood
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 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 Quercus phellos 8.0 0.4 ? 8 Planted hardwood
Eastern Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 4.0 0.2 4 Planted hardwood
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciua 4.0 0.2 4 Volunteer hardwood
Pond Cypress Taxodium ascenders 2.0 0.1 2 Planted softwood
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 Eco Science 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 Creek and the riverine 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 floodplain 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 intermedia), southern cricket frog
(Acris gryllus), grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea),
spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), pine woods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and water snake
(Nerodia sp.). Fish populations became stranded in isolated pools during the summer
and attracted a large population of wetland dependent avifauna to the Bank. On 9
July 1998, over 1000 coastal birds were observed feeding. in desiccating pools,
including great egret (Casmerodius albus), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), great blue
heron (Ardea herodias), green heron (Butorides striatus), wood duck (Aix sponsa),
mallard (Areas 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 stream flows
to cease at the Bank and within the reference stream reach. However, isolated pools
and intermittent 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
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 (primarily bald cypress, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, and
oak species). Atlantic white cedar seedlings supported little or no above ground
stems; therefore, the extent of inundation appears to have induced mortality of
greater than 70% for this planted species.
In summary, the Bank developed wetland habitat that exhibited hydrological
characteristics similar to the reference wetlands. Functional attributes exhibited
include long-term surface water storage, energy dissipation, retention of nutrients and
particulates, and establishment of characteristic wetland species populations.
Although isolated pockets of emergent wetlands may develop, a majority of the Bank
appears to support hydroperiods and successional patterns conducive to
establishment of forested habitat.
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 of rainfall 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), quail, black bear (Ursus
americanus) tracks (Picture 6), 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
flourish. 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
(Odocoileus virginianus), quail, 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 National 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, June, 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 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, when comparing data
from manual wells. Therefore, all 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. After 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 Farms 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 (Pocosins) and
Carolina Bays: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November, 1982.
25
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.
?iu`d .
Trees within a typical plot at Barra. Many trees are greater than 8' tall.
Bald Cypress
Willow Oak
01
Barra Farms Mitigation Site Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Year 5 Wilmington, N.C.
Cumberland County, NC November 2002
Pictures of site.
D
nm
z
v_
X
Abstract and conclusions from a research paper entitled:
"Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water quality of a
Carolina bay complex"
by
Gregory L. Bruland, Matthew T. Hanchey, and Curtis J. 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

f
i Effects of agriculture and wetland restoration on hydrology, soils, and water quality of a
Carolina bay complex
Gregory L. Bruland, 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: [e-mail]
Key Words: Agriculture, Carolina bay, hydrology, land-use, North Carolina, soil properties,
wetland restoration, water quality
i
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 (DI)), total carbon (Ct), nitrogen (Nt), and phosphorus
(Pt), extractable phosphate (PO4w), nitrogen (Ne,), and cations (Ca,,, Mg,,, KeX, Nae,), 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 (l\'RSF).
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 et al., 2000). Our second objective was to characterize
and compare the soils of the agricultural (AG), restored wetland (RW), 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 (Sharitz 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 palusirine 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 (Sharitz 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
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 Farms 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 3,300 m 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
(Chamaecyparis 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, ELMBC 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
i
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
8
scheme of Schafale and Weakley, we refer to them as the high pocosin (POC) and the non-
rivenne swamp forest (NRSF)
The vegetation of the POC was characterized by a thick understory of Lyonia lucida
(fetterbush), Ilex glabra (low gallberry), Smilax laurifolia (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
Y
(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.
Conclusions
Despite 30 years of intensive drainage and ,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, CaeJCi
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, Nt, and P04,u, which were higher in the
upper 0-40 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
nrevidina these water quality benefits.

Outline of
Carolina bay

--------------
Reference
Outflow
\\REF)
Focosin
Re'Nrence
(270'h\a)

Outflc
(AG)
Bay Forest
Reference
(`3,Q ha)

0
Barra Farms Cape (UPL)
Fear Regional Restored
Wetland
Outflow
Mitigation Bank ?W>
N N Water quality monitoring outflow point Harrison Creek
• Water table monitoring well
1 T Direction of surface water flow
I
1Km
V? Agricultural
p
'Area (240 ha)
A
D ?.
0 •
/ 0 ektored
• W etlo,\nd
Riparian Forest 250 h6.
UPI • ??-0-h?? •
0
0
North Carolina
aaiAJIDS UMSUOlxH pue'uoneanpg'gaJeasaa ZIBIS aApela oo;) VOsIl a4 q pap!Amo
sem ourpunq 'ails zip lnoge uoneunojw Joj ml'luawaoeu N poe7 nt p leans gaduasaJ Q LP m
ssaaae joj ,LNvg0D3 o1 s)uegj ialsod atll moge sluouwoo lnjdlaq ape u semgsa>epuns *A d
pue ueoeue!q 'N -s!shleue htweiogel atp gnm lnjdlaq A12A aram au!aH d pue aa!d'I'slll!M M
sjua pajmompv
swalshsoaa aOuaJajaJ oql uegl 4iindea uondlospe alegdsogd Jagelq e aneq of wa(p
asaea hew swalshsooa padolanap alp w 130 algeaouegoxa pue IV au'Icxo w saseojoul t
°
uoneaguuuap mull hew l!os puepam pawlsaj alp ql ;9 jo uonalda(]
swalShs aouarajaJ aq1 c! asp puepaM parolsar
alp ul aoeiots J iii a!ueoro ssol pue uop!sodwooap p!dej wow of peal dew Hd pajenalg a
go.??asa? a.??ar?,? pue suo.s?ea??du?i,tlai?oloa?
ouwq hq pasneo hnsnnago ljos u! saouego jo llnsaJ a se hlq!ssod swalshsoa? o pado
aql w palaldap uaaq seq aq algelaenxo alelexo pue palenala uaaq seq 1V algelounxa alelexo a
'BD jo ucgenna,uoo afp s! swalshsooa
padolanap agl1=1 a0uadaj9J aqI omiundas Tama mied ljos 4.mwud ag,l, sgmishsoaa oouajojaJ
ay! u! ueq) JaoJel x0001 seM paepam paJolsaj ayl jo aoejms aql m c0'aldan xa Joq swalshsooa
padolanap aqI jo Hd pue lual=130 alquaovegaxa alp palenala hp•tem3!u8!s seq 81Jlw!O
slua!nnu algelaenxa ouplomm u! hrols!q asn-puel
uegl lueuodw! avow aJe sassaooJd uJJar-cogs legs saleo!pu! sqj, sul:!nnu algelaenxa ay1 jo
jogl!a joj swals6soaa aouarajaj pue padolanap uaamlaq paAJasgo seM J v 0Jajjlp ]aalslee00 oN °
soonouid juminolJoe hq pataajje uaaq aneq o1 Jeadds uv saop'Janamoq'd l!os'
lelo,L -SMA Z Jalje N pue J uo loajja ou peq uope101SO'd swalshsoae .uuarajad alp w aApelaJ
padolanap alp ul algojd ljos alp mogonoJgl N pup J jo lunoure ay paonpaJ seq amllnouoy
su?o?s??au?a?
-11f!1 ?Ir)l
/ nl..,. I1 pnq1,
"P 9P t>'ad aP,i LDCJ'I°tN
YPd6Zca >139
slcydsogd al p•iatmxa lalem sl sdnoa8
omiJaoel asp ur :+q uo!-ip 1maglu5!s
Isow q1 -m=As lemllmuSt
pat palwsal aqI mmj M.1s•(s oaumajgl
Su!p!Alp alge. ItIDtpadwl crow aqI si
uopumoaauoa u n +l¢o Itgl sasa58ns spos
vaejansuoj.111V3jon!nsaU sdnmo
°°Dawe saoQlAlp u!eldxo of smtawzatd
pos Soso su,.(leue 1Utlo '6'S1d
snrogdsogd algelaenxa pue 'wnssnp:d 'uaoomu 'uogjeo
gjtm palelanoa 4jQAgP2au pue sJalaurejed pos lenunu par I it] 41!M palelanoa
hlanplsod si go!gm'I s!xe sluouodwoo led!auud ouop hpJewud anpxedas
swalshsooa InaJajj!p all jo S110S :s!shp ue sluouodwm p;d!ouud 'o'o!q
=I.w pos + agdsogd puu'o0m•wn!sstlod
lenulw put Hd 9ws-nmul 'ua8ompt'uogmo Sulmlcul
I tntl

\tl1L3M CM101S3U
a. 0
0
3U11LTrIDIUDV P
3JNnad3U
GooA1oUVH to,
Niso?oa
?a e
s
c a c
¢
. 41.
'swa1s6s00a aouwajaJ aql w uosuedwoo w swalshsooa lemtlnouoe pue ouepaM
parolsaJ a p w lsago!q si wnuwnle algelaenxa alelex0 om4jns aqI m swalshsooa paepam pamisoj pue
lemllnouoe alp w sl ll LTuqi swalshsow aauaJajaJ alp m Jaq$!q 4111-163T015 sl uon algelaenxa atepex0 L o!d
Swals6s aouajajaJ aq1 01 annelw'paepam pajolsar
aql pue walshs leJminouoe atp gloq jo sl!os aaejms zq w palenala 91B Hd pue wn!aleo algeaouegoxq 'g 'y!q
H (6j6f1)wn!olvo31gea6uegax3 y
ONYII3M .. Fr c
03Uo153U _.. _. .W._.._.__._. 110.1 .. '• .
yn
4! l o n, yp?
...-.:_.:...._ _..-._... loos ?r..r. %^
30N3U333U s n
1?-... _......_.los - ..- ?. m
OOOMOUVH 3 3
wsoooa =d= L o o
(SO'0 = b) ap dap aaamlaq sa:IUaJajj!p lunglA!s ale0!pu! srels PUB 'luaJajj!p hpueorq!u8ls
aJe snllal luajojj!p gt!M sJeg '3s I + sueaul are pamaswd elefj'u!soood oql of uospedwoo ui swalshsooa
poompreq pup paepam parolsaJ'lejminouoe aqI u! Jaga!q hppe0J!uols sl sawo aoejrns aqI 01 uaoon!u
algelaenxg swalshsooa aauawjaj acp jo sam:1 aaejms Inp u! lsagolq sl alegdsogd olgeloenea Jalem 5 01.3
aauwala0 ......ley puelleM
c uso°> Palm innna,fiw
er ° of
I
° Z
=I
0N. .1st
ti..
aauwalay aaua:aley pL11WA
oopml gu um-y na101 ,• .'rill-By C
v
1 _ a' 1a
3S I + snow oje paluosard mCl 'sadht wa1s6s0aa u!cp!m
saouarajj!p tpdop lueoljjOis alearpul sragwnN '(S0'0 =b) Iuarajj!p hpueoy!uo!s aR sranal luajojj!p ql!M
slwod'gldop uw,!o e ly swalshsooa ououre IualuOO d lelot m sa:)ua.ajjlp lueoy!uo!s ou aJe aJaep'Isenuoa uI
algord pos ag7 lnogononp swals6soaa ao=;)3j )J aqI u! Jago!q hpuals!suoo om uaooJl!u pue uogjeO 'q o!q
L 0NYI13N 3Un11 J U0tl 3JN3U333U 37N3U3j3U
03UO1S3U =o- 000MOUVH--a- pOSOJOd ?..
(BjBd) snmgdsogd 113101 1100JIN % 1 uogJeo% )
cos roc ms o ror wt rot o n : S1s
s
01 I 9 I e 4.u_. 1
-115
n
l
,t
°
tvm 6pws jo ma!n ucld pva uoyooq .4'e!d
.(tq cw!o.teo jo au!pno
q,I i a
s,1VlOC 11Ml sf+' ?'?c ?t ,lucq uogcUD!YJ
7s %t? 1 uoa1 vUCo
{M S ???'?f?'1 .. \ suuv;jczas7g
P
u?pooilq ' ?1?21 P;g1.>s?ui')I ?
?h? ?r t r`;tll U \+1
r ^i l J
Nt P
111 .. aw10se3 Ipso^
'(solymd p) voumajaa poompnq put'(salgwd f) aaumym u!soaod'(sapjozd c) waR6s Iemlln3u5e'(roj!jo p) pDtpvm
paaotsat :swals6wop y w (wo 001'08 pue'wo 0"9'wo 09-04'wo oP'9Z'wo OZ-0) syldap c woq sa!dmas pos Boot am
's5vgpaasja Sonutld pne sayol!p jo Swlhl l°P7lnsvoo vogwotraU .aluug DontSq!)>\'
p.o!2nd mad advD swing tamg alp ammo of L661 jo mlul,m asp m pmwsal roam puzl lum!sou5z jo smnnq 05Z
'ISatoj poompmq
oue u!soood Swpnpm'DOuclaBan ItuiSuo agl mmlaJ ales ayljo mpumwaa ayl alp!m'Supu>,ej toj porn qq w s,o961•pnu
oql u! pamop pua pgogp sum eugonj yuop'dluno0 poupagwnD ul puehvm 6eq uugose:) amovq 5L6 ¢ JO u0mod tl ' l
spoglaw pue aj!S dpnjS ?i
Z661 soo94!D 8 zlue4S wotj pmppow Z put 1 sam5ld
e°s r'i?dB;= =n:_, 'uonendsutmodena
put pejulw uo laapuodop v19e1 mtem'ui5mw 3s
_?;, R71" qol nluarynmd wu pnas'MN to pua aomisp- vdeys aleno
(' `°M V V 4 ldt; jQty uoDmaauo3S-MNlwao5:saargealuoatmo0.
suo!smdap n! pwols ialem gllm Sannelziu! spu!m Ms
mId A1lunmmoa-1-2:n1'aW Lc dq,(Igegmd spoucd lenel89ump paswoj:mSL10. 1 4091. spnpam ousmm!ed gnsys-gnlosso palnapd:uoypu:IgIsswjD ulpJemoD.
-IuIS pal!np wmsraspnos agl jo oawnwd m¢Id IcnsmoD aqI man pueq
s N peojq e m djlutpange moan golgm sao!snudap 1¢an411D molpags :uo!Iluyp(j.
IN a " .. sul2mw magi no Sulmof All-d61 svar)dtq
poe sgnsqs aaa.fmna pmzsgo oqm stavuo!d utodom3 61rea 1(q „s6eq, paweN,
sSuH eul)oae:) paginisgpufl jo saa?saaaaa?peg? jEa.dS.-f
-- 'sword -aq' It nwaa. p lazpnu jo gonasm!anvl-sswmD worn; apl'oi X'p`ms siyl jo rljnsm ayTazyil(j
'aanCtalsal
,aye sma.( omt tvu asp D1 uaslm an¢y ryt slurs 1¢sminauSe put spos patpam pmolsaa ayl aavmvq saauamjjtp asp ssassV °
'tl Sfl'tupor.? glaoN al (vq eugono e u! papaoj
wols.(mn (wsoaod put poompaztu aouasvjat Z put (paepam pocolna put asm1nou5e) padolanap Z jo spos ayl azuantnyD
sampargo
,...1....,,,,,.111 ..................,yw,,.,y uu,?,>?„w?„uy
l sv gons sosmoad luolwagooo o!gio*gv of Izpumod oyl aneq sanuadosd pos w saauo,ajj!p osogL swols6soao aavamjal wotj
!pu!sm(rur lEtlJ put'swalshsooo padolanap alp jo
pZdolanap Suptndas aalawzmd pos.(mwud alp rim zo ltlp mc
Hd Put ma)uoa eD algmouegaxa ayl paienap 1(pueagw5!s suq Sawrj ?saonaesd pos Izjmlrou5t 6q palopjje ton stm d pos
Iel01 veal oral mye Ipalao] N? Put D no 1-JJD 0a peq Do1t¢amsoy swots6swa padolanap asp ul a!gmd lion alp tno45nonp
1 pue D jo lunowt asp paanpm sty oulstlnou5y 'swms.(soao wumcjos aqI of uosmdwoo m swals6soaa padolanap
atp jo so!uadmd pos uI sa5uego IuzagmSls paslma aneq saa!uuld asmpuel lemllnouSe lesp aleaipw sllnmu mo 'Hd
pm 'ms aI.!i-md'wnulwnr pat Dom algelatmxo aleltxo'(eN ;1'Syt'u:)) suol7co algzfatjlxa aleloae wn!DowWv'wmuounut
put attmw aIgm.t4x. ID;I'snsoydsoyd vlgclaenxa ivt¢m'(d) mloydsogd!tlol'(Ni) uaBomu Itlol'(Z)) uogm I¢lol aoj
paz.(Ieue moor szjao asu vu!lom3 tploN'-o:) puepagwnD ui (tq eogom3 e `.yng uogt5agq sword ¢lm3 aqI le sputpam
1 aauwajaj oml put 'putpam pwozsm e put plag Iwlulnoy.u uu swals6soaa p rlolaeap om1 jo gota wmj soma pos oldnlnw
.1001 aM -MS NIMn Iseaglnos aql JO s.* ewlono padolanap put Itimea jo sansgzpve ya pos aqI Do pzpnpuw uaaq
1I ant. Solpms spdap w mad -pwol!uow uollo ssal zr.'atotsai of Ilwupp slow zn galgm'salpodmd (!OS Qj!qm'UOIM125*A Put
.(So1mp4 suuolsm Do paseq 6pnanbaaj sl ssaatns uonvwsm pucpam jo luawssassV zdtaspuul agl no suomaanj puupam
leusuea jo uonanmsap asp 6q pamto paysaaltm a of otzwep Supz5plw jo pounDw pawn iltuanbasj a sl uonzlols-+i paepam
s ?nsag UOISSTasiq pue s31-sad _J aa??asq?l
80LLZ 'DN'T- i-CgJ11.( `joluoD pu-eIjo?A Xjtsiomu fl oNn(j `uospigold .r stim PUP X'QgOu-eH >? ,?a1??z??I ? II WBO- J-D
sul"AMPUaa a3c3x3j3a1 pug `U01jVA0jS3J PUB113AAL
Aapun sac?AadoAd pos Suq vutlQava jo uosla?dtuoa v
SeRecti®n of WetR nd Restorafl®n Sites in Rural Watersheds to Improve Water Quality-. Integratarmg Ecollog as and
Economic Approaches
Curtis J. Richardson, Randall A. Framer, Neal E. Flanagan, Jon Eisen-Hecht
Duke Wetland Center, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.
I Abstract
-At the watershed scale, the importance of wetlands to the maintenance of biodiversiry, water quality, and natural hydrologic regimes depends at least in part on the total wetland area, types and spatial arranecmem. The North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP) was mandated to develop basin-wide wetland restoration plans primarily to improve water quality. The success of these plans in improving water quality will depend on the appropriate siting of wetland restoration
projects. The primary objective of this study is to develop a procedure for configuring mosaics of restored wetlands to yield the greatest positive cumulative effect on watershed-level water quality given a set of ecological, economic and political
constraints.
• This study will center on the development of a Decision Support System (DSS) to assist the NCWRP in siting restored wetlands to maximize watershed-level water quality improvement. The DSS will rely upon an economic model of land use
and farmer willingness to participate in restoration programs and a flow-weighted water quality model based on watershed variables including the area, type, shape and location of wetlands. The water qualit), model will be calibrated using data
collected from the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) indicator watersheds, and will be validated using field data collected from one or more restoration projects that will be completed by the NCWRP. The water quality model will be
coupled with an economic model of landowners' decisions to participate in the NCWRP as a function of their socioeconomic characteristics, various aspects of the program and other factors affecting land use decisions. An economic analysis of the
individual restoration project will also be conducted to test the results of the conceptual model, and the effectiveness of the NCWRP from the landowners point of view.
• Several products of this study will be of interest to watershed managers. A model predicting the effects of wetland area and location on the flux of dissolved nutrients and dissolved organic carbon from the watershed will be developed. A site-
specific nutrient mass balance that quantifies the effectiveness of wetland restoration for water quality improvement will be established. An economic model that predicts farmers' willingness to participate in wetland restoration programs will be
produced. Finally, a decision support system will be constructed to determine optimal placement of wetland restoration projects to improve water quality, subject to economic constraints. These products will assist slate agencies such as the
NCWRP in demonstrating improved watershed water quality resulting from wetland restoration, and in deciding how to best allocate their resources to achieve the goal of water quality improvement
III Study Approach
II
This study will center on the development of a Decision Support System (DSS) to assist
NCWRP in siting restored wetlands to maximize watershed-level water quality function. The
DSS will rely upon an economic model of land use and farmer willingness to participate in
restoration programs, and an ecological model relating flow weighted water quality parameters
to several watershed variables include the area, type shape and location of wetlands within the j
watershed: The decision support model will then be used to select the best configuration for
restored wetlands in the Harrison Creek watershed using ecological and economic
considerations.
it
Ecological Analysis
The water quality model will he based on data collected in watersheds that are part of the
Albemarle-Pamlico study unit of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project of
the United States Geological Survey, Site-level data will be collected from a restored wetland
along Harrison Creek which is part of the Lower Cape Fear river basin. The water quality
model will be used to predict the effect of wetland restoration on water quality functions in the
Harrison Creek Watershed. A quantitative nutrient mass balance will be created for the restored
wetland.
Econotnit: Analysis
Landowner Survey
A survey will be conducted with owners of prior converted wetland areas which could
potentially be restored. Using a combined telephone/mail format, the survey will collect data on
socioeconomic characteristics, past land use practices and factors influencing land use decision-
making. Data will be collected from 400-500 landowners located in selected river basins. The
aim of the survey is to uncover information on how landowners make decisions regarding
wetlands restoration. The willingness of landowners to participate in wetland restoration
programs with various attributes will be assessed through stated preference methods. Survey
data will be used to econometrically model landowners' decisions to participate in wetland i
restoration programs.
Economic analysis
Mw b"
Program Options for Landowners in Nath Carsena
NC
- S I
21.
eve. Fvc--
I ,
t cation of the Barra Farms Restercd wel=d
II Objectives
identify watershed level variablrs that predict the effects of various
wetland restoration projects on water quality,
describe site-level mass balances for nitrogen and phosphorus in restored
wetlands,
assess the effectiveness of thew restored wetland in improving water
quality,
identify variables predicting fanner willingness to participate in wetland
restoration projects,
develop a procedure that will assist the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program (NCWRP) in locating and designing wetland restoration projects
to yield the greatest positive cumulative impact on watershed-level water
quality given a set of ecological, economic, and political constraints.
' IV Expected Rusults
A watershed level ecolol a.al model predicting the effects of
various wetland restoratira projects on water quality,
a model predicting farina willingness-to-participate in wetland
restoration projects,
a site-level economic analysis of a wetland restoration project
including an assessment of the costs and benefits accruing to
landowners,
j new information about nutrient cycling and retention in wetlands
restored on agricultural minds,
a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of one or more
restored wetlands in inrprcving water quality,
a Decision Support System (DSS) that integrates the economic and
ecological models to assist the North Carolina Wetland Restoration
Program (NCWRP) in 1lrating and designing wetland restoration
I projects.
Total Phosphorus
ag Find Nnnlomd Bey F%..1 oumow
wau.m t
sn. L...mn
Total Nitrogen
v?I
Rg Fi,lld a.cl.,.d e.y Form anawr
wou.m
sire lac.rl.n
Oi-otved Organic Cori-
amo„
Ag Find :. n.d b., -11
Z".M
stet motorman
Water samples from e_, of the three ecosystems show
distinct mltnent compo-ans One component of This
=ill be to evalux, the capacity al the restored
Welland to remove nufrlcnts from tha Barra Farms mmoll.
I
1
r o?
- t1 I
T1 f -al s ?'a A polcl,:- .? nand restoration sites
puonnzed b, potential wait; quality Improvement and
raamer wilhngnrss-topa,.
A-.1 photograph of the Barra Farms mstored wetland area.
A=restored wetland area, B=agricultural area scheduled for wetland
remoration, C=Bay Forest area
36"
35'
31'
45 Piedmont
f 45a Southern Inner Piedmont
I -.] 45b Southern Outer Piedmont
I 1 45c Carolina Slate Belt
45e Northern Inner Piedmont
L.;---- 1 45f Northern Outer Piedmont
RE9 45g Triassic Basins
45i Kings Mountain
63 Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
® 63b Chesapeake-Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
® 63c Nonriverine Swamps and Peatlands
i 63d Virginian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes
I 163e Mid-Atlantic Flatwoods
® 63g Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes
I 63h Carolina Flatwoods
M 63n Mid-Atlantic Floodpiains and Low Terraces
PRINCIPAL- AU I'HORS: Glcnn E. Griffith (NRC'S), James M. Omcmtk (USFPA).
Jeffrey A. llnn.tx:k (Indus Corptmtion). Mldad P. Se ahale (W:DitNRI, W. Henry
McNab (USFS). David It. Lenal (NCDENR), and 1'rish P. MacPherson (NCDF.NR)
COLL.MORATORS AND CONTRfnIITORS. J:ona F., Il.uri,on(UM1,A) ILetd I..
Penrose (NCI)kNR I. Roy L.Vick. Jr. (NPCS). Gerard McMahon WSCS). Rohan Pas
(UNC). Clup Solid, (NRCS) and Ton Lnvelwnl (USGS).
C'll'ING 11115 MAP: Gnifuh. G P... 0 c,.,k. I.M., Cmmhock, J.A. .SchaLlc. M.P..
McNah. W.H.. Lenat D.R.. and MacPherson. TF.. 2(X)2. Fcoregions of North Carolina.
11S. Envimnmentd Pruteenun Agency, Corvallis. OR, (,nap.-te 1. 1.5W.004)).
65 Southeastern Plains
I 65c Salad Hill's
1651 Atlantic Southern Loam Plains
I _:.1 65m Rol3ing Coastal Plain
MM 65p Southeastern Floodp[ains and Low Terraces
66 Blue Ridge
F_,71 66c New Rivet Plateau
M 66d Soulhem Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
66e Soulhem Sedimentary Ridges
I 66g Southern Metasedirrentary Mountains
M 66i High Mountains
C..,.:! 66j Broad Basins
M 66k Amphibolite Mountains
9M 661 Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills
® 66m Sauratown Mountains
Level 111 ecoregion County boundary
Level IV ecoregion State boundary -•---
SCALE. 1:1 50(! 000
Is 10 5 0 ltd 60 on
30 21) 1(1 II 60 IN) kin
Albers F.qual Area Projection
I ._:
78"
U'orucions denote areas of general similarity in xa5ysbms anti in site type, gadify, and gwantity of
envinInm,_ol d resources. "Ilhcy are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research,
aSSCSSInr:aL ^ +n gemcm, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem componem5, Ecoregions arc
dfiredJy;tpp(aable to maily stale agency activities, ineiviling nµ; selection of regional slnan reference
sites. tic development of biological aikAa and water quality shmdards, and the cwaMiahrwof of
rmmatcment goals I'-or nonpoint-source polhvJmt Tbey we aJso relevant to integrated ecosystem
manatzeuttnt an ultimate goat of many federal and state resource mariagcua m agencies.
Ale alparurch used to compile this map of North Carolnm i5 based on the premise that ecologica!
n;uans are hierarchical and tan 17e idtmufied through to analysis of the spatial pattern's and die
com0s144171 of hintic and abiolic plumanena that affect or reflect differences in xosystdm quality and
integrity (Wiken 1986; Omcmik 1987, 1995). These phcnomema include geology. physi giraphhy,
vetgcustion, climate, soils, bold use, wildlife, and hydro) y. The relative Impon2nee of each
ch.mwn;nstr varies from one ecological region to anmher nardlem of the hfcnachia-l aevel. A Roman
mmacril 'hicmrcthical scheme tau {pen w"cd for different levels of ecological regions. Level 1 and
lcvd 11 divide the North American continent into 15 and 52 regions, respectively (Commission for
Envinmtocnlsl Cooperation Working Group 1997). At Level 111, site cominemal United States contains
I(A regions Waited Stara Enviromnental !rotation Agency [U.S. EPA] 2000). Level IV is a further
wbdwisiua of the level Ill xn eginns. I:apkvetioms of he methods used to define the 11.5. EPA's
cc0fcg*itms are given in Omcmik (1995), fhmcmik and otters (2000), Gnflitn and others (19'14, 1997),
and Guthmt and others (1989).
'IIJc L,vcl Ill and IV ecoregion were compiled ,if a scale of 1:250,070 and depict revisions and
subdivisions of earlier level 111 ecotegions drat were originally compiled at a smaller scale (U.S. EPA
2000; Oincmik 1987). Compilation of this map is pan of a collaborative project primarily between the
ILS. Ikparuacnl of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service INKS), the U.S EPA
National lic;dlh and Fnvironmcntal Ellccis Rcwxc!t Laboratory (NIIIJ!RIA U-S. EPA Region IV, and
die North Carolina IkparVncnl of Environment and Natural Resources. This project is also associated
with ;nt mtemgencp etron to develop a common framework of etnlogi" regions (McMahon and others
2p11). Rcgnutal culhdxinitive pmja(s, such as this tine in North Carolina where some agreement cm he
reached antis multiple resource management agemlies, are a step in the direction of attaining
cnmmtinayity and consistency in ecoregion framcwals for the entire nation.
Comments regarding die 1,evcl III and IV Icmrcgiom of Noah Carolina map should be addressed Io
Glenn irriftitn, USf)A-NRCS. 20() SW 35th Sueet Corvallis, OR 97333, [phone], FAX: (541)
1544716, email [e-mail], or to James Omcamik, USGS, 200 SW 15th Strum Corvallis,
OR 91133, (541) 751 158, email, omemtk.jama(dgmgov.
T L A N T I C
OCEAN
7 35'
Literature Ci1C1
Commission for Envunnmrnml C.oopcraYan Working Gruthp, 1997, Ecological agions of
North Amcrice - 1owntnl a ermm?on penpectiw:: Mtenireal, Quebec, Commission for
LnvirormCenral Cocifi .:atlnn, ll p.
Gallant A I.., Whittier, 1'.11., Laren, 1) P. Omemlk, 1.M., and flughc, R.M., 19119,
Reginarlwaion as a tool fie managing envimnmental resoureeie Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.
Eminnnnental Proleelitm Agency C WN1013-891064 152 p.
Griffith, ' JT_ Omeraik, J.M., Wilton, T,E, and Pierson. S,M., 1994, Ecoregions and
wlrmginis of lowu - a thunewori: for water quality wsnss,ment and management: The
foes_salorthelowaAeadcmyofScicncc,v, 101,no Lp 5-11.
Griffutt, CA-L, Omomik, 1.M., and Arcvcdo, S-IL, 097, fscoregmns of Tennessee: Corvallis,
Oream U.S. Enitronmenial Proleclion Agency, Nalional Itcalhh and Pnvimnmcntal Effects
antenna Lshoruo y, EPA76007R-971022, 51 p.
McMahon, G, Gregonis, S.M, W;dhman, S.W., thoemik, T.M., lhorsem, T.D., Frccnuf, I.A.,
Rerick, A.M. and Keys. f.E., 2001, Devel(Ting a flulial framework of common ecological
regions for the con(enrrinonts United States: Envwtimental Management, v. 28, no. 3,
p. 293-:116.
Omemik, J.M., 1987, Emregiotr of the coaaterminou, United States (map supplement): Annals
of the 1,ssoiation of American Goographcm, v, 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale: 1:7,500,000.
Omcmik, J.M., 1995, Eercgiun+a spatial framework far cnviroamenml Imnagcmcnl, in
Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., cots., Biological assessment and crileria-tools for water
rvsmtree pinning and bxisiun making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62.
Omemik, 1,M-, Chapman, S.S., Lillie, R.A., and Dumke, R.T., 2000, Ecoregions of
Wisnmsin: Temsaetiuns of the Wisconsin Ac;hdemy of Scienec>. Arl, and Leiters,
v. RR, nn. 2fM, p. 77-103.
U.S. fnviwnmental Prolusion Agency, 2Gh0, Level Ill es. regions of the wruincntal Unilett
San, -revision of Omernik, 19R7) Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Firivironmeneil Protection
Agency-Naional I IaJlh and Environmental Effects Research Labi)raiory, Mill M- 1.
Woken, L, 1986, Terresmal ,cozens, of Canute: On:twa, Envtrounienh Canada, Ecological
I-d (`gee ification Seri-no 19, 26 p.
Ecoregions of North Carolina
63. MIDDLE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN

Level N Ecoregion Physiography Geology Soil Climate Potential Natural Vegetation Land Use and Land Cover
Area
(square Elesvtiod Surficiai Material and Bedrock Order (Great Group) Common sou series Ttraperatum/ Precipitation Frost Free
a Meaulemperature
.
miles) Local Relief
(feet)' Moisture
Regimes Mean annual
(inches) Me
n annual
(days) January aunGnax;
July ran/n= (M
63b. Chesapeake- 22,26 Low, flat plains and peninsulas; poorly 0-25 Late Pleistocene marine sand, silt, and Ultisols (Endoaquults, Tomotley, Roanoke, Thermic ! 48-55 210-230 32152; Wet hardwood forest (bottomland oaks, tulip poplar, sweetgum, Cropland with wheat, com, soybeans,
Pamlico drained with swamps, some low gradient / clay. Umbraquults), lnceptisols Perquimans, Pasquotank, Aquic 69188 maple, swamp tupelo); mesic mixed hardwood forest (beech, potatoes, cotton, and peanuts; evergreen
Lowlands and streams with sandy and silty substrates, a 5-20 (Humaquepts), Alfisols Hyde, Deloss, Portsmouth, tulip poplar, maple, oaks, sweetgum); some-pond pine forest, mixed forest, forested wetlands, pine
Tidal Matches few large lakes; estuaries and sounds. (Endoaqualfs), Histosols Cape Fear, Wasda, Roper, woodlands and longleaf pine; tidal and nonrivedne cypress-gum plantations, pasture, marsh.
(Haplosaprists) Arapahoe, Yonges, Atpent, swamps.
Dorovan, Currituck
63c. Nonriverine 1692 Low, broad flats and interstream divides, 5-50 Holocene peat and silty to clayey swamp Histosols (Haplosaprists), Pungo, Date, Belhaven, Thermic 1 50-56 210.235 32/54; Pocosins (fetterbush, ti-ti, inkberry, pond pine); pond pine Forested wetlands, evergreen forest, mixed
Swamps and poorly drained, a few lakes, low stream / deposits, Pleistocene marine sand, silt, and Inceptisols (Humagaepts) Ponzer, Domvan, Wascia, Aquic 69/89 woodland; Atlantic white cedar forest; nouriverine swamp forest forest, some cropland and pine plantations.
Peadands density; channelized drainage is common. 5-25 clay. Scuppemong, Roper, (bald cypress, pond cypress, swamp tupelo, loblolly pine, red
Torhunta, Croatia maple).
63d. Virginian 63 Barrier islands, dunes, beaches, lagoons, 0-30, some Holocene beach and dune sand, saline Entisols (Sulfaquents, Bohicket, Carteret, Currimck Thermic / 48 220230 33152; Salt and brackish marshes (corcigrass, saltgrass, rushes); tidal Marsh, forested wetland, evergreen forest,
Barrier Islands estuaries, tidal marshes. dunes to 60 marsh deposits of sand, silt, clay, and peat. Psammaquems, in tidal marshes; Corolla, Aquic 69/87 freshwater marsh (cordgross, sawgrass, cattail, wild rice); urban, wildlife habitat, beaches, recreation,
and Coastal / Quaitzipsarnments), Newhan, Dackstoa on beach maritime shrub (wax myrtle, yaupon); maritime dry grassland fish and shellfish production.
Marshes 5-30 1Bstosols aptosaprists)
(H dunes and flats.
(saltnreadow cardgrass); maritime evergreen forest (live oak,
sand laurel oak loblolly pine); dune grass (beach grass, sea
oats).
63e. Mid-Atlantic 2755 Flat plains on lightly dissected marine 2-100 Pleistocene and Pliocene marine sand, silt, Tiltisols (Paleaquults, Rains, Lynchburg, Thermic ! 46-50 200-1-30 30/52; Mesic pine flatwoods (longleaf pine, loblolly pine, oaks, Pine plantations, cropland with peanuts,
Flatwoods terraces; swamps, low gradient streams / and clay. Paleadults, Albaquults, Goldsboro, Leaf, Craven, Aquic, 68/89 hickories, bluestem); wet pine flatwoods (longleaf pine with cotton, corn, soybeans, tobacco, wheat,
with sandy and silty substrates. 5-75 Hapludults) Lenoir, Noboco, Pantego Udic loblolly or pond pine); pine savanna (longleaf pine, pond pine, chickens, and hogs; pasture, mixed and
bluestem); pond pine woodland; some oak-hickory and mixed deciduous forest
forest.
63g. Carolinian 557 Barrier islands, dunes, beaches, lagoons, 0-30, some Holocene beach and dune sand, saline Entisols (Sulfaquents, Bohicket, Carteret, Thermic! 50-56 240-260 35153; Salt and braddsh marshes (cordgrass, saltgrass, rushes); Marsh, forested wetland, evergreen forest,
Barrier Islands estuaries, tidal marshes. dunes to marsh deposits of sand, silt, clay, and peat Psammaquents, Hobucken in tidal marshes; Aquic 72/86 maritime shrub (wax myrtle, yaupon); maritime dry grassland urban, wildlife habitat, beaches, tourism,
and Coastal 100 Hydraquents, Corolla Newhan, Duckston, (saltmeadow cordgrass); maritime evergreen forest-(live oak, recreation, fish and shellfish production.
Marshes / Quartzipsaumients) Fripp on beach dunes and sand laurel oak, loblolly pine); dune grass (sea oats, bitter panic
5-30 flats. grass, cordgrass, beach grass).
63h. Carolina 11510 Flat plains on lightly dissected marine 2-195 Pleistocene-and Pliocene marine sand, silt, Ultisols(Paleaquults, Goldsboro, Lynchburg,. Thermic / 46.53 210.240 33/55; Longleaf pine-wiregrass; xeric sandhill scrub (longleaf pine- Pine plantations, mixed forest, forested
Flatwoods terraces; swamps, low gradient streams / and clay; Tertiary sand, silt, clay, and Paleadults, Endoaquults, Rains, Coxville, Wahee, Aquic, in the 70/90 turkey oak wiregrass); pond pine forest and woodland; some wetlands, cropland of cotton, corn, soybeans,
with sandy and silty substrates; Carolina 5-75 limestone, some Cretaceous sand, silt and Albaquults, Hapludults), Bladen, Argent, Coosaw, Udic north, oak-hickory and mixed forest wheat, peanuts, tobacco, blueberries;
bays. clay. Al6sols (Endoaqualts), Noboco, Baymeade, 230-250 production of hogs, broilers, and turkeys;
Spodosols (Alaquods), Woodington, Leon, Kureb, in the some public land, wildlife habitat
Enisols Yauhaunah,Yemassee, South
(Quarrmpsamments), Ogeechee, Croamn
Histosols (Haplosaprists)
63n. Mid :Atlantic 2193 Major river floodplains and associated 2-130 Holocene alluvial silk clay, and gravelly Inceptisols (Endoaquepts, Johnston, Muckalee, Thermic 1 46.54 210-240 32154; Southern floodplain forest. Includes cypress-gum swamp (water Forested wetlands, deciduous forest, some
Floadplains and low terraces; low gradient streams with / sand local swamp deposits and organic Dystrudepts, Masontown Congaree, Aquic, in the 69190 tupelo, swamp tupelo, -bald cypress, pond cypress) and cropland on larger terraces.
Low Terraces sandy and silty substrates, oxbow lakes, 5-25 muck; some late Pleistocene alluvial and Humaquepts), Entisols Dorovan, Chastain, John's, some Udic north, bottomland hardwood forest (bottomland oaks, red maple,
ponds, swamps. estuarine sand and silt (Udifluvents), Ultisols Kenansville, Roanoke, 230-250 sweetgum, green ash, bittemut hickory)-
(Hapludults, Umbraquults, Lumbee, Paxville, Meggett, in the
Eodoaquults), Alfisols Tawcaw, Chewacla, Hobcaw South
(Albaqualfs)

m
Tava lwto, Jwc-
goal 6) .6 &Z 252.2
9Vdlm aytm, ?I`oWA Vwwliw .28402
fTe? 990-452-0009
tY J&d
?{! ?t?een ?uaeriaon
DATE: August 15, 2002
9.&;f4
.TA... C /p'
8805 ?u?/itHiille .uie
W1dmin#tan, ?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
[phone]; [phone]; 629-6044 [fx]
INTRODUCTION -
The lands of Barra-(1(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-II study site is within a relatively large Carolina Bay named
"Harrison Creek Bay". The elevation of this entire area varies between -120 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 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 ft deep lateral open ditching on -300 ft spacing, which connect to 4-7
ft deep collector drainage canals. All of the artificial drainage drains is in a southwest direction
Page 1 of
to an outlet canal with a water.control structure. Portions of Barra-11's original hydrology has been
altered to various degrees where the historic ditching exists (see Barra-II map showing existing
roads & ditching).
Evaluations of the Barra-II 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 "Pactolus". These soils
typically have a very thin surface horizon over sandy substratums. These land types in their
natural state have non-hydric 404 Wetland soil and vegetative characteristics, and typically would
be classified as uplands.
DRAINAGE & HYDROLOGIC MODELING
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 tract where 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-NRCS 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 hydrolocally
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 are soil saturation at depths <12" from the surface, for +12 consecutive days during
the "growing season" which is March 17h thru Nov 12th (5% of growing season @>28° F; a 240
day time period).
The following DrainMod inputs were used in the wetlands analysis for the Barra-II Tract with
Croatan soil/land types.
Climate Data =
Time Period Analyzed =
Annual Start/End Time =
Depth To Saturation =
Ditch Spacings Evaluated =
Ditch Depths Evaluated
Depth Of Surface Ponding =
Surface Storage To Drain =
Depth To Impermeable Layer =
Effective-Drain Radius =
Drainage Coefficient =
Soil Ksat Rates =
Lateral Seepage =
Vertical Seepage =
Slope Seepage =
Initial Potentiometric Surface =
Kirkam G-Factor =
Wetland Queries =
Wilmington, NC climatological data
Years 1951 thru 1981
Day 76 and Day 316
30.5 cm (12")
300 ft (9144 cm spacing)
400 ft (12194 cm spacing)
460 ft (14021 cm spacing)
510 ft (15545 cm spacing)
2ft= 61 cm
3ft= 76cm
4 ft = 107 cm
5 ft = 138 cm
6 ft = 183 cm
1.2 in=3cm
1.2 in=3cm
10 ft = 305 cm
7.0 - 10.0 cm
5.0 cm/day
"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'); 7.62 cm/hr (3.0 in/hr)
0 cm/hr
0 cm/hr
0 cm/hr
30 cm (beginning in year 1951)
4.72
Watertable <30.5 cm (12"_from surface for>12 daytime 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 queried 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 17th thru November 12th). When >50% of the 31 years
meet these conditions (16 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 Croatan
DrainMod data).
Within "Croatan soil types of the Barra-II Tract the following results were obtained within areas
of narallal difichinn.-
vDrainage 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
types Within Barra-II, the areas with parallel pattern drainage have ditch depths of >3.0 ft or are
maintained to these depths. The land areas with parallel ditching that do not meet 404 Wetland
hydrologic criteria within Barra-II are shown on the enclosed map (see map, hydrologic drainage
conditions "white-shaded" areas).
For the collector ditching within Barra-11, which are non-parallel and/or with 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 DrainMod data).
Within "Croatan" soil types of the Barra-11 Tract the following results were obtained for the lateral
rirminnno offar_ts of cinnia milPCtnr 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%) 255 ft
Based upon the above results, the lateral drainage effects of single collector ditches at various
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-11 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-11 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 "DrainModn 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. A final map is enclosed that shows
the areas and planimetered acreage of potential jurisdictional 404 Wetlands vs drained wetland
areas (see map "Hydrologic Drainage Conditions").
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.
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
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-II Tract.
Larry F. Baldwin, CPSS/SC
ARCPACS #2183; NCLSS #1040
Page 5 of 5
Based upon the soils evaluation and "DrainMod hydrological analysis, there are -755 acres that
do not meet 404 Wetland hydrology criteria within the Barra-II Tract. In addition, there are -130
acres directly adiacent to and outside of the Barra-II Tract that also do not meet 404 Wetland
ca
O
N
U
H
D
J
W
Q
J
E.
C9 c`s
z o
U
E- O
?Z
O
c
W o
JV
0V
U =
ca
c d
n
E
z?
co)
W >
cc
C9 m
z_
L
Ov
_ _
N C
N
L
L L
V ?
c
C of
r ?
r Q
v L
Uz
z
? L
T
1
O
a
a
0-
CD
i
O
d-
rn
0
m
`m
c?
co
w
N
RS
O
Cf)
C
X
W
1L N
O
3? d
Q N N 3 d
Uu O o- ?c
N = Q CU CU O
120

c
O
c
O
U =a
0 0
rn2
O .C:
O .50
L L
= c
O
m Q Q.
C
0 L N
++ 'O CO
O . >, t4
Z = m
N
m
V
M
cO
G
C
L
?06
O
O N
-?+ ca
=U
co
0 C)
'gr U)
U Q
>+m
2 (n
c Z)
O c
Z Q
c D
Co a
a?
_ cc
m
c c
O O
?U
c
°" d U
N
W
d
et
N
0
0 O
? U
m U
o
r O a
+ 00
m ?+ C
CJ ?
M Q
R fA
O
Z m
m
N
m
ca
U
v
v
BARRA II 300 ft Spacing 2 ft Depth
---------------DRAINMOII version 5.0 ------ ?
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina state university =
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS SARRA-II; Croatan Soils; 2' Depth @300' Ditch Spacing
^ ^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^_^? ^
WILMINGTON, ^NC^WEATHER ^DATA ^1951-1981^TIME ^PERIOD
---RUN STATISTICS - time: 8/20/2002 @ 16:34
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-II-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 0. 7.
1954 0. 7.
25
1955 2.
1 .
16.
1956
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.
3
1968 0.
4 .
27.
1969
1970 .
2. 27.
1971 2. 23.
1972 0. 4.
20
1973 3.
2 .
29.
1974
1975 .
0. 11.
1976 0. 11.
1977 1. 18.
1978 0. 8.
1979 2.1 35.
1980 1. 22.
1981 1. 13.
Number of Years with at least one period = 21. out of 31 years.
Page 1
BARRA-== 300 tt Spacing 3 ft Depth
----------------------- --------------------------- DRAINMOD version 5.0
_-Copyright-1990_94 North Carolina-State-University-_
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-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\Barra-TI.lis fields not calculat
parameters: free drainage and yields
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 0. 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 ft Depth -2 D O ft Drainage Infl-aenee
*__
/ ---------------------- version 5-.-0---------------- RAINMO
1990-94 North Carolina state university
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan Soils; 4' Depth @400' Ditch Spacing
PERIOD ^^_^_^__^^^^^^_^^?^?^^^^^??
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME
-------------
--RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 17: 4
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-Il.lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
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 -?-23-0 ft Drainage In.flu.ence
-----------------------------------------------------.
DRAINMOD version 5.0 °
* copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
------------------------------------------- ---------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan soils; 5' Depth-@460 Ditch Spacing
WILMINGTON, NC WEATHER DATA 1951-1981 TIME PERIOD ^^_^_ ^^^^^^_^^^^^_^^^
----------RUN STATISTICS --------- time: 8/20/2002 @ 17:19
input file: C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-II.lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
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.
i
Page 1
,.6 f-t Depth -255 ft Drainage lnfluence
-----------------------------------------------------
DRAINMOD version 5.0
Copyright 1990-94 North Carolina State University
-----------------------------------------------------
404 WETLANDS ANALYSIS BARRA-II; Croatan 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-II.lis
parameters: free drainage and yields not calculat
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 WETLAND ANAZYS=

D R A I NM 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.

*DRAINM0D-- 5.0
DATA READ FROM INPUT FILE: C:\Drainmod\inputS\Barra-II.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:\DRATNMOD\WEATHER\NWILMING.TEM
CRAINID) 319457
RAINFALL STATION NUMBER ....... ...................
(TEMPID) 319457
TEMPERATURE/PET STATION NUMBER ...................
(START YEAR) 1951 YEAR
STARTING YEAR OF SIMULATION ... ...............
(START MONTH) 1 MONTH
STARTING MONTH OF SIMULATION .. ..............
(END YEAR) 1981 YEAR
ENDING YEAR OF SIMULATION ..... .................
(END MONTH) 12 MONTH
ENDING MONTH OF SIMULATION .... ................
(TEMP LAT) 34.16 DEG.MIN
TEMPERATURE STATION LATITUDE .. .................
......(HID) 85.00
HEAT INDEX .................... ................
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
INPUTS BARRA-II WETLAND ANALYSIS
ADEPTH,305. CM DDRAIN = 61 to 183 CM
0 -
0------------- SDRAIN = 9144. CM -----------
: EFFRAD CM HDRAIN =218. CM
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
DEPTH SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM)
.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
O CM/DAY
DRAINAGE CLIMITED SUBSURFACE OUTLET)
2.50 CM/DA
MAXIMUM PUMPING CAPACITY (SUBIRRIGATION MODE)
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) (CM)
.0 .0
1.0 36.5
2.0 47.2
3.0 55.5
4.0 63.0
5.0 69.4
6.0 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
(CM)
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
200.0
2.10.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
280.0
WATER CONTENT
(CM/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
(CM)
.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
(CM/HR)
.5000
.5000
.2167
.0777
.0331
.0170
.0071
.0040
.0020
.0010
.0008
.0005
.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 .3660 48.88 .0000
0000
0
300 .3650 50.97 .
.
0
350 .3600 61.46 .0000
.
0
400 .3567 71.94 .0000
.
0
450 .3533 82.43 .0000
.
500
0 .3500 92.91 .0000
.
0
600 .3440 94.33 .0000
.
0
700 .3380 95.75 .0000
.
0
800 .3320 97.16 .0000
.
900.0 .3260 98.58 .0000
GREEN AMPT INFILTRATION PARAMETERS
W.T.D.
(CM) A
(CM) B
(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 (cm) = 30.5
Threshold Consecutive Days = 12
Fixed Monthly Pet values
1 1.00 2 1.00 3 1.00 4 1.00
9 1.00 10 1.00 11 1.00 12 1.00
Mrank indicator = 0
5 1.00 6 1.00 7 1.00 8 1.00
END OF INPUTS
--RUN STATISTICS ---------- time: 8%20/2002 @ 16:34
input file C:\Drainmod\inputs\Barra-Il.lis fields not calculat
parameters: free drainage and Y
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
Computational Statistics . <°=
=> Start computations = 994.745
End computations = 994.840
--> Total simulation time = 5.7 seconds.
Page 4
38 Sou, SUR.VFy
TABLE 1.--TEMPEP,ATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA
Temperaturel ; Precipitationl
! ! ! ! 2 years in ! ! 12 years in 101 !
10 will have-- ; Average ; 1 will have---! Average
Month ,AveragelAveragelAveragel ! !number oflAverage: ! !number of:Avera
! daily 1.daly 1 daily 1 Maximum 1 Minimum 1 growing 1 ! Less : More :days withlsnowf
!maximum:minimum: ltemperatureltemperaturel degree : !than--!than--:6.10 inch!
! higher 1 lower 1 days2 ! ! ! ! or more :
! 1 than-- ! than-- ! !
{

? .

? F } F. : F : F 1 F ! ! In : In
In

In
:
.
! January"--- 1 ,
55.9. ,
35.3 + ?
45.6 , i
77 ! !
17 ! !
57 1 3.41 !
1 1.94 ! !
1 4.61 1 1
7 !

r February---1 58w3 37.1 47.7 79 19 69 , 3.66 , 2.40 , 4.80 ,
1
7 1
March-----=1 64.3 1 43.0 1 53.7 1. 84 1 26 1 180 1 4.09 1 2.25 1. 5.58 1 8 !
April------1 73.7 1 51.6 1 62:7 1 91 1 34 1 381 1 3.07 1 1.36 1 4.46 1 5 1
May--------1, 80.8 1 60.1 : 70.5 1 95 1 43 1 636 1 4.09 : 2.27 1 5.57 1 6 :
June-------1 86.2 1 67.2 76.7 1 99 1 53 1 801 : 5.63 1 2.84 1 7.89 1 8 :
JulY----=--1 89-0 ! 71.2 ! 80:1 1 98 1 61 1 933 1 7.72 ! 4.47 110.36 1 10
August-----1 88.3 1 70.5 1 79.4 1 98
1
60 1
911 ' ' 1
6.80
1 4.10
{ 9.21 1 1
g 1
September _ 1 83.7 1 65.2 1 74.5 1 94 1 50 1 735 1 5.55 ! 2.66 1 7.90 1 6 1
October--=-! 75.5 1 54.6 1 65.0 1 89 1 33 1 465 1 3.16 1 1.07 1 4.84 1 5
November---1 66.5 1 43.7 1 55.1 1 82 : 25 1 162 1 3.19 1 1.28 1 4.73 1 5 1
December --- :
' 59.1 1
'. 37.4 1
1 48.3 !
1 78 1
1 18 !
1 115 1
1 3.17 1 1.59
1 1 4.44 1
1 1 6 1
'
1
Year-----1 1
73.4 1. 1
53.1 1 1
63.3 1 1
99 1
15 1
5,445 1
53.54
147.28
13 1 l
82 : 2

11kecorded in the period 1 952-74 at Wilmington, N.C.
2A growing degree day is an index of the amount of heat available for plant growth. It can be dalculat
by adding the
below which gr maximum
owth is and min
minimal imum dail
f
th y temperature s, dividi ng the sum by 2, and subtracting the temperatur
or
e principal cro ps in the area (5d degrees F).
102
Soil survey
TABLE 1.— TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
[Recorded in the period 1951-73' at Fayetteville, North Carolina, in Cumberland County]
Temperature ; Precipitation
,
1 ,
2 years in :2 years in 10;
.10 will have-- .1 Avera.ge , , will have-- ; Average ;
Month Average; Average; Average; ; ;number of;Avera e, ' '
? g , ,number of,Average
daily ; daily 1 daily , Maximum ; Minimum , growing 1 ; Less ; More ;days with;snowfall
:maximum:minimum I ;temperature;temperature; degree ; ;than--;than--;0.10 inch;
higher ; lower ; daysl ; ; i ; or more '
than-- than--
- ; Units ; In ; In ; In ; r In
January----; 54.0 ; 30.0 42.0 1 78 1 12 25 1 3:51 ; 2
22 ; 4
67 ;
. . 8
February---1 57.0 1 32.9 ; 44.9 1 80
1
15
;
22 ;
4.10 ;
2
42
1 5
59 ;
. . 8 .5
March.-----_; 63.9 ; 38.5 51.2 1 84 1 23 ; 111 ; 4.10 ; 2
59 ; 5
45 ; 1
. . 8
April ------ , 73:5 1 47.4 1 60.5 1 91 1 30 ; 315 1 21 1
3 1
87 ; 4
40 1
. . . 5 ; o
MaY---=----; 80.7 1 56.3 ; 68.5 ; 96 ; 37 ; 574 ; 54 ;
3 2
20 ; 4
4 1
. . .7 6 ; .0
June-------;
, 87.5 ; 64.7 1 76.1 ; 100
i
49
,
783 1
4.56 ;
2.50 ;
, 6.37 ;
7
;

July-------;
90.1 ;
'
68.9 1
79.6 ;
161
1
57
;
918 1
4.94 1
3.02
; 6.66 ;

9

1 .0

August-----i
89.1 1
67.9 1
78.5 1
99
;
55
1
884 ;
5.57 ;
3.81
1 7.36 1
8 1
; .0
6
September--i 84.5 { 61.8 1 73.2 1 96 45 1 696 1 3.53 1 1.41 1 5.36 1 5 1 .

October----;
1
75.4 1
50.1 1
62.7 1
90
1
28

394

3.•15

.78

, 5.03 1

5
1 .0

November---' _ 1
66.0 1
38.4 ;
52.2 1
8u
19
1
103 1
2.40 1
.94
'
1 3.61
4
1 .0

December---;
,
56.0 ;
30.8 1
43.4 1
?

79

;

12

1

78 1

2.85 1

1.27 ,
1 1
1 4
19 1

6
1 .0

1
1
?
'1 .
1 1 1.9

Yearly: i 1 1

, 1
Average--; 73.1 ; 49.0 ; 61.1 1
Extreme-=; --- 1 I --- ; 101 11 12 1
1 1

Total----1
--- ; 1
--- ; 1

--
' ,
, ,
1 1

, - --- 1

1 --- 1 4,903 1 45.56 137.72 ;'''
,
79
;
3.2
1 1 1 1? ?.'`f. 1
1A growing
maximum and mi degree day is a
nimum daily temp unit of
eratures heat
divi available for
din
the s -plan
b t
o n r b
l
e
growth is mini mal for the prin ,
cipal crops in g
the um
area (50 y 2,
0 F). and
subt racting the t emperatu
e below whi ch
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 I 32 F
;. or lower ; or lower ; or lower
Last freezing
temperature
,
in spring: ; I I
1 year in 10 ;
later than-- ; March 27 ; April 13 1 April 30
,
2 years in 1o
later than-- ; March 17 ; April 4 ; April 19
5 years in 10 ;
later than-- ; February 25 ; March 17 1 March 30
First freezing ; i
temperature
in fall: ; I
,
i
i i
1 year in 10 ;
earlier than: , November 5 ' October 27 ; October 20
2 years in 10
earlier than-- ; November 17 ; November i ; October 24
-5 years in 10 ;
,
earlier than-- ; November 22 ; November 12 ; October 31
[Recorded in the period 1951-73 at Pinehurst,
North Carolina, in Moore County]
Temperature
Probability ; 24 F ; 28 F ; 32 F
or lower ;. or lower ; or lower
Last freezing
temperature ; I I
;
In spring: ;
1 year in 10 ;
later than-- ; March 27 1 April 2 1 April 24
,
,
2 years-in 1o
later than-- ; March 19 i March 30 ; April 18
5 years in 10
later than-- ; March 5 ; March' 23 ; April 5
i '
,
First freezing ; I I
temperature ; I
in fall: { I I
,
1 year in 1o ; I
earlier than-- ; November 4 1 October 23 ; October 14
i
i ,
2 years in 10
earlier than-- ; November 9 ; October 28 ; October 19
5 years in 10 ; i
earlier than-- 1 November 19 1 November 7 October 29
104 Soil survey
Cumberland 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 ; Higher ; Higher ; Higher
than ; than i than
240 F i 260 F 1 320 F
Days i Days , Days
9 years in 10 ; 231 i 202 175
8 years in 10 ; 245 i 215 i 189
i ,
5 years in 10 i 270 i 239 i 214
2 years in 10 ; 295 i 262 i 239
' i
1 year in 10 i 308 i 275 i 253
,
[Recorded in the period 1951-773 at Pinehurst,
North Carolina, in Moore County]
Daily minimum temperature
i during growing season
Probability i higher i Higher ;. Higher
i than
' than i
20 F i than
280 F 1 320 F
i Days

i
D-ays

Days
'
i
9 years in 10 228 210 i 180
8 years in 10 i 238 i 216 i 189
5 years in 10 i 258 228 205

2 years in 10 1
?
278 i
i
240 1
22
1 year in 10 i 288 i 247 i 229
105
i
t
Cumt )erland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina ==L
soil is suited to loblolly pine. The dominant trees
lolly pine, sweetgum, yellow-poplar, and white
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 Ille and woodland
suitability group 3w.
CT--Croatan muck. This nearly level, very poorly .
drained, organic soil is mostly in large, oval depressions
or Carolina bays in the southeastern part of Cumberland
County. Most areas of this unit have thick, almost
impenetrable undergrowth; therefore, the soils were
examined mostly along canals, trails, and logging roads.
in selected areas, transects were made across the land,
and borings were made at specific points to verify the
"soils. The boundaries of the soils were drawn from
limited field observations, using aerial photographs as
aids for interpretation. Although this unit -was mapped
with fewer detailed observations than were most other
units in the survey, the resulting delineations meet the
needs for the major anticipated uses of the soil.
Individual areas of this unit range from 100 acres to
e than 500 acres in size.
ypically, the soil is black muck to a depth of 37
es. The underlying material to a depth of 80 inches
dark gray sandy loam.
'Permeability is slow to moderately rapid. Where the
soil is drained, permeability is moderate in the organic
layer and moderate or moderately slow in the mineral
layer. Reaction is extremely acid, except where the
surface had been limed. Except where the soil is drained,
the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface
from 8 months to the full year.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Johnston, Torhunta, Lynn Haven, and Leon soils. All of
these are mineral soils. They typically are on the outer
edges of oval-shaped delineations of Croatan soils. They
may be in slightly elevated areas located randomly within
mapped areas. Also included are small areas of similar
soils that have an organic surface tier thinner than 16
inches or thicker than 51 inches. These soils are
randomly intermingled with Croatan soil. Included soils
make up less than 20 percent of most unit.
Most areas of this soil are in woodland. A small
acreage has been cleared for growing com and
soybeans.
This soil is poorly suited to growing cultivated crops
and to pasture. Wetness is the main limitation. If the soil
is drained, corn and soybeans can be grown. Suitable
drainage outlets, however, usually are unavailable.
Wetness also limits the use of this soil for pasture or
hay. Even with proper drainage, grazing probably would
be difficult during very wet periods when the organic _
surface layer becomes soggy.
Croatan soil is poorly suited to trees. Because the soil
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 gallberry. In its natural, undrained state,
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 Vllw and woodland
suitability group 4w.
De-Deloss loam: This nearly level, very poorly
drained soil is on terraces of the Cape Fear and Lower
Little Rivers and their tributaries in Cumberland County.
Individual areas of this unit generally are long and
narrow and range from 10 acres to more than 200 acres
in size.
Typically, the surface layer is black loam 10 inches
thick. The subsurface layer is dark grayish brown loamy
sand 3 inches thick..The subsoil to a depth of 72 inches
is grayish brown, fight brownish gray, and tight gray
sandy clay loam in the upper part and gray sandy loam
in the lower part.
Permeability is moderate. Reaction ranges from very
strongly acid through slightly acid in all horizons. The
seasonal high water table is at or near the surface during
the winter and early in spring. This soil is subject to rare
flooding:
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
better drained Roanoke and Wahee soils and more
clayey Cape Fear soils. Also included are small areas of
sandy soils that have thin subhorizons high in organic
matter content. These sandy soils are on small, narrow,
slightly elevated ridges that have distinctive, gray or
white surfaces.
Several large areas of this soil have been cleared to
grow com and soybeans. The rest are in woodland.
This soil is suited to growing cultivated crops, such as
corn, soybeans, and small grams. Good yields are
common in areas of Deloss soil which have been
properly drained and protected from flooding. Open
ditches are the most common method used to drain this
soil.
Deloss soil is well suited to grasses and legumes for
hay and pasture. If this soil is used for pasture, proper
stocking rates, pasture rotation, timely deferment of
grazing, and restricted use during wet periods help to
keep the pasture and soil in good condition. Grazing -
when the soil is too wet can cause surface compaction
and poor filth.
This soil is suited to hardwoods and pines. Water
tupelo and sweetgum can be grown without artificial
C. 74 Soil Survey
Ap-0 to 7 inches; brown (1 OYR 5/3) loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; common fine and medium
roots; strongly acid, clear smooth boundary.
_.Bt1-7 to 23 inches; yellowish brown (1OYR 5./6) 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 (10YR 6/1) 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 6%1) clay; common
fine prominent strong brown (7.5YR 5/B) mottles;
massive; firm, sticky, plastic;-very strongly acid;
gradual wavy boundary.
Cg2-58 to 80 inches; gray (10YR 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 hue of 1OYR, value of 5, and
chroma of 1 through 3; or it has value of 4 and chroma
of 1 or 2. The E horizon, where present, has hue of
10YR, value of 6 or 7, and chroma of 3 or 4.
The BA horizon, where present, has hue of 10YR 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 1 OYR,
value of 5 or 6, and chroma of 4 through 8; hue of 2.5Y,
value of 5 or 6, and chrorna of 4 through 6; 'or hue of
7.5YR, value of 5, and chroma 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, yellow, or brown
mottles. It is clay, clay loam, sandy clay loam, 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 (10YR 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. Fiber 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
massive under natural conditions. When drained and
cultivated; granular or blocky structure develops in aWbr
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 pedons
contain thin strata of sand or loamy sand.
Deloss 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 2/0) loam; weak fine
granular structure; friable; strongly acid; abrupt
smooth boundary.
E-10. to 13 inches; dark grayish brown (1.OYR 4/2)
loamy sand; weak medium granular structure; friable;
strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. -
Btg1-13 to 24 inches; grayish brown (1OYR 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.--PHYSICP_L AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS
symbol < means less than, > means more than. Entries under "Erosion factors--T" 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]
gar? ; Erosion I
oil name and i Depth ; Permeability ;Available; Soil ; Shrink-swell ; factors
1 Organic
matter
map symbol otential ;
water reaction! p
1
K , ,
T
, ; ; ,capacity , ' Pct
? In ; In/hr ; In/in 1 pH

--; 1

0-11 ;

2.0-6.0

10.12-0.2014.5-6.0 ;Low------------ ;
- ;
,
0.24 ;
24 1
0

5 5-3
Altavista 1 11-37 , 0.6_2.0 ,0.12-0.2014.5_6.0 ,Low-----------
; ; ------- .
1 37-80 ;
3. ' 0-25. 1 >6.0 10.04-0.•0914.5-6.5 ;Low------------ ;

; 0.10

10 ;
0
•5-1
5
Autryville 1
` 25-39 ; 2.0-6.0 10.08-0.1314.5-5.5 ;Low------------
= 1
- .
10 ;
0 ;
.
1 39-59 1 >6.0 --
;o.03-0:0814.5-5.5 ;Low-------- : '
'- ; 59-80 0.6-2.0 10:10-0.1514.5-5.5 !Low------------ 1 0.17 ; ?•
AyB--------------i 0-13 ; 2.0-6.0
?
;0.15-0.2014.5-6.0 ;Low------------
; 0.37 ;

43 ;
0 5 ; 1-4
,
Aycock 1 13-80 ; 0.6-2.0 10.15-0.2014.5-5.5 ;Low------------ .

BaD=--=-----i
BaB '
0-25 ;
>6.0
10.03-0.0614.5-6.0 ,Low------------
1
0.15 i
0
28 1
5 i <1
,
Blaney i 25-34 ; 0.2-0.6 10.05-0.1014.5-5.5 ;Low------------
; .
0
28 ;
34-80 1 0.2-0.6 10.03-0.0814.5-5.5 ;Low------------
1 .
1 1 '
Blaney
----------' i
0-25 ;
>6.0 ; ;
10.03-0.0614.5-6.0 1Low------- =----
1 0.15 ? ';
26
; 0
5 ; , <1
?
; 25-34 ; 0:2-0.6 10.05-0:1014.5-5.5 ;Low------------ .
?
28 1
; 0 1
34-80 1 0.2-0.6 10.0370.0814.5-5.5 ILow------------
, .
Urban land. ; ; i ,
I 1 1

'
' 1

--------
BrB------
0-6 ;
2.0-6.0 t
r
10.06-0.1214.5-5.5 ;Low------------
1 0.20 ;
28 ;
1 0
5 ; 0-2
1
Bragg
1 6-30 1 0.2-0.6 10.10-0.1514.5-5:5 ;Low------------ .
28
1 0 i
30-80 ; 0.2-0.6 10.10-0.1514.5-5.5 ;Low------------
; .
, 1

BuA--------------;
0-9 ;.
6.0-20 1

---
;0.05-0.10;4.5-5-5 ;Ldw--------- ;
' 0.15
?
0
15 ;
5 •5-2
i
1
mutters , -37 ' 2.0-6.0 ;0.10-0.14;4.5-5.5 ;Low------------ .
,
10 1
0 ;
; 377-58 ; 6.0-20 10.03-0.0814.5-6.5 ;Low------------ . 1
; 58-80 1 0.6-2.0 ;0.10-0.1514.5-5.5 ;Low------------ ; 0.17 ; '

'
0-18 ;
0.6-2.0 ;
;0.15-0.2013.6-5.5 ;Low------------

t
-
1 0.2B It
32 ;
I 0
5 1 2-9
1
Byars ; 18-80 ; 0.06-0.2 e------
10.14-0.18;3.6-5.5 Modera
' .
1 ;
1

CaB CaD--------- 1
0-20 .;
6.0-20
;0.03-0.0613.6-6.0 ;Low------------ ?
1 0.10 ,

10 ;
; 0
.5-1
5
,
Candor ; 20-30 1 6.0-20 10.06-0.1013.6-5.5 ;Low------------ .
20 1
1 0 i
1 60-80 1 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.1613.6-5.5 Low------------ .
' 1
--' 0-16 1 0.6-6.0 ;0.15-0.2214.5-6.5 ILow------------ 1 0.15 ;
32 1
; 0 5 ; 5-15
Cape Fear 1 16-52 1 0.06-0.2 ;0.12-0.22;4.5-6.0 ;Moderate _
1 1
; 52-62 ; --- i ? --- ' --- ---------------- -

Ch---------------1 ;
0-25 ;
0.6-2.0
10.15-0.24;4.5-6.5 ;Low------------
, 0.28 ,
28
1 0 1-u
5
Chewacla ; 25-48 0.6-2.0 ;0.12-0.20;4.5-6.5 ;Low------------
-- .
1 i
48=64 1 0.6-2.0 ;0.15-0.2414.5-6.5 ;Low----------
' ' ,
,
Co--------- 1 0-7 1 0..6-2.0 ; i '
10.12=0.1713.6-5.5 ;Low------------ ,
1 0.24 ;
32 1
1 0 5 2_4
1
Coxville 1 7-55 1 0.2-0.6 10.14-0.1813.6-5.5 1Moderate-------
---------
- .
1 55-72 1 --- -
1 --- 1 --- 1----
CrB -------------- ;

? 0-7 , 1
'
0.6-2.0 1
10.12-0.1814.5-6.5 ;Low------------
; 0.37 ;

32 1
1 6
5 ; .5-2

i
Craven 1 7-58 1 0.06-0.2 10.12-0.1513.6-5.5 ;Moderate-------
- .
32 1
1 0 '
1 58-80 ; 0.2-6.0 10.08-0.1413.6-5.5 ;Low----------- .
CT---------------; 0-37 ; 0.06-6.0 10.35-0.451 <4.5 :Low------------ ; ---- 1

- ; 25-60
;
Croatan ; 37-80 ; 0.2-6.0 ;0.1.0-0.1513.6-6.5 Low------------ 1 --- ,
De--------------- 1 0-13 1 2.0-6.0 10.10-0.1614:5-6.5 ;Low------------ .1 0.24 ;
24
0 5 ; 2-9
Deloss 1 13-48 1 0.6-2.0 ;0.12-0.1814.5-5.5 ;Low------------
---------= .
r
1 - '
48-72
1
; --- i --- i --- i ----- 1 1 -1-
See footnote at end of table.
TABLE 14.--ENGILTI ERING.INDEX PROPERTIES--Continued
1 Classification iFrag- I Percentage passing
name and (Depth, USDA texture I I lments 1 sieve number-- !Liquid ; Plas-
symbol I ! ; Unified 1 AASHTO 1 > 3 1 , , 1 limit 1 ticity
;inches; 4 ! 10 ; 40 1 200 1 ; index
I-
I , I I 1
aB, CaD-------- ! 0-20 1 Sand ------------- ISP-SM, SM !A-3, ! 0-2

1
andor ! ! I ? A-2-4
a• 120-3011oamy sand-------ISM, SP-SM IA-2-4 16-2
1 1 1 f I
130-601Sand----------- 1SP-SM, SM IA-3, ! 0-7
'• ! I ! ! A-2-4
:
160-80!Sandy clay loam, ISC, SM-SC,IA-4, ! 0-7
sandy loam, ! SM 1 A-2, ;
1 sandy clay. ! !.A-7-6 !
1 , , I
------ , ' 0-16ILoam---------- 1ML CL-MI 'A-4 A-6 1
0
Cape Fear ! ! ! Cl
116-52IClay loam, clay, 1ML; CL, !A-7 ; 0
1 1 silty clay. I MH, CH 1
152-6.2IVariable--------- ! --- ! --- ! ---
Ch-----=--------! 0-251loam--------- =---1ML, CL, !A-4, A-6 1 0
Chewacla I 1 1 CL-ML 1 I
125-64!Sandy clay loam, ISM ;A-4, A-6 1 0
1 1 clay loam, loam.ICL, SC, ML1
I I .. 1 1
'Co--------------i 0-7 !Loam------------- ISM, ML, !A-4, A-6,1
0
Coxville ! I I CL-ML, CL! A-7 !
! 7-55lClay loam, sandy ICL, CH 1A-6, A-7 I 0
1 1 Clay, clay. ! ! !'
155-72IVariable---------! --- --- !
I ---
?CrB--------------1 0-7 !Loam-------------lML, CL-ML,IA-4 ! 0
Craven ! 1 ; SM, SM-SCI I
1 7-58IClay, silty clay,ICH 1A-7 ! 0
silty clay loam.!
158-801Sandy clay loam, 1SM, SM-SC, IA-2, A-4,1 0
sandy loam, 1 SC ; A-6 ;
! 1 clay loam. I i I
I
CT-------------! 0-37:Muck IPT i --- i ---
Croat an 137-80ISandy loam, fine. ISM, SC, !A-2, A-4 1 0
1 I sandy loam, ! SM-SC I !
1 I mucky sandy I ;
I 1 loam.

De--------------1 0-131Loam------ ------ ISM, SM-SC, IA-2, A-4 1 0
Deloss ! ! i ML, CL-MLI !
113-48,'Sandy clay loam, lSH-SC, SC,IA-4, A-6,! 0
clay loam, fine I CL-ML, CL1 A-7 I
1 sandy loam. I ! !
148-721Variable--------- 1 --- 1 --- ! ---
I I
DgA--------------! 0-4 ;Fine sandy loam 18M, SC, 1A-2, A-4 1
0
Dogue SM-SC I !
4-551Clay loam, clay, 1CL, CH, SCIA-6, A-7 1 0
1 sandy clay loam.! i !
155-72IStratified sand ISM, SC, IA-2, A=4,1 0
I ! to sandy clay 1 SP-SM, I A-1
! i loam. ; SM-SC 1
DhA ----- - - - ---- 1 0-11 !Loamy sand-------ISM 1A-2 -1 0
Dothan 111-38ISandy clay loam, ISM-SC, SC,IA-2, A-4,1 0
! 1 sandy loam. 1 SM - I A-6 I
clay loam, ISM-SC, SC,IA-2, A-4,1
1138-72ISandy 0
,
1 I sandy clay. 1 SM, CL I A-6, A-71
1 -
Dn--------------- i 0-101Loam------------ ISM, SM-SC 1A-2, A-4 1 0
Dunbar 110-721Sandy clay, clay ICL, CH !A-6, A-7 I 0
Ioas•, clay.
I I 1 , ?
DpA--------------i 0-6 ;Sandy loam-------ISM, SM-SC IA-2, A-4 1 0
u plin 1 6-651Sandy clay, clay ICL,.CH, SCIA-6, A-7 1 0
?
I II ! ! loam, clay.
I I
See footnote at end of table.
1 100 1 100 155-90 ! 5-15
100 100 165-90 110-25
190-100190-100155-90 1 5-15 1
I I I I I
190-100190-100155-90 125-49 1
I 1 + ? I
I 1 I I ?
I I + I I
1 100 195-100185-100160-90 I
! ! ! ! r
1 100 195-100190-100160-85 1
! ! !
I + I + ?
198-100!95-100170-100155-90 I
! ! ! 1. 1
196-100195-100160-80 136-70 !
1 100 ; 100 185-97 146-75 !
100 ; 100 185-98 150-85
•i i !
100 1 100 175-100145-90
100 1100 190-100165-98
100 195-100150-100!15-49
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
100 1 100 160-85 125-49
I I I +
, ? I 1
1 100 1 100 170-95 130-65
1 106 1 100 1175-98 136-70
--- ! NP
--- i NP
!
+
1
<45 ! NP-25
20-40 ; 3=15
I
4?-65 15-35

25-40 1
' NP-20
<35 ;
! NP-28
!
20-46 !
+
3-15
30-55 i
+
I
i 12-35
<35 ! NP-7
51-70 ! 24-43
<35 !
+
i I NP-15
<30 1
! I NP-10
t
i I
1 <35 !

NP-7
I I
1 18-45 !
4-22
,
<25 1 NP_ 10
195-100175-100150-100120-50
I I I
195-100175-100165-100140-90
180-100160-100135-100110-40
! ! ! !
! !
195-100192-100;60-80 113-30
195-100192-100168-90 123-49
I I i
195-100192-100170-95 130-53
1 ? I I
1 100 1 100 150-95 120-50
1 100 1 100 185-95 150-70
? I I I
I I I
1 100 1 100 167-98 120-49
100 198-100180-100145-75
I
i I
1
! ! i I
35-60 ; 16-40
!
<30 1 NP-10
NP
<40 I IdP-16
I
I
25-45 ! 4-23
,
I
<30 NP-7
36-60 1 18-35
<26 I NP-7
24-54' ! 13-35
1 64
Soil survey
TABLE 17.--ENGINEERING INDEX TEST DATA
[Dashes indicate data were not available. NP means nonplastic3
Grain size distribution (Moisture
Classification density
Soil name, Percentage 1 Percentage 1 e
report number, passing sieve-- Ismaller than--! -+
horizonf and r`
depth in inches
i AASHTO 10nifiedl No.! No.! No.; No.1.02 1.0051.002; 01-1
1 t 1 1 f I 1 1 1T 1 i 1
4 .1 10 1 40 t 1 2001 mm 1 mm 1 mm I -•I 1 -+ 1 W av l a o
! Q: I= ,10 I D re
1 i t 1 I 1, ( I , r .67 1
1 1 , I J 1 1 I I i t
;.Pet i i ft3lPct
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I- 1 1 1
I 1 I I I I 1 I , I I I 1
Blanc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , - 1 1 1 1
Y' i 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I
(S74NCO93-008) 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 L I 1 I 1 1 { , 1
1 1 I 1 I I I I I t t I 1-
E-----=---7 to 27 1 A-1-6 1 SP-SM 1100 1 92 1 40 1 9 1 7 1 4' 1 2 1 - 1 NP 1 1141 12
Bt1------ 27 to 39 1 A-2-7 1 SM 1100 1 95 1 34 1 22 121 1 19 1 17 1 46 1 19 1 1201 12
Bt2------ 48 to 64 1 A-2-4 1 SC 1100 1 91 1 33 1 19 1 18 1 15 1 13 1 33 1 10 1 124; 11
1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I
1 1 , 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 , ,
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I , 1 I 1 1
Candor!2
1 1 1 I 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 r I
(874NCO51-002)
E1-------=8 to 33 1 A-2-4 1 SP-SM 1100 1100 1 72 1 12 1 7 1 4 i .3 1 .- 1 NP 1 1161 10
Bt1------ 43 to 50 1 A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 74 1 22 1 18 1 15 1 13 1 21 1 3 1 1161 10
Bt3=-----60 to 80 1 A-7-6 i Sc 1100 1100 i 81 1 41 1 33 1 3.0 1 28 1 44 1 22 1 1121 16
i t , , I i r i 1 ,
1
A 1
1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
, 1 1 1 , ' t 1 ! i 1 I 1 ,
1 1 1 t 1 1 1 I i 1 I I 1
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
Croatan:3 '
(S74NC051-003)
cg-------37 to 52 i A-2-4 ; SM 1100 1100 1 76 1 25 1 10 1 5 i 4 1 - 1 NP i 1181 10
Cg-------52 to 64 1 A-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 81 i 42 1 16 1 4 1 3 1 - 1 NP 1 1221 8
1' i 1 1 1 1 I t , I r 1
1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 r 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 , 1 I t 1 1 I 1 1
Dothan:3 , , , 1 i 1 1 1 1 I I 1
(S74NCO93-009)
Ap-_----- 0 to 7; A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 77 1 27 i 13 1 7 1 4 1 - 1 NP i 1201 09
Bt1---- _-11 to 25 1 A-6 1 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 1 53 1 46 1 40 1 37 1 45 i 23 1 108', 18
Bt3------ 38 to 63 1 A-7-6 1 CL 1100 1 99 1 81 1 50 1 43 1 37 1 34 1 44 1.19 1 1091 17
1 1 , 1 , 1 I t 1 1 1 1
t I I. I i , i 1 1 i 1 1 I
, 1 1 , f 1 , t 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I 1 1 I
Faceville: 2
(S74NCO51-006)
Ap-------- 0 to 7 1 A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 84 1 22 1 8 1 4 1 2 1 - 1 NP 1 1121 10
Bt1=-----17 to 52'1 A-7-6 1 CL 1100 1100 1 84 1 52 146 1 43 1 41 1 49 i 23 1 1071 18
Bt2------ 52 to 70 1 A-7-6 i SC 1100 1100 1 86 1 46 1 37 1 34 1 33 1 46 1 21 1 1091 17
1
, 1 1 1 1 , 1 r 1 1 , , 1
1 I I 1 - , 1 t i 1 , 1
1 I t 1 1 I 1 f 1 i - 1, 1
1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 ? 1 1 I I
Fu ua 1 1 I 1 { 1
q Y` 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 1 1 1 1
(S74NC093-007) i I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1
E---------3 to 29 1 A-2-4 i SM 1100 1100 1 80 i 18 1 8 1 4 1 2 1 - 1 NP 1 1151 10
Be-------29 to 42 1 A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 79 1 26 1 19 i 15 1 13 1 20 1 2 1 1241 10
Bti------ 42 to 60 1 A-7-6 i SC 1100 1100 1 81 1 41 1 34 1 30 1 28 1 45 1 21 1 107; 18
1 1 1 1 I 1 r , f 1 I r 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 r i
I 1 1 r I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 '1 t i t
Woodington: 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I
(S74NCO51-004)
A-------- 0 to 5 1 A-2-4 % SM 1100 1100 1 71 1 26 1 19 1 11 1 6 NP 'r 1081 14
Btg------ 11 to 28 1 A-2-4 1 SM 1100 1100 1 63 1 25.1 21 ', 15 1 11 1 17 1 3 1 1261 10
BCgl----- 28 to 37 1 A-2-4 i SM 1100 1100 1 65 1 22 1 18 1 13 1 9 i 14 1 2' 1 1271 09
I 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I' 1 1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 I , 1 I 1 1 I .1 i 1
1 This pedon is a taxadjunot to the Blaney series, because the medium and coarse sand
content in the A horizon and the liquid limit of the Bt horizon are higher than allowed for
the series. Pedon located about 8 miles west of Raeford in Hoke County, from the
intersection of State Road 1218 and 1214, 1.5 miles southeast along State Road 1214, then
200 feet northwest of the road.
2 Peden located about 1 mile east of Interstate 95 interchange at Hope Mills along
State Road 2252, 0.7 mile northeast along a field road and 100 feet north of field road in
an idle field in Cumberland County.
3 This is a typical pedon for the series. See the section, soil series and their
1 morphology for the location of the pedon.
TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map Page 1 of 2
_ -Om
Target is UTM 17 709778E 3869088N AUTRYVILLE quad FQuad Info T

? Gflpg?ht?'240?}Aap3ata?dlte,ln?.. ? _i- ? --?

r

r.
t

-1
1
; YK:

? 1 {

- fi s

t
F , F

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
matars1 1 1

http://-A,ww.topozone.com/print-asp?z=17&n=3869088&e=709778&s=50&size=m 8/20/02
i
iri-
'lone - The Web's Topographic Map
Page 1 of 2
http://wwNv.topozone.com/print-asp?z=17&n=3868292&e=710519&s=25&size=m 8/20/02
D
?R
C
?? Existing PC fields in agricultural production.
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase H
Cumberland County, NC
ECOBANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
September 2002
Pictures of site.
1 Cleared CC areas with existing lateral (i.e. Tertiary) ditches.
i Large outlet canal (i.e. Primary ditch)
Barra Farms Cape Fear Regional
Mitigation Bank, Phase H
Cumberland County, NC
ECOBANK
Land Management Group, Inc.
September 2002
Pictures of site.
i Collector (i.e. Secondary) ditch with adjacent road bed to be graded.
D
?m
z
v
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 styraciua). 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.
Table 1. List of federallv protected species observed in Cumberland County, NC.
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 as erulaefolia Rough-leaf loosestrife E
Aus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed T
* Has not been observed within Cumberland County for over 20 years.
KEY:
Status 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
Saint Francis' Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisca)
This small species of butterfly is dark brown with conspicuous eyespots
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.
Pondberr_y (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
Carolina bays (USFWS, 2002). This species usually is located in shaded areas
but may be found in M, 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
report that federally-protected species known to occur within Cumberland County will
not be negatively affected by this proposed mitigation project.
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 ofNorth 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.ggv/plant/pondberry.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Red-cockaded woodpeckers in North Carolina.
http: //nc-es. fws. g;ov/birds/rcwo od. html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Saint Francis Satyr in North Carolina. hap://nc-
es.fws.gov/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
=m
z
v_
X
MONITORING AND.MAINTENANCE BOND
DOCUMENTATION
t
WBEEREAS, said Principal is required to provide financial assurance for Task 3 of the
MBI or the Mitigation Project as further described in the scope of coverage above, and
WHEREAS, said Principal shall establish a standby trust fund as is required when a surety
bond is used to provide such financial assurance;
NOW, THEREFORE, the conditions of the obligation are such that if the Principal shall
faithfully perform completion of Task 3 of the Mitigation Project as further described in the scope
of coverage herein, for which this bond guarantees completion, in accordance with the MBI as
such may be amended, pursuant to all applicable laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, as such
laws, statutes, rules and regulations may be amended;
Or, if the Principal shall provide alternate financial assurance and obtain the
USACE/DENR's written approval of such assurance within 90 days after the date notice of
cancellation is received by both the Principal and the USACE/DENR from the Surety(ies), then
this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it is to remain in fall force and effect.
Such obligation does not apply to any of the following:
(a) Any obligation of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation under a
workers' compensation, disability benefits, or employment compensation
law or other similar law;
(b) Bodily injury to an employee of Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation arising from, and in the course of, employment by Ecosystems
Land Mitigation Bank Corporation;
(c) Bodily injury or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance,
use of, or entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or.
watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loan to, in the care,
custody, or control of, occupied by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank
Corporation that is not the direct result of a construction or implementation
activity for the MBI.
(e) Bodily injury or property damage for which Ecosystems Land Mitigation
Bank Corporation is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption
C) D
of liability in a contract or agreement other than a contract or agreement
entered into to meet the requirements of the NMI.
The Surety(ies) shall become liable on this bond obligation only when the Principal has
failed to fulfill the conditions described above.
MITIGATION BANK STANDBY TRUST FUND AGREEMENT
TO DEMONSTRATE MONITORING NANCE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
TRUST AGREEMENT, the "Agreement," entered into as of
by and
Date
between Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
Name of the Owner or Operator
a Florida Corporation (the Grantor,)
Name of State Insert "corporation, partnership association, orproprietorship
and SouthTrust Asset Management Company of Florida. N. A,
Name and Address of Corporate Trustee
a National Bank (the Trustee.)
Insert 'incorporated in the state of 'or" a national bank"
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property in Cumberland County, North
Carolina, and has received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE")/State of
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Wet Lands Restoration
Program, Division of Water Quality ("DENT") that Mitigation Banking Instrument ("NMI")
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) Bodily injury- or property damage arising from the ownership, maintenance, use, or
entrustment to others of any aircraft, motor vehicle, or watercraft;
(d) Property damage to any property owned, rented, loaned to, in the care, custody, or control
of, or occupied by Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation that is not the direct
result of the monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation bank;
(e) Bodily injury or property damage for which Ecosystems Land Mitigation Bank Corporation
is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or
agreement other than a contract or agreement entered into to meet the requirements of
USACE Mitigation Banking Instrument.
Section 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 "Letter of Credit" or "Surety Bond".
Section 7. Trustee Management. The Trustee shall invest and reinvest the principal and
income 'of the Fund and keep the Fund invested as a single fund, without distinction between
principal and income, in accordance with general investment policies and guidelines which the
Grantor may communicate in writing to the Trustee from time to time, subject, however, to the
provisions of this Section. In investing, reinvesting, exchanging, selling, and managing the Fund,
the Trustee shall discharge his duties with respect to the trust fund solely in the interest of the
beneficiary. and with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then
prevailing which persons of prudence, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters,
would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; except that:
(a) Securities or other obligations of the Grantor, or any other owner or operator of the
mitigation bank, or any of their affiliates as defined in the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 80a-2.(a), shall not be acquired or held, unless they are
securities or other obligations of the Federal or a State government;
(b) The Trustee is authorized to invest the Fund in time or demand deposits of the Trustee, to
the extent insured by an agency of the Federal or a State government; and
(c) The Trustee is authorized to hold cash awaiting investment or distribution uninvested for
a reasonable time and without liability for the payment of interest thereon.
Section . Commingling and Investment. The Trustee is expressly authorized in its discretion:
(a) To transfer from time to time any or all of the. assets of the Fund to any common,
commingled, or collective trust fund created by the Trustee in which the Fund is eligible
to participate, subject to all of the provisions thereof, to be commingled with the assets of
other trusts participating therein; and
i
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 shall have the same powers and duties as those
conferred upon the Trustee hereunder. Upon the successor trustee's acceptance of the appointment,
the Trustee shall assign, transfer, and pay over to the successor trustee the funds and properties
then constituting the Fund. If for any reason the Grantor cannot or does not act in the event of the
resignation of the Trustee, the Trustee may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the
appointment of a successor trustee or for instructions. The Trustee shall notify the USACE/DENR
in writing of such event. The successor trustee shall specify the date on which it assumes
administration of the trust in a writing sent to the Grantor, USACE/DENR, and the present
Trustee by certified mail 10 days before such change becomes effective. Any expenses incurred
by the Trustee as a result of any of the acts contemplated by this Section shall be paid as provided
in Section 10.
Section 15. Instructions to the Trustee. All orders, requests, and instructions by the Grantor
to the Trustee shall be in writing, signed by such persons as are designated in the attached 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. All orders, requests, and instructions by the DENR to the Trustee shall be in
writing, signed by the DENR's Division Director of Water Quality, or the designee, and the
Trustee shall act and shall be fully protected in acting in accordance with such orders, requests,
and instructions. The Trustee shall have the right to assume, in the absence of written notice to
the contrary, that no event constituting a change or a termination of the authority of any person
to act on behalf of the Grantor or the DENR hereunder has occurred. The Trustee shall have no
duty to act in the absence of such orders, requests, and instructions from the Grantor and/or the
DENR, except as provided for herein.
IN W=SS 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
Signature
GRANTOR
ECOSYSTEMS LAND MITIGATION
BANK CORPORATION
Bv:
D. Miller McCarthy, President
(CORPORATE SEAL)
ATTEST
TRUSTEE
SOUTHTRUST ASSET MANAGEMENT
COMPANY OF FLORIDA, N.A.
By-,
Signature
(CORPORATE SEAL)
?•
D
m
z
a
x
s,
T,
f
r
7'1
I,
50
SAMUEL FORT AND ECM
EIP EXISTING IRON PIPE
F EIS EXISTING IRON STAKE SARAH FORT HEIRS MARGARET GONZALES
<SS 420N STAKE SEr IP8 86 PG 146 PART OF DS 543 PG 194
11E LINES FROM CORNER 1201N THE CFNTERU'NE
ECM EXISTINGCONCRETE 60 OFINTERSECTiONOFNCHWY210A'JDSR2053TO
MONUMENT ECM CORNER 319 ON OR NEAR THE SOUTHERN RAN LINE
CMS CONCRETEMONUMENTSET JOHNL.JORDAN OF SR 2053 AND THE CENTERLI0F2 WID
ERR EXIST ING RAILROAD SPIKE TA?lCTOF LAND SHG'+NN AS TRACT 4
EPK EXISTING P. K NAIL OB 3151 PG 248 DAVID STEWj.IRT
.MN EXISTINGMAGNAIL qFtgr TO Seaflfgg Dine
EIA EXISTING IRON AXLE ' PRECYTHE 120 119 56"46'03,W 46.51'
PKs PK NAIL SET aq 11"
1 19 t?t6 S4 OP15'E 5J.fi8'
`h r 04937.22 u
e
MNS MAGN/uCSET 0
Jy,C• Q• i. :6
S61"07'1?•E 48590' q11 4k- C CENTERLINE ry/C9 084043PIG749
^ 115 115 S 24"3336' W 29.59'
RR IN RIGHT OF WAY { 61 0 0 W 0 5ACRETRACT
CP COMPUTED POINT C\1
EGM /Q EN EXISTING NAIL ELBERT 2 , lS? ?? /_ (9/?Q?
VICINITY MAP ENC EXISTING NAIL AND CAP 0
JACKSON
(NOT TO SCALE) N13"53'08"W /2y0/40?Q??v / F120
59 58 / Q Q FPX i4 CEN ER NE
31001' 85 Q oF rERS?7951 ;?15.1221
NOTES: ECM ECM ECF? /?Om ??? S8:'t17T'E Y?U O
1. DEED REFERENCES: DB 4043 PG 749 DB 4183 PG 314 AND IS f 56 0 4,?? Ir 116 ?' 801ii NC % N _
DB 4666 PG 681. ECM EISN
! CABAL Z^hti mO \ ,<_ .- a
2 All lines are shown as surveyed K S 6' 12'335" e /r; /p j Q
otherwise noted. by me on date of survey unless : a f _o- ;y m i ?1z 3065 83 EIA ?
/ o0 &ry e / / 119 --r LESTER G. CARTER. JR.
3. This is s notey of an existing parcel of land. '?_ 59 5 N x 1' yy ° ZW EN. 22 S 59`11 0'08' E DS 2630 PG 43 F
40, WAYNE $, aSL 5,451 E / /rd?0 J(7 /^ EP 049>Ct480733CIONDi
CARPENTER f- 70038 / Is t?q V? I EIS N1
5 75 / /yy^ y'? /Qw N 24`33'36 E r' u' S fi529.95' E
EIS S7'52'3G' E /Q??; BI56r 10 .7 EP I a ?\ VERNON BADGER MEWS
M. SHELTON BORDEAUX DATEIG1 g 9-200Y / I 543.40 / /Sec°? N6521st WEK EN \ "\ DB3835Pr.08704AN MONO;
SURVEYING ° FILE: 02140.PCS ?jp ?Wc'/ 79.98' ( y?A s
M. SHELTON 80RDEAUX PLS L-2$47 1 DRAWN BY S 8"58'48 E /y COPTSUIS LAND
4241 NC210 iE&T M. SHELTON
DB 4060 PG NARRELLS N.C.2$444 I BORDEAUX 629.37 79 EIP QT / /? / d1-2r,,p431 s 10
(OLD No.) .1 :N: / ?.`3Q n
A SURVEY FOR S7 27'35 E µ 82°3G30 E Erat h 5 55 2303' W \ ?`
.28 3959e"' 1022.5 76 a m°°. P 224.40'
o, 77 EIS N ti sp S 5 *29'02** E / ?QQ
F o". EP ? If, i? o'kOB /. \.N w, N 82°26'118" E '1 ' 1311.10/ L16BY E. LOC10 PG 0 SESSOMS
CARY.y,DOWNING f-cAw+L 436.86 $? 1101 ?Ba880PG?68
LOCATED iN BEAVERDAM TOWNISHiP,CUM8ERLAND COUNTY. A.,. WIFE, El 1162 ! VERNON BADGER MEIRS
NORTNCARDLINA JOY'.{'I DOWNING. N82'3146E 216 ECM / 083835 PG 0874 AND 0877
08 ,1140 PG 318 163.77' EIS q VERNON BADGER AIEINS
GRAF}ilG SCALE 1 10d0' DS 2 23 PG 443 DS 3835 PG 0874 AND 0877
MAP 1 OF 2. I 0463 36 to49 1403 os oo D
'Idoo
dw N83'51Y':9'E D8;4043 PG'0749 (1441x5) f1d5143! ((Xp !
43115 ACRETRACT a S W5838" E S 56"5837" E
n ECEr a U,eoEX : wad 93 DAVD STEWART >, 111 00 674.74'
Nprlcomforiming structoret have not been aea rn?
-(edbytbisslibdnnsron. 3AUDs01;1_. L s
This pro 'r cc"DE P,RECYTHE >a s 049332-1796
PedS1 or nelghbonA9 prqpelGesmaytlesubl'eCttXIInCOrIVenICRGe, T,C53?,y?uSEVg. 1t.ff riWtg? ?' .• .?$ POWfJJ'fi1tA1.' t DBx773PGgi6
tdisminfort,2ndthepossitiHtpofuljiirylo'pt?ertyand health, arising'. ? SEOFtRAC1S:z,.,'::R0FTW_SWP.sur ; 22.44 ACRE TRACT
from nonnaffind accepted farming and agi"utat practices and (110.111. L Oaa9 LE xe u rr R? is & k [ N 33'1c51' € 1n i
opazah9DS IndiKl ng but not limited to noise; odor .dust the operation N 70"303!" E a t 448 0I' EIS VERNON BADG
+t 1rR
EIS IN CANAL .. ©p/?+
It any lopd of machinery the storage and disposal of manure, and the X411'. N 7
Else` N5
TnMy TA / fJlEJ
appeahon of feral per, so!I amerbmel>ks, herbicides, and pestirades,/fD 4A0620 E \1 sr r?'n':'a
/ ECM 30
??. 9310.19 acres+- ECM s
o .
7 d « 32°3x f6 E
/ DAVID.STEWART PRECYTHE 1+OS N
169 x1 / lb Ida
/ 394.28'
AND SOUTHERN- PRODUCE S 36'16'46" E F s Ex
Approved ba the Cumberland County Joint Planning Board -4 tYtis ' da of _ 2002. DISTR181?TORS INC. Y t;. t? 16 a D64043 149
j3013?9! `s S.3a 3972 w
on PG N9
$ dN Pe pGO? N? DB 4183'PG 314 DAVID STEWART PRECYTHE s 36'1846 a s,
>so
811 (Seal) e rt> Asa , m, 0x930x6262 N87'29'45"W ANDSO&HER -MORUCE 725.47'
/ 1s51r
EIS
/ OISTiIaBUTORS IS W45' E pow a arv
, INC, m
Thfs5 Is'loi tedinSUCh / G 304 ' ^DO4043PO749 pr N8P49DrE
uNelr portion of a county or Municipality / 11N EIS + DB 4183 PG 314791br a
fhatts regulated as to an. ordinance Brat regulates parcels of land. /
? pfl ,? ' 0493 a 6262
a p???'Fti .sf, ?,• srz5nnv
152
3088.8P S3rxr58E..
IrfQf. LEI! e t ?Qj 6 N87°5?,14''W 1 x *W Nee"-Iww Ne1•t529'w N87'142t'W 767.87
iii
t1Elteldeattx' / ECM T.
305 .? EIP E18 108
'.i } N87 34'?t" W
tfy'?IBS& n1TAwasdrawn under my ? / ( ! ? EIS ? 1 ?
m?+atdLlafsttrveymade%Mdetmysilpetwswnthat de? CAKtYV.DOWNING / I ECQSY IEMSLAND
W° ?s s E'
fardils surlr,lY are thorn, by Booir arid.Page number to note numbet AND WIfE ECfl$YSTEMS LAND N
ArrlhrsmaR,:Nrekthe4oundwiesnotsurveyed are dearyIndiatedas JOY H. DOWNING ?W- MITiGjQK7N8ANK MIT'IGATIONSAN.K 02 ,PppD?IEtocAnON
ot1rl by liaok and Page number in nose dumber two on this snap that the
$ CORP g• OFTHEfACRE+•60STM6.
It,
DB 740 PG 318 CORP. SEE DB 4686 P60681 wg
atio of calculated is i ;.f0,000+ that this map was made i
Cision as calculated W89 19 m BNRDWS AN&SR-OS S
DB 2823 PG 443 I )AL PUGH v o SEE?B 4866 PG 0681 DO 4743.PG
cog I Cordanca wdh-G S. 47.38 as emended. VV'ertess my original signature, DB 2823 PG 382 N N• OB4743 PG 0099 0492.69.0158 uW
tioa+ tmber and seal this 208 day Of OCTOBER 2002. 0692-995031 z l ^ 0492-473912 MB 95 PG 0156
TRACT I ECOSYSTEMS LAND, `.
eaux SUNG Ifi9? t' 387.76ACRES+ MITIGATION BANK
nF Y
?rLiiullAI?Y DAWiN. coRP,
? O E ?f (? y p" ?, I t ECM SEE 08 4728 PG 0311
rKtUMMANY ?1 ?? JI`1?I N!!4 ?±uyv!!+a?Ol? ( t \ I 4743 99
't L i. 28444
'F
L TRACT 3 TRACT 4 0492-57-6981
yet . SU ore; Professional Registration Number MB 95 PG 0158 MB 95 PG 0158 I /
FpN:aa(c,?a tit ?.f \
14v?ar*"' D.M. PUGH R.C. PUGH r I / Q
De 2821 PG 382 08 2050 PG 555 L I f?1
State of North Carolina' 0492.06 0733 0492-163922
County of RH? ATION 6MK
D\
Fo
--?- %
;ReviewOificer of County, RaouNrARYLAEASRFEMeNr CORP.
FORLNES461Mmr?SEE NOW OR
06 X11 ?,? FORMERLY cedify mat the map or plat to which this cen fK cat on Lc affixed meets all
statutory requirements for tecording. SeeO84163 PG 0314
E.W, FISHER LAND V DB.4743 PG0099
RECORDED IN MAP BOOK PAGE ? i (OLD NO.)0492 865 T1tACTB
TRACT 2
Review Officer '
OLD NO 10492-04-74•0114 \ 125.94+iCRES+•
448 95 PGD15S

w
DAVID STEWART PRECYTHE M
EIP EXISTING IRON PIPE AND SOUTHERN PRODUCE s
Era EXISTING IRON STAKE j
N
;SR o ISS IRON STAKE SET DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
ECM EXISTING CONCRETE r FRACFA 064oa3PGtas
MONUM
NC 210 CMS COwCREETE MGNUMENT SET DS 4183 PG 314
%
53
ERR EXIS INGRA0.ROACSPKE 0493-XS262 SR 53 EPK EXISTINGPKNAIL SEE MB 95 PG 158EMN EXISTINGMAGNAIL EW EXISTINGIRONA%LE PKS PKNAILSE, 2022 S 87`29'45" E SEE MAP 1 OF 2
MNS IMG NAIL SET -v
SITE VERNON BADGER MEWS
r:
C CENTERLINE . 155.JE R: W RIGHT OF WAY ECOSYSTEMS LAND DB 3835QfG3?2ZND 0877 t A
cP COMPUTED POINT 3MITIGATION BANK
ti EN EXISTING NAIL I (OLD NO.) :..=.:^.?".`•;
ENC EXISTING NAIL AND CAP t ECOOP
VICINITY MAP N 2'73'00OB 4743 PG CO99 152
049289-0156 '47WW EIS
T} $
(NOT 10 SCALE) --- - 3088.81. 33.25 S 8729' 323 N 32
302 MB 95 PG 0158 m,
45 E EIS 855100E 587'1529 E EIS
NOTES: 767.67 - O rar
6 5?51',4'E 30 1436.
?:0 S 87 34'21' E v
&1' 5813471'E 4r 3
1. DEED REFERENCES: DB 4043 PG 749 DB 4163 PG 314 AND ECM / Elp EIS 780.00 106 937.9T °??+??' -- s i Q 576 :•' 1 3
D84666PG681. / ES m 208737 303 f858 p Els
2. All lines are shown as surveyed b me on date of surve unless / ECOSYSTEMS LAND - ;
y Y MITIGATION BANKS Els ?s I +? 1a1?21
otherwise noted. ?5/ rz'M
3. This is a survey of an existing reels of land . / D M. PUGH / w CORP.. TRACT 1 _d a ' J 3 ;s
9 Pa / 08 2823 PG 382 / I? OLD PUGH TRACT" S 32°47'58 E DID 4743 PG 0099 387.76 ACRES-
0492.99{1031 D
8 0 78.67 0 Pi ' NOW OR FORMERLY %
S
/ ti 0492.47 .3912 1aa6rao ?? ?.? s7 ? HAIR LAND.
'
z ?? MB 95 PG 0158 345 '''1-01d8' S s-fitJ5- W ECOSYSTEMS LAND rn EIP DB tes PG n4
tat i345-3471 MITIGATION BANK e, 154 2as S3 w 08737 PG500
?$ $
?/ LATE OFgUR'JEY EIP 198T
3.47
ECM ECM 1403-03.00.2270
M. SNEtTONBORDEAUX f0t9.2002 / I I 5??"E 58686'40 E 4B CORP. y 54 (42.154 TIE LINE)
OLDTHAGARDTRACT y ti 1
SURVEYING FILE: 02140-2PCS w 1154.83' EIS 128
1603.06'
347 DS 4743 PG 0099 EC.
a
M. SHELT ON BORDEAUX, PLS L-2947 DRAWN BY f 2 STAKE 0492-57-6981
4241 NC210 EAST M. SHELTON / i ECM ?f o 95 PG 0158 J '
HARRELLSN.C.28444 BORDEAUX MB
FOR BOUNDARYLAI'EAGREEMENF ?7G72 1294 TRACT3 TRACT4
ASURVEYFOR FOR LINES FROM29-12T127•2ANt9- ECM 18.92acres m??. 65.32 acres
7.1 SEED61311 PG 197 N 9°44'10 r N $ p1 ?/ rA S 2?°0541" E
I ECM < /4 ?, ' 154.87 r Z
ry
vS'
\ '?
44
56ECO$YSTEMS LgND \ y w4
ECOBANK } N 9344'10' E 42' ur? E
2B4.96' 29 N 7g 56 a3 1259,,1259,,,3. ., 187 MITIGATION BANK 208 ECAA /
LOCATED IN BEAVERDAM TOWNSHIP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, D.M. PUGH ; R .C. PUGH I F N 70°4257 IN ES / °B 4743Pa018 EPe9 / 9 W'
NORTH CAROLINA DB 2823 PG 362 e
DB 2050 PG 555 I w ? / 0492 386.3800099 8 E S 3'073 LEON NORNE ' v
4S7 -s
0492.09-0133 0492-168922' TRACT2 so 196.2x'. 9B175PC:
GRAPHIC SCALE f°=1000 E3 EP g1 14?-0t?65451.
MAP 2 OF 2 I "PORTION OF 129.94 a ACRES+-
woe xuo ( 1 / aps?vr? OLD RESTER 4.S 27'42'01" E E? ~ ^':i .;v
\j TRACT' ti N'°U1'5G'f s a
NOTE:. 4Z \ ?gti0 B31.18 EP 945.17 r
Noncomforming structures have not been created by this subdivision. I aD K
This property or neighboring properties may be subject to inconvenience
From To Bear rigg Distance DAVID STEWART.PRECYTHE NOWORPORMI_RLY ?
discomfort, and the possiWitygf injury to property and health, arising 44 45 N 8S°501t" W 163.72' r
AND SOUTHERN PRObfJC1 DAHNYEi A12Y A
from normal and accepted farming and agricultural practices and I 45 46 S 86°37'09" W 323.18' I E?P DISTRIBUTORS '11(c.
operations, including but not limited to noise, odor, dust, the operation 46 187 N 4°53 3T E 75.06
of any kind of machinery, the storage and disposal of manure, and the PORTION OF OLD NESTER TRACT-
gr
application of fertilizer, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides. ? 0B 4043FGt749 94
DB 4183 PG 314'.
_ 1402-04$753 SEE S 91844 w
From To Bearing Distance 41aD9 M t40NlORFt>ftY
MB95PG158 REGALP C?'?RPQRAII* ??.
SIM
198' 197 N 4'09'29E 350:oa "9s lRA'CT.B Em EB:: PG MT
Approved by the Cumberland County Joint Planning Board 197 44 N 85°50'31' W 166.28' 9i. r
+¦ s6ororx6 ?'+a
on this dayof 2002, ' 291.28 acres
(Seal) S 79'1728 W s ?deE 3r . R x7
Signed
711.86
133 =;.
i
138 137 EIP ap,
This survey is located in such portion of a county of municipality NOW OR FORMERLY EIP EP.
47 es
that is regulated as to an ordinance that regulates parcels of land. E.W. FISHER LAND t 6 s N44'45strYy
08 4259 PG 394' a9
0492.0483.8165 \ tD111NE):
Professional Land Surveyor Date 0492.04.74-0114
N 44'47'37 W qp 257
I, M. Shelton Bordeaux certify that this map was drawn under my 97 EPK 84 Sttl@RLC4E
supervision from an actual survey made under my supervision that deeds
used for this survey are shown by Book and Page number in note number
one on this map, that the boundaries not surveyed are decry indicated as NOW QR FORMERLY
shown by Book and Page number in note number two on this map that the THE TA Y!LOR FAMILY
ratio of precision as calculated is 110,000+, that this map was made \ DB 3918 PG 354 R1" ws..
ccrordance V,h G.S. 47-30 as mended. Witness my original signature;
registration number and seal this 238+ day of OCTOBER 2002. ?0? cg
R"POLWMEL
PREllil?l RY DRAWING sR MFR .? ?e'? EUJAH
0822 PG.Oi7t'
F)I19dtt4GHOSLOT
2:Q SEAL ? "P Surveyor Remdabon ?p q^ 094r-8Pfi W c
' * L-2947 *s L-2947 41 4? {NEwLOTFJtbPTrON'
t, y 0 a-8 258 2OFTHEf?ST1:,RTRA?f)
syy0 SUi?: Professional Registration Number EP
OF GIP K INCENTERUNE
DN g0?? d
FlT p ?? AND TROOADSRRIM1 r
Y FISHER ROAD }JNE9 FOR PART OF 4-V LOT E?EPTtdt42
SRD 2042 TROY
Q. OF{1ESFER;TRA0T D@ 472A'PG8489
1110 ?
State of North Carolina Q ` v 4
County of O? Frato '. To 917se.
.5 Y
llt?s FOR BART OF HOUSE LOT DB 2248 PG 01 T6 X 2;41 N' 433!4" W 98` ,, ?,oG
I, Review Officer of County. 251 51 '5
cerfify that the map or plat to which this certification is affixed meets all from To Bearinngg Distance 47 $4'4`53"ri'Af c s
statutory requirements for recording. 2YiD0 -'T?dS°O4iRPW -59tiff` 47 -341 MI , t r
RECORDED IN MAP BOOK PAGE 133 N44°433vV. ' ' 16891 ?`:''
ReviewOfficer 133 • •135 S48°9T47w- k • " `; { r
fTl
n
0
z

z
.n Kl
.P ^v
boa
o
V C
N l-
c? V T
0 4 C7
W
N
V
00